Kickstarter: Vanishing Cultures, by Dennis Manarchy
Here's the reward levels which include prints:
Gold Reward: 18" x 24" Giclee Fine-Art Print
Platinum: 30"x40” Giclee Fine-Art Print
Diamond: 4-foot by 5-foot "Autumn's Eye" (Left and Right) Giclee Fine-Art Print
Big Camera: Giclee Museum Quality Fine Art Print of "Christina In Distress"
Super Big Camera: 16-foot print from the big camera on weatherproof canvas
Super-Sized Negative: 6-foot by 4.5-foot Project Negative
At no time does he mention that he's ever going to produce a real print enlargement from the project.
I think this page of the somewhat pretentiously called "The Foundation for the Preservation of American Culture", as seems to have been setup specifically for this project, is the most interesting one:
Note also the actual travel camera does NOT have a functional groundglass back, instead, the ground glass and negative stage are inside the bellows, where the photographer will be, and the fake ground glass on the back seems to be used as live electronic plasma display showing what is going on inside the bellows...:
Well, like Manarchy said, it'll be like the circus coming into town.
Here's a thought: at a 35ft length, for a headshot with everything in focus, six feet high, what aperture is that for that DOF? Something just doesn't quite add up for that. I've poked around on the macro calculators, and it's just that somehow this isn't making sense to actually need a 35ft camera.
Lens Magnification and Depth of Field Calculator
Focal length: 480mm
Focusing distance: 2m
Extension: 1575mm (about 5ft)
And you'd have 200mm of DOF.
The prototype camera in his studio is much shorter than 35ft, and that's what he's using to make the current negatives. So, the actual camera is well under 10ft, and the rest is dark space.
I think the *PLATFORM* is 35ft from end to end. The camera proper is not going to defy the laws of optics. But it is all about the hype and the show.
Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
To me the crucial part of this huge camera project is the fact Dennis Manarchy, anything but anarchy, spends two days with his subject to make the exposure - To me subject engagement is the most crucial aspect of photography - Added to engagement is a technique so deeply ingrained it works automatically, like strands in a rope, one strengthening the other
I digress - All APUGists, apart from the despicable camera collectors, can learn from the engagement aspect of this project
I wish to sponsor this project at whatever level I can, as an age pensioner only $25 or so, but if lots of us put into this project we might help it to fruition
new call sign to be Grumpy Old Man
8 million dollars, is kind of funny, at least he is getting a lot of FREE PRESS :)
i don't really think speding a few days with his sitters is engaging anymore than spending 20mins.
good portrait photographers don't NEED to spend 2 or 3 days to engage with their subjects ...
john chiara has been doing something similar for a whlle now ...
although he doesn't do 6' negatives ( are they rephotographed a smaller format ? or ??? to get the prints )
chiara's are ilfochromes ... and analog!
Oooops - There must be something wrong with me then, my best work with people, especially naked ones, happens after a few years of knowing and photographing them - That is how my best pics come except for the rare "gift" images
there is a huge difference between 2 days and 2 years.
in 2 days the subject hasn't taken down the facade
that he or she would take down after 2 years.
2 days is pretty much the same as an hour or two ...
photographing nudes requires the subject to trust the photographer
a deadpan portrait doesn't require the same trust ...
8million dollars, a walk in bellows, lcd/plasma screen, giant ink jet prints
it sounds to me that it is more about 20seconds of fame and a gallery show ...
i can see if he was annie L and needed a helicopter and 45person entourage ...