I'm guilty. Not of making tintypes, but of making dry plates and liking them when they came out blotchy, blemishy, smeared, ragged, awful. It was fun and I'd do it again.
Nice work. You have a very talented computer.
I don't mind imperfections as a viewer/owner. As a photographer I could understand them being maddening in some situations, like where the imperfection gets in the way. I'm no perfectionist and happy little blemishes are just as happy as happy little trees.
The celeb tintypes suck because the subjects look uninterested/bored in their poses. Same pose and lighting like school pictures, but less connection between the photographer and subject. Probably the photographer was overwhelmed by the work rather than considering the portrait.
Last edited by jp498; 02-04-2014 at 10:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Maintaining the fiction that old=crap is reassuring on many levels. It feeds complacency.
Thanks to Hipstamatic, and similar software, the expectations of the viewers of the items are that there will be a mess 'because it's analogue work'. Reconfirming that perfection is apparently only now achievable, and effortlessly, serves to emphasise the total superiority of digital-artists to everything that has gone before . . . <--[possible sarcasm, oops.] Or maybe I'm just feeling grumpy today.
It's all just further proving the digital minds right: film and traditional methods are dirty and imperfect.
Quick, go get the newest DSLR!
Originally Posted by Wayne
me too !
but then again, i think there's no such think as perfect anyways ..
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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.
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
Maybe they were shot on a phone and we'll find out about that later on. There's an app for everything.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
this thread is the essence of analog photography
too many haters
Last edited by jnanian; 02-05-2014 at 08:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.