Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,102   Online: 1002
      
Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 378910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 227
  1. #121
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post

    The public doesn't know shit about this stuff one way or the other,
    If they look at the pictures in the article, and get the impression that's what old cameras and techniques produce, they think they do know.


    nor do they care.
    They care to some extent, or the Times wouldn't have run the piece.
    Last edited by lxdude; 08-07-2012 at 09:40 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: clarity
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #122
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it.
    I find the images striking, too. Strikingly bad. They would have been much better if he hadn't screwed with them. IMO.

    I think they do harm the analog cause by being misleading as to what good analog work with old equipment looks like.
    They probably help the analog cause, too, by showing people that analog is still around and capable of producing images very different from the usual; doubtless many will find the images cool, even though I think they suck.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #123
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    They care to some extent, or the Times wouldn't have run the piece.
    Most of the what's in the LA Times nobody cares about.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  4. #124
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Most of the what's in the LA Times nobody cares about.
    Well, it sure ain't the paper it used to be. Still, they expend ink and newsprint on those things they think will attract readers, therefore revenue.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #125
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Have to agree with Blansky \\ (scary, very scary) 7 pages of sour grapes because this guy got some bit of notice?? Goodness.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  6. #126
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago
    If so, he did a crappy job.

    or was just trying to do something "arty".
    Which is a particularly revolting thought.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #127
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    That's all I care to think of and post, it's pretty far down my list of things to worry about. Yes, Hirst, thanks.
    You might enjoy the late Robert Hughes critical work, especially his "Shock of the New." A man who never soft-peddled his likes or dislikes.

  8. #128

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,293
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I find the images striking, too. Strikingly bad. They would have been much better if he hadn't screwed with them. IMO.

    I think they do harm the analog cause by being misleading as to what good analog work with old equipment looks like.
    They probably help the analog cause, too, by showing people that analog is still around and capable of producing images very different from the usual; doubtless many will find the images cool, even though I think they suck.
    huh ?

    that is like saying by someone showing photoshopped digital images, or cell phone photographs
    it stains the reputation of digital photography. ... or if someone eats food from a roach coach, they
    will never eat good food again ...

    he just showed that it is easy to make paper negatives, and use a 4x5 camera
    and process the negatives in a bathroom sink ... and if you want to mess around with the results
    it is as easy as sitting in front of a computer and clicking on a digital image.

    i didn't see anywhere in the article/interview that the purpose of his photographs with the 4x5 camera
    was to bring the potential beauty of edwardian photography or analog photography
    to the forefront and show how even with 100+ year old lenses and cheap and easy paper negatives
    one can get FUN portraits that rival slick modern digital ones.
    it isn't like people reading the article were born yesterday, and have no idea what chemical based photography is.

    are his digital images fake, and damaging to photography as a whole too? he boosted the contrast and saturation
    and probably retouched his views.

    where did he mentioned or suggest in the article that his photographs were to be hung in a gallery filled with modern or pop art ..
    or that they were supposed to be considered " fine art "
    the main thing he mentioned that he had a lot of FUN ... making the exposures, and processing the paper negatives
    in his bathroom sink ... it reminded him of the fun had as a photo-student.

    maybe the fact that he suggested that he enjoyed goofing around with a large format camera and make paper negatives
    will turn more people the way of analog, not the opposite.


    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    You might enjoy the late Robert Hughes critical work, especially his "Shock of the New." A man who never soft-peddled his likes or dislikes.
    he died yesterday, didn't he ?

  9. #129
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,898
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Much ado about nothing.

    He's not the spokesperson for large format "old ways".

    He's a guy who tried out a technique and then was asked/interviewed about it for the LA fucking Times. Not Large Format Weekly.

    The public doesn't know shit about this stuff one way or the other, nor do they care.

    The only people that care are other photographers who probably know what he did anyways.

    Jesus people, who gives a shit if he pissed on the prints to age them.
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli View Post
    Have to agree with Blansky \\ (scary, very scary) 7 pages of sour grapes because this guy got some bit of notice?? Goodness.

    This forum needs a "like" & "thanks" function...

  10. #130
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    I just read through 13 pages. Could someone please explain what we're angry about again?
    K.S. Klain



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin