Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,132   Online: 1085
      
Page 1 of 23 123456711 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 227
  1. #1
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,273
    Images
    148

    Trickery and fake

    This - Olympic Athletes Photographed Using a Field Camera and 100-Year-Old Lens

    has to be some of the worst photography I've seen, totally fake and inaccurate.

    The lens is way over 100 yeras old and images have deliberately faked artefacts to make them look old it's an insult to those using film.

    Ian

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,066
    That's embarassing. He obviously spends too much time chatting on internet forums and not enough time using Petzvals or any other kind of older gear.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,443
    Typical gimmickry. "I'm using a big camera and an old lens. Didn't that old gear suck? Aren't I great for using it"?

  4. #4
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,995
    Images
    6
    I don't think it's necessarily fakery going on. The photographer didn't dress them up in period costumes. I think many people are hungering for something more organic and real than slick digital images. For me it's like somebody wanting to eat a real home made pie made from scratch after eating factory made pies for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? I hope this will start people wanting to shoot analog again.

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,273
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I don't think it's necessarily fakery going on. The photographer didn't dress them up in period costumes. I think many people are hungering for something more organic and real than slick digital images. For me it's like somebody wanting to eat a real home made pie made from scratch after eating factory made pies for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? I hope this will start people wanting to shoot analog again.
    It's the [rocessing artefacts that are fake and deliberate, not the images and the use of older lenses.

    Ian

  6. #6
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,322
    Images
    343
    I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?

    “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

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?
    Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.
    Would be more interesting to see genuine and good period photos of athletes taken at the time.

  8. #8
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,842
    Images
    108
    Ian , do you watch BBC , there is snog avoid or marry program , they collect from the streets fake girls - most horrible human beings I have ever seen - and transform them to Grace Kelly. In two sides , they are fake. It might not new to you that someone want to earn money and doing every move to success or impress.

  9. #9
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    The "processing artifacts" are because he used paper negatives, and he just did it for grins and giggles. I thought that it was a rather nice set of portraits, much nicer than the modern stuff I've seen.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    100
    Yes! I was mystified as well when I saw the insert in the LA Times with some of his photographs. I am frequently amazed at the high quality of photography and cinematography a hundred years ago (both technical and aesthetic) when I see restored or undamaged work the way it looked when it was current. I just wish they had been more honest about the fact that the messy artifacts were an aesthetic choice, not simply the result of using 100 year old equipment.

    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.

Page 1 of 23 123456711 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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