Trickery and fake

[Poisson Du Jour]

Here's Jim Galli's blog post on the swirl effect--

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Af.../Swirlies.html

All well and good for Jim's technique.
But I am not convinced. Have a closer look at the guy with the bmx and the razor sharp — almost bas in effect — delineation from the swirls in the background. Given the primitive nature of a Petzval (and despite its capacity to rudimentally correct some of the 5AS), I would like to see some informed technical answers regarding glaring inconsistencies in the images.

[Ian David]

I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?

Why on earth would we ever see the original paper negs???

I got the impression that the article (and the project) was simply presenting two different photographic looks - a clean modern digital look, and a rather different look using older pre-digital gear. I didn't realise that the photographer was taking part in some sort of competition governed by a strict set of rules. Or promising to produce fully analog images that are as clean and technically perfect as possible. Or conducting a scientific comparison of film v digital...

So why all the moaning and nit-picking? He probably has used a fully-analog process with some deliberate processing blemishes for a certain sort of look. Then again, maybe he has thrown in a hybrid touch there somewhere. Who cares? I cannot spot the hanging offence here.

[Brian C. Miller]

All well and good for Jim's technique.
But I am not convinced. Have a closer look at the guy with the bmx and the razor sharp — almost bas in effect — delineation from the swirls in the background. Given the primitive nature of a Petzval (and despite its capacity to rudimentally correct some of the 5AS), I would like to see some informed technical answers regarding glaring inconsistencies in the images.

WHAT "glaring inconsistencies in the images?" Go over to the Large Format Photography Forum, and take a look at the image sharing section. This is how Petzval and similar lenses behave. When the lens doesn't cover the designed image circle, stuff in the background goes swirley. It's a matter of distance! That's why they were used in studios, where the background was a blank wall. No swirls show up on a blank wall, so everything looks just fine.

This is why you'll never see a real Petzval photo filter. The effect has to do with distance from lens to the image. I posted about "Petzval field effect." Go and read! Better yet, get a Petzval-design lens for yourself, and have some fun!

I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?

Click on the link I posted, and look at the article. There is a photograph of the images in the sink. So there you go.

[jnanian]

Thank you.That was the point, I was wondering why the reds didn't turned out darker. I assume the paper is orthochromatic, the safelight for being red and so on.
I had limited experience with paper negatives. So I was just guessing.

I hope your head does not hurt much.

hi again

different papers have different sensitivities ...
there are some variable contrast papers that have a lot of blue
some are sensitive to a lot of green ..
some are blind to different color safelights ... dark red light red &c.
if the photographer used a yellow or red filter, it would have been the same
as using darkroom filters and adjusted the contrast not the tonal range of the image ...

its fun to make paper negatives, you can do it in any camera, 35mm, 6x6 and bigger,

i like hand coating paper with liquid or home-brew emulsions. primitive emulsions
have a different look than "modern" name brand papers, and when hand coating
papers ( and glass if you want ) you get painterly effects if you want too ...

[E. von Hoegh]

Speaking for myself, I just don't think they're all that great. I intensely don't like the blotches, streaks, etc. I think they add nothing to the images, but distract considerably.

Snobbery, no. I just don't care for them, for reasons I've already stated.

Instead of going for a really crappy gimmicky look, he could have used a 100 year old Tessar and flabbergasted everyone with the sheer quality of the images. But no, he made a mess intead. The guy's a tool.

The problem I have with the project is that it seems to give the message that his very poor results are all that analog processes are capable of. Very patronising.

[blansky]

Instead of going for a really crappy gimmicky look, he could have used a 100 year old Tessar and flabbergasted everyone with the sheer quality of the images. But no, he made a mess intead. The guy's a tool.

The problem I have with the project is that it seems to give the message that his very poor results are all that analog processes are capable of. Very patronising.

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago or was just trying to do something "arty".

Don't forget not all photographers have a background in "the old ways" and not all photographers consider themselves to be the spokesperson for analog photography.

[E. von Hoegh]

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago or was just trying to do something "arty".

Don't forget not all photographers have a background in "the old ways" and not all photographers consider themselves to be the spokesperson for analog photography.

He should stick with what he can do well, and leave the schtick alone. If he can't use analog processes well enough to give a fair representation, he shouldn't use analog processes.

[jnanian]

maybe he was just having fun ?

do you rail on people who do wet plate or daguerreotypes,
or people that make glass plates or hand coat their own paper
because they don't have a perfect / pristine results?

it seems if you did, there would be very few people you would
suggest give a fair representation of the analog process.

maybe the person making the plates, dags, home brew/hand coated
photographs doesn't really care much about perfection ...
and it is more about IMperfection/wabi-sabi...

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago or was just trying to do something "arty".

Don't forget not all photographers have a background in "the old ways" and not all photographers consider themselves to be the spokesperson for analog photography.

Most commercial and editorial shooters are just hired guns and do what art directors want. They didn't hire an art photographer with his or her own unique voice. It isn't fakery, but he was just imitating photographers that use old processes like Sally Mann. There is an air of insincerity just using this method if it isn't really his style. Maybe he's trying to find his voice or he might have been told what do do?

[lxdude]

do you rail on people who do wet plate or daguerreotypes,
or people that make glass plates or hand coat their own paper
because they don't have a perfect / pristine results?

Not at all. The imperfections are part of the process, and indeed, unavoidable. As part of the process, they are also part of its charm.

The images the guy produced though, seem to have deliberately induced imperfections. If they were not deliberate, then the guy has a way to go to be proficient. We've all seen, and many have produced, very nice paper negatives. In those, what appear to be defects are really characteristics; they cannot be eliminated, nor would anyone want to, as they are intrinsic.

maybe the person making the plates, dags, home brew/hand coated
photographs doesn't really care much about perfection ...
and it is more about IMperfection/wabi-sabi...

Perfection, or something close to it, can be achieved through modern processes, so I doubt that it is foremost to those engaging in those processes.