900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail

modern may mean low efficiency in a awkward way to imitate the nature.

i think this is more science than art

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-03-08-Science_Wonder_Art.jpg

the only thing incredible and interesting about these photos are the resolution and the technology used.
the painstaking process is the only ART part behind these pics,the pics itself is NOT.
the photographer (not an artist but a commercial photographer who makes hirez copy of other artist´s works , for a living, yes , that´s what he does with his equipment). neither is he pretending to be an artist himself, nor presenting these pics as art.
he merely was playing with his equipment when making these pics.equipment which nobody except him uses.

nothing to do with the kind of mordern art or paintings you are suggesting...he was merely copying Andew Zuckermann´s work and failed miserably in setting the lighing properly, that´s all

Q1. has anyone ever heard of him before DPR wrote this article about the technic oriented work behind these mugshots?

Q2. the ART expersts here,would you all have given a second look to any of those mug shots if it came up on a google search for portraits?

i dont think so....

so,there you go ..art my A**

"If a person were to walk out on stage at Carnegie Hall and throw up, you can be certain that one person there would call it art."
Woody Allen

"Merda d'artista"

Piero Manzoni filled up 90 cans with poop and if it became famous as art .
kudos to mordern day ART....
not my cup of tea.

Stuffed moose head = art

Skull painted on the door of your car = art

Sidney opera house NOT art

Great!

unfortunately,you too seem to be living in that bubble i mentioned .
once again ,it´s not the work or the technology involved which i am ranting about,
it´s the waste of those recource in this case, the result is so mediocre in a in photographic sense,neither is it anywhere near to be considered art.

not one bit ,on the conterary what makes me uncomfortable is how simply some of you guys are impressed by meadiocre stuff, may be it´s time to raise the bar so you can actually start enjoying real works of art.

all i am saying is, in capable hands , this technique can produce brillian enjoyable work, commercial or Artistic.

if you dont get what i mean, i feel sorry for you.

Fortunately you don't get to decide what art is for the rest of us. This work most assuredly is.

You find it risible because it's not portraying the subjects in a light (literally) that is flattering in the conventional "I'm a portrait photographer" sense.

I would as soon ask your advice on aesthetics as I would ask you for help with punctuation or grammar.

Can you articulate why you think this is not art without resorting to paraphrasing "I don't like it"?

well, unfortunately english is not my first language,actually it´s the 5th language i speak, it makes me the master of none, i admit , and last time i checked ,login in to DPR dosent require a master´s degree in english, like you believe everyone here should have ;-).so pardon me for the mistakes.

have you read my reasoning, or is it diffcult to understand , cos of my bad english?

well,in that case i´d better leave it for you to explain , why this is ART for you, as you seem to be the one who get´s it,
please feel free to `enlighten me´.

by the way, not even the photographer calls it art in any way, neither is he capable of it, he´s just a repro photographer, the ones who make high rez reproductions of other people´s work. if you think his gallery shows brilliant work, is cos he just presented some one else´s ART work on his site. (except 9 portraits & 2 specimen )
there you go, please enlighten me why would you consider these medeocre portraits as works of art.

good day

Ken, I am not going to reiterate completely my points made earlier in the comments section. In short, you are extending your rather narrow preferences and personal dismissals into a categorical judgement of merit; to say something isn't art, with really only assumptive qualifications as to why we may see it as art, is both arrogant and disrespectful of the diverse perspectives provided by other photographers. Being so cocksure is usually not a sign of careful consideration. And I wouldn't mind this if you kept it in the realm of your preference, but you don't with claims that others are elitist or misguided in seeing more; in considering the work at more depth than bad lighting and unflattering, unpleasing aesthetic results. Pardon me (and my elitism) in saying that a decade as a professor of photography might equip me with a slightly better body of knowledge to determine the potential boundaries of art. Even given my position, I'd never be so cocksure in assigning such boundaries as you are.

Perhaps we could begin by looking at this work as a set of unusual images that might stimulate an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas.

Perhaps the artist is making a point that simply trying to produce as you put it in another post "a flattering portrait to hang in the bedroom" is not interesting, it's not unusual, it's formulaic, it tells you nothing about the human condition, it conforms to rather than challenges your beliefs.

By making available images which have an astonishing level of detail one can perhaps look more deeply at some aspects of our surface that we can examine every day, but in so much greater detail that it is disconcerting to the viewer.

Disorienting, challenging. Why is it important that a portrait be flattering? These are not pictures taken for the sitter to hang in their homes. These are pictures for everyone to contemplate.

No they are not pretty or flattering. But they are extremely interesting. That is why they are art. Why am I wrong?

to Craig,
because ,none of those emotions you mention is present in those photos, unfortunately, except the uneasy look from sitting too long without moving.

the artist isnt even making any statement as you are imagining,nor is he claiming to be art. that´s the funny part.he just wants some fun with his equipment , that´s all.

if all one needs was to show the skin pore, there are better and quicker ways to get better results.
what i am saying is, this aint even artisticaly interesting ,nor is it comercially compelling( as portraits), so what remains? some badly made hi rez mug shots.
you like it? , be my guest keep looking at it.
craig it´s not me who´s telling anyone not to like, it, it´s you telling me to like something which i dont think is worth it.
remember ,it´s you who is commenting on my openion, so, why not eat your own words and shut up , if you think i have no right to comment on someone´s work, which i find medeocre.

you dont like it?by your own words, who cares?

so mr. prof.

so now you urself says it is bad lighting and unflattering, unpleasing aesthetic results.

if they were just presented with no explaination on how it was made,you´d not even have a second look at it.got my point?

i dont think so, you are really the narrow minded one here.trying to prove a donky is in fact a horse ,only because it looks similar , may work for you with your poor students, but i dont buy that shi**. not even from a Prof like you.

i am a pro fotog , and if i were to present this kind of crappy shots to my clients , i´ll be looking at an empty studio.and it dosent mean i dont enjoy good artistic work, that´s what i love about my profession.and oh, i do accept local studants as apprentices from time to time.
by the time they finish, every one , without exception , tells me, thankyou very much, we´ve learned so much about taking pictures than we learned in 2 years at the school, now we know why out teachers became teachers,and not photogs...

they are mere badly lit high rez mug shots, if that´s why they are art, good, as i said, poor students of yours.
i am even amazed that you are a lowely professor of photography and not the curator at Musée d'Orsay..

Oh, boy, Ken - this is becoming tedious. I don't doubt that as a professional commercial photographer you are successful, even with rather narrow thinking. Of course there are countless commercial photographers with very expansive thinking and a wide understanding of contemporary art photography and historical contexts. I also don't doubt that those who've studied with you have been appreciative of your services. I, too, am a professional art photographer; being that and a teacher are certainly not mutually exclusive. Not that it should matter, but my works are in major collections in the US and Mexico. Also you can see some of my work here, in my gallery. But this is beside the point.

You state, "so now you urself [sic] says it is bad lighting and unflattering, unpleasing aesthetic results". You fail to present the full context of that statement. And that underscores your lack of understanding. In art, aesthetics are in service of concepts. In other words, something need not observe normative expectations of beauty to be interesting, compelling, philosphically or psychologically resonant, etc., etc. - in (more) other words: good art. So, if a studemt presented such an aesthetic, I'd want to investigate concepts as to evaluate the effectiveness of that visual outcome.

Again, I'm not saying that you cannot have a negative opinion of this work But, it is to say that you shouldn't dismiss it as not being art on the simply grounds that it is unpleasing. Many artworks are unpleasing, because their objectives are elsewhere.

Just to demonstrate that some can see merit in bad lighting, etc. - essentially mug shots - you may wish to look at Chuck Close's "John" (1971-72); it sold for $4.8 million at auction in 2005. Now this is a meticulously rendered large scale painting by a major artist (so I am recognizing a contextual difference) and its not to endorse that amount per se as accurate indication of artistic value - that is partly a product of the - at times - exaggerated art market. But it is undoubtedly a very important work of art of the latter half of the twentieth century. This example is only given to demonstrate that the art world can certainly acknowledge and see value in aesthetics which might fail your conventional tests of acceptable appearing art.

man oh man, till now i was so blind as to whom i was talking to,but looking at your website, with those 2 blurry pics, of shoe sole or baseball skin (aint it that?) i just had a epiphany...
well , mr prof, i feel so stupid , wasting my time talking to a dumbbell like you.
i take my worrds back, that is , calling you an elitist ;-).

Manzoni´s poop art will suit you very much.. oh, that´s art too, and i know you´d enjoy eatin it too.
https://www.artsjournal.com/artopia/2009/02/poop_art_manzoni_sono_buoni.html

what a waste of my time,,,, fortunately ,my vaccation is over, back to work,,,,

Say what you will, Ken. I'm fine with you having a low regard for me and my work. I'll be okay without your endorsement.

It is alas not profitable to continue once your opponents intellectual armoury is depleted to the point of exclusively using argumentum ad hominem. Unfortunately to descend so quickly from proof-by-repeated-assertion, appeal to authority and then straight to ad-hominem is a little disappointing, I was hoping at least for a couple of straw men along the way.

I am nevertheless grateful to have found Ken, for a compass that always points 180 degrees in the wrong direction is just as useful, and certainly more amusing, than one which only sometimes points true.

Henceforth on all matters of artistic merit, good taste and common decency Ken shall be my broken compass. I shall orient myself, assured in the knowledge that the answers I seek are in the opposite direction to that which he faces.

Thank you, Craig. Should we ever disagree, as men/women may and feel comfortable in doing so, I trust that you will never suggest that I would enjoy eating poo.

If there was any question that, whatever the author intended, these works constitute art, I believe that Ken's reaction to them has established beyond any doubt that they are.

Craig,
sorry for not being up to your expectations,
i was in no mood for a conversation with a guy living in that imaginary bubble anyway.
by the way, what i meant was, if that poo got considered as art , it´s cos narrow minded people like you exists , who let these meaningless stuff become considered as ART.

not every one are intellectually in the same level, (that´s what you think of the lesser ones), but not everyone who prides in his intellectual capacity feels comfortable out of that bubble they live either. i can imagine you as a lonely person, trying to spend your free time with normal people but fail to find anyone around who is interested in you.
why else would somebody like you waste your time on a forum full of gear heads and not the ones frequented by those from Yales.?
just a thought.
by the way, i never invited you for a conversation, nor am i here for tea with guys like you who seem to think DPR is place for intellectual chit chat.

this is life for 99% of the worlds population, you seem to be enjoying picking up on someone cos he or she dosent share your views or openion , you seem to enjoy crushing your (opponent?is that what you think?) , a certain definite sadismus seem to accompany your words, and you know why you dont have any friends, cos you seem to think of (Profit - as you mentioned) even in a conversation with a stranger,

you talk about intolerance from my part but fail to tolerate my (ignorance- as you say) yourself.
i find it ironic. i never thought ,you, someone who prides in intellectual capacity like yours ,to be that selfish .
pride is a bit´**h. aint it?

by the way, broken compass or not, once in a while try going in the direction a broken compass like me shows,dont be afraid of some adventure in life Craig, there are somethings , beautiful outside that bubble, it might not be smooth, but where is the fun if you dont try.open your mind ,venture it,you wont regret it..
cheers, and bye

ya, so sad , i belong to the undesirable 99% of the worlds population. i agree , misolo.. sorry , am having my lunch, can we talk later over tea, i´ll be free from 4 to 4:30. see you then..

oh, pardon my ignorance then. ,but you need to know why, before you too start assuming stuff.

all i said was,he could have done those pics better, and by not knowing the basics of studio photography he simply wasted the resources and time,what we see are simply badly made mug shots. that´s all i said in the first place.
it was just an openion from a commercial photographer,it was simply an openion.

then comes someone along with all the BS about what he thinks ART is,who the f**k cares?, i started replying to those who made personal remarks to my views on art not coinciding with their´s.

one called me and everyone Ass+++les , that´s where i blew it. couple of them were hell bound on educating me ;oh, well, i believe , DPR is still a gearhead forum and i know it´s disappointing to you, but if intellectual chit chat is what you expect from everyone here, then , i believe you got in the wrong room mate.

i never told anyone not to like those crappy photos, it´s people telling me to like it cos they think a badly made pic is ART.

that poop junk i mentioned too is considered art by people like you, read that article first and then let´s talk if you disagree to consider it as art .
have a nice day :-))

Of what service to the project would pretty (female) faces be? It might be rewarding to meet the work its terms. That is not to say that you are required to like it, or feel wrong in criticizing it - not at all. But so many terse cocksure dismissals from some members here; dismissals couched only in individual aesthetic expectation, with no attempts to bother considering the forensic appearances as extant from concept.

On the artistic level I agree. I have not looked into the details of the 900MP photo. But, if it gives the detail of 24MP for each of the stitched parts, then there is no comparison with 4x5" nor 8x10". With increase of size their resolution decreases, both in the glass and in the film. Then with increase of size focal length increases and DOF decreases, meaning you have to stop down - generally you shoot between f/22 and f/64 depending on size. This means you lose sharpness.
What you gain with the size is colour saturation and gradation. Effortless saturation of velvety naturalness.
And then the ~perfect Gaussian lenses without colour fringing. Remember the 8x10" Ektachrome pro or Cibachrome on your 5000K light tray with the 8x loupe?
Those were the days.
In portraits, you may not want the facial down hair to become visible - which you already get with FF 24x36 24MP and 85mm in a single shot.
Now if I were into forensics ...

Hi,

A 10 x 8 neg would not resolve fine detail to this level, the grain would get pretty big if you enlarged a print to the point where a pupil is 6 inches across. Maybe the 20 x 24 Polaroid?

I think it's a brilliant use of technology, great faces, sure the lighting is a bit medical, but probably given the capture technique you need a fairly flat source to make the stitching less painful. And that's what I want to know. How the hell did he stitch these together? Software I guess. Anyway, amazing.

Jonathan

p.s. As an aside to all the tyre-kickers on here (I don't mean you OP); you make this site exponentially less pleasant to visit. You are quick to criticise, slow to praise, whiny about prices, super-picky about looks, features, brands, pixels, etc etc. If you are such experts on literally everything, why are you here? Cameras don't take photos mate. If you own a Ferrari, does that make you a better driver? Please, jog on.

Quite right, there is a difference between "getting it" and liking it. There is also a difference between not liking it and dismissing it with terms like "crap", "pointless", etc. - deciding with unbending certainty that such work has no merit. Quite a few here have decided to take the latter of the latter route.

Not sure what there is to "get" here, especially since there is little difference between what one can do with this ridiculously limited (static subject only) panorama technique, and scanning the output of a fantastically more useful 8x10 or 11x14 view camera setup with great lens. Where you could, what an innovation, actually take the 11x14 view camera photo at a single point in time.

The main technical inspiration for this photographer's project seems to be that the photographer knows little about photography equipment.

Next project: this photographer will figure out a way pioneer into the history and aesthetics of photography, and take photos by artificial light--brilliantly using the illumination from 900 iPhones.

to all those who `Gets it´ , good for ya,, enjoy the details of human face hair, but to me , i dont get it, cos the results are worth dismissing with terms like crap and junk.
and this has nothing to do with history or understandin of photography or anything ,,, it´s just a machine snapping up 600 photos as programmed, and the person who is operating it failed in providing the most important aspects of a good photo,The SUBJECT & LIGHTING ,they are.
no , i do admire the effort though, no question about it.kudos to all who spent their time and energy ,it´s the result ,which as a photographer myself, which lets my enthusiasn down.
it´s just that, i dont think you can create something interesting when you are neither talented nor skilled to do it.

that´s all i am saying, i dont give a damn whether couple of elitists get´s it or not.sorry,i dont live in that bubble,i live in a world of reality...where results should speak louder than the effort itself in order to get some recognition ....

ever wondered what kind of dumb beings we humans have become,while watching those record breaking gigantic cookie or burger making efforts? , , this is the photographic equvalent of those silly efforts.
why?, cos i see a few photos which are not one bit aestheticaly pleasing, or techincally acceptable.

one last time, all he has to do was to set the light in a pleasing way so as to make the pics look good, or atleast set the WB correctly,
no, he has no idea of how to do those basic stuff, all he wanted was to showoff his gear , with those mediocre results ,he failed to impress all except 3 elitists, who get´s it all ,and that´s all.
have fun guys,,

oh, by the way, i have no objection to the fact that this technique is useful in some instances, what i am saying is that this guy dosent know what he is doing or where to apply this techinque.that´s all

he sure knows how to use it though , i agree with ya on that .but
the way he is doin it, even a half blind grandma can !!;-))

@b craw

This is not art but simply face mapping.
This is the form without content, emotionless, story less, atmosphere less work produced to glorify technology and machines...