View Full Version : Idiots!!!

Pages : 1 [2] 3

03-23-2010, 02:57 PM
I have a shot from 1975 which shows a black cat lying on its side side on a red shag rug looking at the camera. The red bedspread on the bed it was lying next to is reflected in one eye, making that eye appear red. People used to say it was a cool shot, and ask how I got it, to which I would reply, "Anticipate it and watch for it to happen". Now, all I get is how easy it is to do that in post processing. All I can say in response is that they just don't get it.
The biggest problem I have with the ease of manipulation these days is how it's assumed that's how something's done, and people miss out on the realization that what they're looking at really happened.

03-23-2010, 03:00 PM
Awww ... shit ... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominic_whiten/)

03-23-2010, 03:00 PM
And this ... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/4323666539_03d39558ba.jpg

03-23-2010, 03:07 PM

03-23-2010, 03:38 PM
Don't be so harsh. Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery. Obviously digital processes leave people cold and folks are trying to mimic an analog look. They're looking for more of an organic look would be my guess. They're looking for the perfect flaw. It's the difference the two process is like tasting saccharin while sugar is better.

03-23-2010, 04:08 PM
Perhaps we should make a mask to simulate the bronzing, banding, and flatness of tone seen in digital monochrome.

One other interesting anecdote. I turned in a print the other day for photo critique. It was flawless and probably the best work I have ever done. I caught my professor feeling of the paper. When I asked her what she was doing, she replied "just making sure this isn't inkjet paper." Talk about insulting.

Ed Sukach
03-23-2010, 04:49 PM
For a long time, I've been studying the "catchlight" patterns in a number of publications - mainly fashiom mags - as a rough indicatication of the light setups. As it would be with plain spherical Christmas tree onaments (or hubcaps) the eye reflections indicate light positioning; form (umbrellas are VERY common) - softboxes and their size; and to a degree, intensity.

What frosts my cookie is greatly differing catchlight patterns in the eyes of more than one model in a single frame. Obviously a montage of separate images - unless someone has devised a method "erasing and adding" - similar to a portrait taken outdoors with two or more suns in the sky.

03-23-2010, 04:52 PM
who cares what "they" are doing ?
i certainly don't ...

03-23-2010, 05:13 PM
Reminds me of what my Dad used to say:

There is a limit to intelligence, but there is no limit to stupidity!

03-23-2010, 05:35 PM
A few years ago, one of our designers at work did a design which had a photo from a very early auto race depicted within a border that had 35mm sprocket holes. I laughed at their ignorance and told them there was no way that image would have been taken on 35mm film. It was so obvious since the amount of ovaling present on the wheels would have at least required a 4x5 with focal plane shutter.

They didn't seem to understand.

03-23-2010, 06:00 PM
Awww ... shit ... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominic_whiten/)

I couldn't resist commenting on one of his fake rebates: "I don't understand why you would want to fake an image made with film. If you want to do film that badly, just go buy a camera and some film.

There are those who would suggest it is dishonest and misleading to put a film rebate around an image. If you insist on doing it, be sure to use the rebate of a color film for a color image. Otherwise, you just look stupid."

03-23-2010, 06:31 PM
Well, it doesn't really annoy me but my face usually draws a grin.
It's amusing when someone goes wrong on the film type and color. Tri-X frame and a color shot, or as the example in the thread; provia on B&W...

A few months ago I remember to have seen something that looked like an authentic film shot on a clothes shop. It was square. Had edge markings of TX 320 and had a bit of grain.
In the TV, there's a humor show about politicians. There is a section where they play a gag of the past year. The video is shown inside a film frame of Kodak GC400, though modified, it's seen something like "Koikad GC400". I wonder if MP has the Still film markings.

Now, I hope that I won't open the can of worms...
What annoys me are the attacks of some digi people against the film community; specially if they are so ignoramus about it.
I was browsing around, and found a review of a plustek 35mm scanner, now, this is the starting paragraph:

Over the past decade digital cameras have almost completely replaced film cameras for day-to-day photography. Although there are some professionals still using film for large format photography and other specialist applications, in the consumer market only a handful of die-hard Luddites are still clinging to what is now a largely obsolete technology. Digital photography has many overwhelming advantages; the cameras are smaller, more convenient and are generally easier to use, you can see the results instantly, delete unwanted images and store hundreds of high-quality photographs on a memory card the size of your thumbnail. Also despite what the Luddites may tell you a good digital camera can beat most film cameras on image quality.
So, people who aren't pros using LF systems are luddites... These kind of people are who popularize a negative idea of film.

03-23-2010, 07:58 PM
Sometimes I see an image that looks quite good except...part of the image has natural looking light coming from the right and part of the image has natural light coming from the left.

03-23-2010, 08:51 PM
So, people who aren't pros using LF systems are luddites... These kind of people are who popularize a negative idea of film.

I've noticed that some people think any camera that's not 35mm, digital, or smaller, is by definition large-format. Terminology that we use daily in film photography is confusing jargon to many who just "buy what they're selling."

03-23-2010, 10:32 PM
Part of my frustration is the continued use of analog terminology to incorrectly describe a digital concept such as film speed settings for a digital sensor. Being in my early thirties and having started with a digital slr before reverting to analog, I can tell you many young photographers are aware they are being fooled with digital. It's not their fault, really. It's marketing aimed at a younger buyer who is just looking for a way to express him or herself. Remember your first camera? Hell, they rarely teach analog at universities anymore. What I can tell you is my digital friends go speechless when they see a print come to life in the darkroom and try as they may, Photoshop cannot recreate that feeling for them. So be kind and educate your digital friends. There's an analog photographer in each of them. They just don't know it yet.

03-23-2010, 10:52 PM
who cares what "they" are doing ?
i certainly don't ...

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

03-24-2010, 08:27 AM
Awww ... shit ... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominic_whiten/)

....stay cool...given the number of comments on his images...no one is seeing them, and so the damage is limited :p

03-24-2010, 08:32 AM
It is nice to remember, biut it would be nice to forget and carry on to the next day.

03-24-2010, 12:25 PM
The people that use fake rebates like them because it makes them look more masterful.... think of them as master-rebaters. ;)

03-24-2010, 01:00 PM
There is a place for digital and there is a place for film. This forum is primarily about film.

No need to bash one or the other. I use both and I like both. I'm using a fair amount of film and I like it. But I also capture with digital and I like it as well.

I hope film is around long after I'm not around on this earth anymore.

Get out and use some film, use a lot of film, and keep the film mfgrs busy!

Best to Your Success.