Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,300   Posts: 1,535,882   Online: 965
      
Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 227
  1. #11
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,224
    Images
    343
    Perhaps he should show some images by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe and then try and emulate them with digital cameras.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    As was previously mentioned, he used paper, not film.

    Each black-and-white portrait was exposed onto black-and-white photographic paper, processed in a darkroom and scanned into a computer.
    I liked them.

  3. #13
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,966
    Images
    6
    I like them too. I think those fake Photoshop filters that make digital images look analog shows that imitating sincerest form flattery

    You don't see analog photographers putting filters in front of their cameras to fake pixels

  4. #14
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,206
    Images
    46
    Makes me glad that 30mm Petzvals are not common...

  5. #15
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,218
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I like them too. I think those fake Photoshop filters that make digital images look analog shows that imitating sincerest form flattery

    You don't see analog photographers putting filters in front of their cameras to fake pixels
    That's a really, really good point...



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  6. #16
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,247
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    That's a really, really good point...



    Ken

    It's not flattery when the technique deliberately maks the images look far worse than they would be if genuine !!!!!

    Ian

  7. #17
    artonpaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    135
    However they were done, they're terrible in my not so humble opinion.

  8. #18
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,218
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    It's not flattery when the technique deliberately maks the images look far worse than they would be if genuine !!!!!

    Ian
    Not the flattery part. The converse logic part. Not needing to try to look like the other technology in the other direction.

    Lots of rebate plug-ins, grain plug-ins, and faded-colors-to-look-like-1950 plug-ins for digital images. But not too many camera or enlarger filters to add that pixellated look to film photographs.

    Wonder why that is??



    Besides, failed attempts at flattery are still flattery, aren't they? It's just the implementation that sucked. Intentional or otherwise.

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 08-03-2012 at 05:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  9. #19
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,628
    I find them annoying. They're affected. They don't look like old pictures, so what's the point? The contrast is way funky, and the artifacts just make them look messy. Just perusing some of the old shots available on Shorpy shows what could be achieved long ago.

    If these had been taken a hundred years ago, hell 150 years ago, the guy would have been advised to find another line of work.
    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.

  10. #20
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,966
    Images
    6
    I think analog imaging to older folks like me, will part of our vernacular. These effects might bring us back to a more genuine and simpler time when you really can believe a photo. It's not just fake photo effects like grain and streaks. It's also with video and audio too. They have scratched film effects for video, pop and clicks for people that record digital music. That's my take on it.

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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