awww, you guys are playing too nice
awww, you guys are playing too nice
Good news some people is still using LF and some people is still talking about it. At least all those who read those pages will stop wondering whether the film is still available or not.
What I personally object is the over-sharpening of the web scans which IMO detracts from the result. I liked some pictures quite a lot though.
I see some effects which I don't know (know nothing about LF in general).
If you follow the galleries of David Burnett (linked in post #217), and choose "D-Day: the Men, the Beaches", you find some images with some sort of double edge (John Robinson, Elbert Legg, very evident on Harry Parley). What's that?
This is where the analogue = technically flawed aesthetic is bringing us. It appears that there is people who uses some kind of digital filters that play havoc with colour and sharpness to give a supposedly analogue and old-fashioned look to digital pictures, including the fake black rebate.
(be courageous and browse the entire slide show below)
I understand everybody is free to write whatever filter they want and people is also free to use it.
I don't think it is entirely legal to use a RVP black rebate that way and I think Fujifilm might have some legitimate objections.
This entire wave contributes to spread the idea that film is for weird effects rather than for quality.
We should be positive and friendly toward anybody asking us questions about film cameras (do we still find film for it, why on earth should we use film etc.) and stress the quality film delivers, besides the other reasons for using it.
If I were Fujifilm I'd be very pissed.
I wonder if the photos were shot on RVP then crossed processed? I remember during the early 90's when a lot of photographers processed their chrome film in C-41. It's hard to tell whether it's the genuine or not.
I very deeply doubt it. As you can see, the "look" of the first link is that of a faked badly balanced negative film while Velvia 100 is a slide film. Both appear to have been made at the beginning of the roll (you can bet the "app" only has the beginning of the roll). In both cases the effect used are different for different photos: you have the "slide fake thing", the "polaroid fake thing", the "Instamatic fake thing" etc and they are all mixed in the same twitter post; if in the first link the first image is actually a scan of a Velvia100, is it credible that the third is really instant film? That would mean Elisabetta Canalis dwells in all sorts of photographic processes. Don't know her personally, but frankly...
Generally speaking the "slider" on the "fake thing effect" is so high that the final result is not credible. The second series is even worse under this respect. And with only one Velvia shot in the series (lots of different "techniques" it appears).
Well, I would bet my jewels it's all "trickery and fake". And with different "special effects" taken from the toolbox in a random way.
EDIT: That' very likely the result of an Instagram filter. Instagram is an application (for iPhone and Android I think) that allows, if I get it right, an easy and "seamless" sharing of pictures taken with a phone through Facebook, Twitter or other such "social" networks. Included in the free price there are some filters which will make the awful mess that is supposed to imitate traditional photographic material. If it's bad, if colours are fake, if borders are uncertain, if there's a lot of flare, if the picture lacks contrast, then it must be "cool" as it is supposed to imitate analogue material even though it's even patent, in the game itself, that's just the effect of a filter.
That really makes Lomography look very serious by comparison :whistling:. At least, with a Lomo you do a real bad job, not a fake bad job :)