Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,408   Online: 949
      
Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131418 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 227
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,025
    I've seen images from 100, and even 150, years ago that were much better. Old does not mean bad. These may have been fun... but I think they are bad -- ill conceived and not attractive.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    174
    Those vertical lines are artifacts introduced by a cheap scanner that is on it's last legs and/or has a very dirty platen. Amazing that the photographer manage to botch both analogue and digital phase of a hybrid process and then have the images accepted by a major publication.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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 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.

    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.

    What is technical perfection? Not every photographer is attempting to achieve "technical" perfection. Most photographers and other visual artists want to evoke some sort of emotional response in the viewer, unless they are merely documenting something. Technical perfection may not be the right thing to achieve the intended response. Beauty is not always technically perfect. Technical perfection doesn't always evoke the intended response.

    If technical perfection were the goal, why qualify it depending on the medium? Many media would be ruled out because perfection cannot be achieved with them. For technical perfection, you'd select only the technically best cameras, lenses, media, and printing techniques. But even then, others may not agree with your choices, or they may judge that your results weren't technically the best.

    Artificially induced imperfections are every bit as much a valid tool of an artist as is media selection, gear selection, dodging and burning, etc.
    Last edited by SkipA; 08-06-2012 at 11:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #74
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by SkipA View Post
    What is technical perfection? Not every photographer is attempting to achieve "technical" perfection. Most photographers and other visual artists want to evoke some sort of emotional response in the viewer, unless they are merely documenting something. Technical perfection may not be the right thing to achieve the intended response. Beauty is not always technically perfect.

    If technical perfection were the goal, why qualify it depending on the medium? Many media would be ruled out because perfection cannot be achieved with them. For technical perfection, you'd select only the technically best cameras, lenses, media, and printing techniques. But even then, others may not agree with your choices, or they may judge that your results weren't technically the best.
    I agree completely.


    Artificially induced imperfections are every bit as much a valid tool of an artist as is media selection, gear selection, dodging and burning, etc.
    Sure, but it doesn't mean I have to like them. I don't like these at all. I don't have anything against artificially induced imperfections per se, but I think they have to be wielded deftly to avoid being a gimmick. Dissonance can make for awesome Jazz, and it can easily make for bad music, and it can also be just noise.
    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. #75
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    What type of photograph stands out in our moment of time? A nice photograph in B&W? That would stand out when the display medium is a 72dpi monitor? A nice photograph from a big camera looks the same as a nice photograph from a small camera. For the photograph to be different, it has to look different. The newspapers don't carry, and have never carried, good prints in them, not even machine prints. That is what it would take for a nice chemical print to stand out from a digital image. A print, on paper. And what would it take for that to happen? For a print circulation of 250,000 per day? Can you imagine the machinery it would take to do that today?

    That is what it would take for people to get some sense of what large format can deliver. So the vast majority of the populace will never see a large format print. Ever. The only way that a large format print will stand out in the digital age is for people to see soemthing that can't be done with an Instagram filter. That's it. So be glad that someone decided to use a view camera, loaded up a bunch of holders, and went and made some images that would stand out on a computer monitor at 640x480, 72dpi.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    What type of photograph stands out in our moment of time? A nice photograph in B&W? That would stand out when the display medium is a 72dpi monitor? A nice photograph from a big camera looks the same as a nice photograph from a small camera. For the photograph to be different, it has to look different. The newspapers don't carry, and have never carried, good prints in them, not even machine prints. That is what it would take for a nice chemical print to stand out from a digital image. A print, on paper. And what would it take for that to happen? For a print circulation of 250,000 per day? Can you imagine the machinery it would take to do that today?

    That is what it would take for people to get some sense of what large format can deliver. So the vast majority of the populace will never see a large format print. Ever. The only way that a large format print will stand out in the digital age is for people to see soemthing that can't be done with an Instagram filter. That's it. So be glad that someone decided to use a view camera, loaded up a bunch of holders, and went and made some images that would stand out on a computer monitor at 640x480, 72dpi.
    Well, my problem with the images is that they stand out by being bad. And, for many, this might be the only time they get to see an analog print, from any size format. A poor, gimmicky picture(s), that do not represent what the technology used is capable of, or intended for.

  7. #77
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    What I dislike, although it is never stated anywhere, it is the double implication that traditional technologies produce flawed results (that's one) and those results are interesting because they look and smell film while digital imaging is so perfect so boring (that's the second).

    Basically it's the lomography aesthetics (the shittier the better) on a grander scale.

    That said, it's very nice that people still use or become curious about traditional photography. Sooner or later the same people will appreciate traditional photography for the quality it can deliver, not for the defects which is delivered by faulty cameras or faulty processing (and which is never interesting in my opinion).
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  8. #78
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,237
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Well, my problem with the images is that they stand out by being bad. And, for many, this might be the only time they get to see an analog print, from any size format. A poor, gimmicky picture(s), that do not represent what the technology used is capable of, or intended for.
    I think the point I was making in starting this thread was the photographer set out to deliberately make bad analog images/prints.l If he didn't then he's showing an unbelievable level of incompetance.

    Apart from the deliberate technical artefacts the photographer has also taken less than positive images compared to his digital shots.

    The problem is that he claims a 100 year old lens etc, but by 1912 photography was remarkably modern even by todays standards. the Compur shutter, some excellent lenses, Panchromatic films, cameras and lenses fast enough to shoot moving atheletes.

    There's no format snobbery in my comments, I can understand what the photographers trying to say but it's based on un-truths, and is so false it's laughably bad.

    Ian

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,372
    We're on the same page, Ian. What I don't understand are the ones defending the fauxtographer.

  10. #80
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    The real format is not 4x5 inches, but 640x480 pixels. That's the real limit. That's today's sad reality. Then what would you do to make that tiny 640x480 stand apart from a cell phone? I haven't heard any answer to that one, and I'd like to know.

    What would it cost, just in paper, to print 250,000 11x14 prints? Try $278,806.50 (Ilford glossy multigrade express RC, 11"x250' roll, $238.50; 214 prints per roll; 1,169 rolls). If there was an automatic machine that could produce a print every 30 seconds, it would take nearly three months to print the run. Isn't distribution by web just grand? Upload once, viewed by millions in seconds.

    So if any of you would like to at least produce an athletic portrait on LF that is 100% distinct from digital at 640px x 480px, please strut your stuff.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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