there is something missing with digital photography and I know what it is..

Started May 10, 2012 | Discussions
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
I agree
In reply to Roger99, May 12, 2012

Roger99 wrote:

A lot of the early wet plate image were of far higher visual quality than the stereotype history has given them. Time and reproduction has reduced them unfortunately....... I remember his prints as bright, clear, crisp and vibrant even though to look at them today even the minute amount of acid in the originally expensive stock has left them yellow and sadly lacking. They are still beautiful images though.

Agree 100%. I wish the OP had gone for that look.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Faintandfuzzy
Senior MemberPosts: 3,327Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, with examples
In reply to Mako2011, May 12, 2012

I can mold tofu into the shape of a turkey dinner.....that won't make it real.

While I love Silver Efex for lots of things....these don't look anything like tintypes.

 Faintandfuzzy's gear list:Faintandfuzzy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Olympus E-10 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Smith
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,587Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, with examples
In reply to Mako2011, May 12, 2012

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Where is the 'tin type' button anyhow on this camera, is there a filter in foto-sharp for that?

Though you still need to add a few "touches"
http://www.niksoftware.com/addons/index.php/presets/index/tin-type-sep2

Thus you prove my point, those look just like very sharp, processed fauxtographs–they are really false looking quite horribly so.

You need to see a few in person before you can create something that looks even slightly real how do they feel n the hand?

My point is 'why do people do this"?

Last term I had a student ask what setting on her camera would give results like this? She handed me an image from a magazine take by George Hurrell of a 1930's movie star.

Your post just proves to me how mediocrity and the push a button to get great images generation need to think about why they want fauxtography instead of mimicry though software why not make something of value.
awful beyond reason....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
Re: Yes, with examples
In reply to Faintandfuzzy, May 12, 2012

Faintandfuzzy wrote:

I can mold tofu into the shape of a turkey dinner.....that won't make it real.

While I love Silver Efex for lots of things....these don't look anything like tintypes.

But fun they are and they do look as "good" an example as the the OP posted. Where is your example? BTW, they are intended to be examples of a Plug-in that Mark Smith asked about. No more.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MaxIso
Contributing MemberPosts: 621
Like?
Re: A bad workman usually blames his tools...
In reply to MisterBG, May 12, 2012

MisterBG wrote:
Any type of camera is merely a tool for a job.
How you use it is up you...
--

To err is Human. To really foul things up you need a computer.

yea very true, but this kinda goes without saying. theres a reason hollywood producers dont use iphones for their movies. theres no substitute for a keen eye, but theres also no substitute for a good camera.

anybody disagree? then go shoot all your photos with your iphone or a disposable camera. sometimes u need tech, plain and simple.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Smith
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,587Gear list
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mako2011, May 12, 2012

Mako2011 wrote:

I really see his intend as simply to reproduce a look that was common to a specific medium.....and much less a focus on the subject, IMO. Great the everyone sees things differently.

You need to understand how this was made to have an idea of the challenges of the image maker.

This is a process that was made on small 3x2 inch precoated metal plates which were stacked in a camera then exposed then pushed mechanically into a monobath (dev and fix together) in a box below the camera where they were developed automatically coming out a shoot in a few minutes—an 1880 instant photo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
Re: Yes, with examples
In reply to Mark Smith, May 12, 2012

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Where is the 'tin type' button anyhow on this camera, is there a filter in foto-sharp for that?

Though you still need to add a few "touches"
http://www.niksoftware.com/addons/index.php/presets/index/tin-type-sep2

Thus you prove my point, those look just like very sharp, processed fauxtographs–they are really false looking quite horribly so.

You guys are just no fun at all. You should see the originals printed on MOAB slickRock. Fun indeed.

You need to see a few in person before you can create something that looks even slightly real how do they feel n the hand?

Do you mean real as Roger99 describes below? You did ask if a plug-in existed and I did say version 3 may get better.

My point is 'why do people do this"?

For the enjoyment just as when I try to play the piano (you do not want to hearthat )

awful beyond reason....

That's exactly the same problem many here have with the OP's example. It really is a subjective thing after all. How are you with remakes of the old classic blues songs

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mark Smith, May 12, 2012

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

I really see his intend as simply to reproduce a look that was common to a specific medium.....and much less a focus on the subject, IMO. Great the everyone sees things differently.

You need to understand how this was made to have an idea of the challenges of the image maker.

You assume he was challenged. Tintype was all about being fast, affordable for the masses, and easy to produce. Polaroid of the day. Why make it harder than intended. I can see if it's a first time thing...you have to learn I suppose. Like the Cartoon Portrait with chalk at Sixflags. It is still art and very worth appreciating just as modern tintype is.

This is a process that was made on small 3x2 inch precoated metal plates which were stacked in a camera then exposed then pushed mechanically into a monobath (dev and fix together) in a box below the camera where they were developed automatically coming out a shoot in a few minutes—an 1880 instant photo.

We know.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ZorSy
Senior MemberPosts: 2,941Gear list
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mark Smith, May 12, 2012

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

I really see his intend as simply to reproduce a look that was common to a specific medium.....and much less a focus on the subject, IMO. Great the everyone sees things differently.

You need to understand how this was made to have an idea of the challenges of the image maker.

This is a process that was made on small 3x2 inch precoated metal plates which were stacked in a camera then exposed then pushed mechanically into a monobath (dev and fix together) in a box below the camera where they were developed automatically coming out a shoot in a few minutes—an 1880 instant photo.

But many seem to be more impressed with technology and craftsmanship needed to do photography in those days, somewhat frowning upon "simplicity" of digital and therefore undervaluing results it produces just from that standpoint.

Some 35 odd years ago, I used to go "in field" with "portable lab", basically not so large light sealed box with two cut-outs and sleeves made of dense fabric, allowing me to load 120 film after exposure in the container, develop film, dry it and make contact copies in the same box -this would provide me "instant review" of shots to finalise the job. Though it may sound impressive, back then it was the only way to get "instant" response using the same camera/lens/film as in the final product. Early polaroids were expensive and could only provide sort of feedback (I had no dedicated polaroid back nor funds to justify the purchase as it did not completely work in desired way). Yet, that was technology then and was very challenging as well. Did I welcome histogram and review LCD at the back? You bet I did - though for me it came late, after I change the occupation.

This discussion confuses admiration for craftsmanship to use some ancient means to get job done with/against artistic values of the final product. Looking at the "sample" photo submitted by the OP and comments about captivating "look in her eyes" are just nostalgic attempt to add value on almost standard portrait from those times where subject would have to remain still for extended period of time, compared to today standards. She may have interesting and somewhat unusual facial features compared to today "model standards" we are used to (and looks very bored by the process itself), pretty much as women from 1920's may have "something" lost in today's women - but does that make their portraits more "artistic, valuable and better "?

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,870Gear list
Like?
What's wrong with YOUR photography is discipline....
In reply to TRIODEROB, May 12, 2012

TRIODEROB wrote:

spent about 2 hours at the san diego "Museum of Photographic Arts"

Spend some more time. You haven't learned the things you need to learn.

it dawned on me what is wrong with digital photography

Generally, when a person at your point in your spiritual growth identified something that is wrong with something other than themselves, they're really identifying something wrong with themselves.

The bigger the thing they spot the flaws in, the more likely it is to be their own shortcomings that they've identified.

its too clean and perfect

That's not a shortcoming. You can start with the "clean and perfect" and make anything you want from it. Match that old civil war shot, in a snap. Having a vision, and using one's tools effectively to realize that vision, is accomplished through discipline and experience.

Not being able to realize that vision, and needing to have a style (like the civil war era tonality) or a methodology (like the people talking about how mechanical, medium format cameras "force them to slow down") imposed on one from outside is simply a failure in one's discipline, a failure as an artist and a creative being.

Ironically, the shot that you keep posting as an example proves this totally.

The earrings in that shot are totally out of place: this blows the whole period feel. I know, she's your kid, and therefore, beautiful in your eyes, but as a work of art, that picture totally lacks integrity. That was due to a failure in the artist's discipline. They didn't check "continuity", didn't realize the vision of a civil war era print, they just set up a civil war era machine and let it impose some (but not enough) elements of civil war style on the shot.

looking at the images that were made with silver film and wet lab

An 8x10 contact print is even more "clean and perfect" than anything you could ever get from current digital.

So, you haven't identified something wrong with digital, at all, have you, Rob?

had a depth and impact. no need to pixel peep. no need to judge on a technical level. all that matters is that the image speaks to you. there is a " visceral impact."

Like the example you keep posting. It "speaks", it says "I forgot something important. I have a lack of discipline."

there is also a dynamic range on the color negative film that seems better to me.

Well, we're already proved that many things that "seem" something to you are quite wrong.

Probably why more and more of your posts are being deleted as trolling. You have noticed that, haven't you?

here is an example . I had a man tke this photo of my kid with a civil war view camera and wet lab. scanned it and it has lost some impact but i think you can see my point

Nope. I see the errors of your point. But getting you to see them may be a lost battle, I'm afraid.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot S400 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X +38 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 21,183
Like?
no you don't, you're blinded by your own misconceptions
In reply to TRIODEROB, May 12, 2012

The issue of digital photography is that it can be too "perfect". Always able to change to a higher ISO to avoid capturing motion; however, removing the imperfections from image capture has helped make digital photography seem bland and ordinary. Because it's more how our eyes see the world instead of through the restrictions associated with film photography (mis focusing and motion blur for instance)

What if someone made a digital photo (through photoshop) look like that horrid photo the OP posted? Would you still feel it has more depth and feeling??

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Faintandfuzzy
Senior MemberPosts: 3,327Gear list
Like?
Agreed...and this is easy!
In reply to Mark Smith, May 12, 2012

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Where is the 'tin type' button anyhow on this camera, is there a filter in foto-sharp for that?

Though you still need to add a few "touches"
http://www.niksoftware.com/addons/index.php/presets/index/tin-type-sep2

Thus you prove my point, those look just like very sharp, processed fauxtographs–they are really false looking quite horribly so.

You need to see a few in person before you can create something that looks even slightly real how do they feel n the hand?

My point is 'why do people do this"?

Last term I had a student ask what setting on her camera would give results like this? She handed me an image from a magazine take by George Hurrell of a 1930's movie star.

Your post just proves to me how mediocrity and the push a button to get great images generation need to think about why they want fauxtography instead of mimicry though software why not make something of value.
awful beyond reason....

The sample given does not look like a tintype at all...nothing like one. It doesn't exhibit any qualities of the lenses of the period, nor any 4x5 lenses I see now. It doesn't look anything like a handcoated plate.

This is very easy. Ignoring the comments of Scott Eaton, who was trying to turn this into a film vs digital (which it isn't), if the fauxtography was as valuable as the real thing, then a poster of an Ansel Adams photograph would have the same value as the real silver print...and a fake tintype image in photoshop would have the same value to a buyer as the eal thing.

As we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they don't have the same value....som of these people need to ask themselves why.

Me...I don't care. I'm making money off of creating them. Let the fauxtographers play around in Photoshop thinking they create the same vale....we know the truth.

 Faintandfuzzy's gear list:Faintandfuzzy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Olympus E-10 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
Edit
In reply to Faintandfuzzy, May 12, 2012

Faintandfuzzy wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Where is the 'tin type' button anyhow on this camera, is there a filter in foto-sharp for that?

Though you still need to add a few "touches"
http://www.niksoftware.com/addons/index.php/presets/index/tin-type-sep2

Thus you prove my point, those look just like very sharp, processed fauxtographs–they are really false looking quite horribly so.

You need to see a few in person before you can create something that looks even slightly real how do they feel n the hand?

My point is 'why do people do this"?

Last term I had a student ask what setting on her camera would give results like this? She handed me an image from a magazine take by George Hurrell of a 1930's movie star.

Your post just proves to me how mediocrity and the push a button to get great images generation need to think about why they want fauxtography instead of mimicry though software why not make something of value.
awful beyond reason....

The sample given does not look like a tintype at all...nothing like one. It doesn't exhibit any qualities of the lenses of the period, nor any 4x5 lenses I see now. It doesn't look anything like a handcoated plate.

Where is your example...it looks far better, IMO, than the OP's.

More examples, obviously without seeing these in person up close, you can't tell from on a computer screen if they are real or not. Why I simply pointed to what a plug-in can do as that was what was asked.

As we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they don't have the same value....som of these people need to ask themselves why.

I doubt that and I know my shadows

Me...I don't care.

That, I think, we can certainly agree on.....the FF APS-C thing though, A different story

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
oops wrong examples
In reply to Faintandfuzzy, May 12, 2012

oops sorry, meant these examples

More like the OP's in terms of just enjoyable to look at.

This is how it should be done

Best yet IMO

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Smith
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,587Gear list
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mako2011, May 12, 2012

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

I really see his intend as simply to reproduce a look that was common to a specific medium.....and much less a focus on the subject, IMO. Great the everyone sees things differently.

You need to understand how this was made to have an idea of the challenges of the image maker.

You assume he was challenged.

I didn't say that, I said the challenges that face the image maker that is the process, not that he was challenged or found his work challenging-there is a difference.

Tintype was all about being fast, affordable for the masses, and easy to produce. Polaroid of the day. Why make it harder than intended. I can see if it's a first time thing...you have to learn I suppose. Like the Cartoon Portrait with chalk at Sixflags. It is still art and very worth appreciating just as modern tintype is.

Absolutely I'm glad you're starting to get it at last, modern tin type is art because it it a physical thing of beauty (unlike the cheesy faux tin types you posted)

This is a process that was made on small 3x2 inch precoated metal plates which were stacked in a camera then exposed then pushed mechanically into a monobath (dev and fix together) in a box below the camera where they were developed automatically coming out a shoot in a few minutes—an 1880 instant photo.

We know.

As from today you do! before that no you didn't.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Smith
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,587Gear list
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to ZorSy, May 12, 2012

ZorSy wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

I really see his intend as simply to reproduce a look that was common to a specific medium.....and much less a focus on the subject, IMO. Great the everyone sees things differently.

You need to understand how this was made to have an idea of the challenges of the image maker.

This is a process that was made on small 3x2 inch precoated metal plates which were stacked in a camera then exposed then pushed mechanically into a monobath (dev and fix together) in a box below the camera where they were developed automatically coming out a shoot in a few minutes—an 1880 instant photo.

But many seem to be more impressed with technology and craftsmanship needed to do photography in those days, somewhat frowning upon "simplicity" of digital and therefore undervaluing results it produces just from that standpoint.

Not at all! I was just explaining tin type was the 'photo me' booth of the day not a quality product, something Mako was unaware of until today.
I have posted links to Carl Radfords work which I admire.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mark Smith, May 12, 2012

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

I really see his intend as simply to reproduce a look that was common to a specific medium.....and much less a focus on the subject, IMO. Great the everyone sees things differently.

You need to understand how this was made to have an idea of the challenges of the image maker.

You assume he was challenged.

I didn't say that, I said the challenges that face the image maker that is the process, not that he was challenged or found his work challenging-there is a difference.

Very true...I read that one completely wrong. I hate text only communications a lot

Tintype was all about being fast, affordable for the masses, and easy to produce. Polaroid of the day. Why make it harder than intended. I can see if it's a first time thing...you have to learn I suppose. Like the Cartoon Portrait with chalk at Sixflags. It is still art and very worth appreciating just as modern tintype is.

Absolutely I'm glad you're starting to get it at last, modern tin type is art because it it a physical thing of beauty

Can Be...but not always is.

(unlike the cheesy faux tin types you posted)

Not in the eyes of the original creator I think. They put much effort into it.

As from today you do! before that no you didn't.

Learning is why I'm here

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 14,340
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mark Smith, May 12, 2012

Mark Smith wrote:

I was just explaining tin type was the 'photo me' booth of the day not a quality product, something Mako was unaware of until today.

I think that's why Barrie Davis made his points as the OP's example seems far from one of the quality products I now am very very slightly better able to recognize. You can't just worry about the "process" and put little effort into composition and such...it will show.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Smith
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,587Gear list
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mako2011, May 12, 2012

Mako2011 wrote:

Mark Smith wrote:

I was just explaining tin type was the 'photo me' booth of the day not a quality product, something Mako was unaware of until today.

I think that's why Barrie Davis made his points as the OP's example seems far from one of the quality products I now am very very slightly better able to recognize. You can't just worry about the "process" and put little effort into composition and such...it will show.

Sheesh Mako there isn't a FACEPALM big enough!
boy oh boy I'm outta here

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Smith
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,587Gear list
Like?
Re: And?
In reply to Mako2011, May 12, 2012

Mako2011 wrote:

(unlike the cheesy faux tin types you posted)

Not in the eyes of the original creator I think. They put much effort into it.

Er no not even close a tin type is a physical thing, it's a f*c*^^ing picture on a flat bit of metal, it doesn't matter what the pathetic stupid moronic idiot who created those 'thinks' the are NOT tin types or even close.

This place is useless for discourse of any sort.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads