Why do so many modern tintypes suck?

omaha · Feb 5, 2014

I'd speculate that, 125 years ago, if a tintype came out like the PSH example from Sundance, the photographer would have tossed it in the bin, and told the customer "sorry, we have to do it again". So in that way all the duds are lost to history, and only the keepers survive.

I'd also speculate that a metaphysically perfect tintype, produced today, would have comparatively little appeal to the celebrity crowd.

The fact that the process is so hit and miss, a fact that is proven by the high(ish) proportion of "duds", is part of its appeal. In 2014, there is just nothing impressive about taking a perfectly focused, perfectly exposed, perfectly white-balanced, razor-sharp photograph. Any fool with a smart phone can do that.

That's why there was a tintype booth at Sundance in the first place. It gives the pretty, plastic, celebrity people a feeling of authenticity. I can see how that would be very meaningful to people who live inside such an artificial bubble.

People who take the craft seriously make a fair point that the work could have been done much better, but they are pursuing an entirely different aesthetic.

summicron1 · Feb 5, 2014

i see another thread where a lot of folks are saying how the tintype of hoffman captured him perfectly, showing the struggle and conflict and blah blah blah ...

IN RETROSPECT, yeah, it does all that. But what if the guy were a comedian, a guy known for his sunny disposition, a guy famous for being a lover of all that is bright and cheerful, had no secret troubles at all, and what if it was a guy who'd never, ever, died from a heroin overdose?

Then I suspect folks would look at that tintype and say "Uh, can we do another one?"

If the artist is happy with them, fine, it's her work. I decline to criticize.

On the other hand, there's someone here who's posting tag line is "Actually, my pictures are a lot better than they look." When you have to tell folks that, and you aren't joking, it's time to up your game.

R Paul · Feb 5, 2014

No I scrapped them or gave them away. But the question was raised whether they were trying to get this look on purpose or it happened accidentally

wildbill · Feb 5, 2014

Prof_Pixel said:
I just looked at the photos and they are junk. They might just as well have taken the photos with an iPhone and processed them with the Hipstamatic Tintype SnapPak application.

Maybe they were shot on a phone and we'll find out about that later on. There's an app for everything.

removed account4 · Feb 5, 2014

LOL

this thread is the essence of analog photography :munch:

too many haters

Wayne · Feb 5, 2014

jnanian said:
me too !
but then again, i think there's no such think as perfect anyways ..

I know, and its all your fault.

Wayne · Feb 5, 2014

jnanian said:
LOL

this thread is the essence of analog photography :munch:

too many haters

Hate is just love for something else in disguise.

goamules · Feb 11, 2014

On the original post, I agree. It took me months of shooting, almost every day, before I would even consider doing some plates in public. And it is variable, sometimes you just cannot get a good plate. But on those days you should be having one problem, not dozens.

When I teach a wetplate workshop now, the students come away able to pour and develop very nice looking plates. I teach for quality. I think many of these "artiste" types with such flawed plates don't even take a lesson or read a manual. Of if they do, they don't pay attention and begin posturing as a Great Wetplate Photographer - the next week. The public, up and down the socio-artistic classes, typically don't know that wetplates can look very, very good. Flawed drips, splotches, comets, pinholes, developer pour lines, wooley lines, tears, lifting collodion, and many more are all preventable. Certainly overexposure and focus problems. If you know what you're doing.

But like the commenter said above, a car salesman type can turn all these flaws into "artistic features" with smooth marketing. There are many wetplaters that take as good a plate as Brady and Gardner in the 1860s. They just don't jump up and down saying "Look At ME!" as well.

Klainmeister · Feb 11, 2014

Be careful everyone: I follow a photographer here in town who has hilarious post/pictures and a comment I see often is "those analog Nazis" or "film-shooting elitist".

Not scoring many points around here..

kevin klein · Feb 23, 2014

For some reason, the new wetplate photographers seem to think that dirty, smudgey, streaky and crappy plates are artful. I remember my first attempts had problems, but I worked them out. Keeping a grungy look is not remanicant of of old world charm. "THE" look comes from lighting, subject, composition and time. I have made plates that turned out disapointingly new and modern looking but that happens sometimes. Some of the old masters from the 1860's made portraits that rival modern work, like NADAR.

The oyster shell sworles around the edge of the plate are old already, give it a break.

spacer · Feb 23, 2014

I understand that a key step in a tintype, in the interest of longevity and durability, is a proper varnish coat. I can easily see someone, in a hurry to produce a bunch of 'em, either skipping that step, or going with a cheap/easy spray-on or other sort of solution. That wouldn't have anything to do with the image or emulsion as printed, but scratches and wear would be accelerated.

Imperfections have been gaining popularity, and not with just the "lomo" crowd anymore. I prefer my photos to be technically acceptable, or better... but there are times when I make a photo that has a certain charm, but a niggling little problem here or there that I don't see myself comfortably editing in the darkroom, so a quick scan and run through an effects filter... Yeah, it feels so dirty sometimes.

Ross Chambers · Feb 24, 2014

Try these
Dead Link Removed

kevin klein · Feb 24, 2014

Those are very nicley done.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 24, 2014

Or these:

http://lisaelmaleh.com/americanfolk/#5

I apologize if she was mentioned before. I have not read the whole thread; just check in once and a while to see what is up. I cued up the link to my friend Ralph Roberts who she photographed last year. I don't know her other than a brief meeting at a music festival, but I've liked the pictures she's done of folks around here.

Newt_on_Swings · Feb 24, 2014

Mark Crabtree said:
Or these:

http://lisaelmaleh.com/americanfolk/#5

I apologize if she was mentioned before. I have not read the whole thread; just check in once and a while to see what is up. I cued up the link to my friend Ralph Roberts who she photographed last year. I don't know her other than a brief meeting at a music festival, but I've liked the pictures she's done of folks around here.

Her work is great, you can see a remarkable improvement in her images as you get to the more recent set such as the everglades and american folk vs her earlier work that she has up. She has really got it down, I wish I could see some of these in person.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 24, 2014

Me too. All I've seen is the online stuff, plus the silver print copies she has sent to a couple of friends that she photographed.

Dave Wooten · Feb 25, 2014

...it is a lack of technique. Check out the beautiful portraits Monty (zebra) makes on ulf formats.

Why do so many modern tintypes suck?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency