Trickery and fake

[Ian Grant]

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

[BrianShaw]

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.

[E. von Hoegh]

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"?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

[Ian Grant]

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

[cliveh]

I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?

[railwayman3]

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.

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

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.

[Brian C. Miller]

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.

[btaylor]

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.

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.