PDA

View Full Version : Old vs New


Nabhar
3rd August 2012, 04:12 PM
I personnally think that he should have gone even further and made wet-plate. Interesting project though.


http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/31/olympic-athletes-photographed-using-a-field-camera-and-100-year-old-lens/

Lostlabours
3rd August 2012, 05:53 PM
Well the lens is more than 100 years old more like 140 and why are there dodgy processing artefacts like that with film, they don't exist like that on most images made in the 1860's and 70's. Seems to be deliberate trickery and very fake.

Interesting though as I bought a similar lens last Sunday for £20 :D Just need to decide which camera to make a lens-board for to use it, oh and some Waterhouse stops :).

Ian

Alan Clark
3rd August 2012, 06:29 PM
It says he used paper instead of film. But ,I agree, why should there be processing marks?
It also says there was a big difference between the old and the new. There was bound to be, since one set of prints were black and white, and the other colour!

Alan

big paul
3rd August 2012, 07:44 PM
ye olde worldie b.m.xie

Nabhar
3rd August 2012, 10:12 PM
I was quite struck by the fact that next to none of the comments mentions the lens used on the 4x5, which I think, is the crux of the comparison.
I know film photography is ''passez'' among many ''modern'' photographers, and I don't regard myself as being any kind of expert in the field, but after reading through the comments, quite how far the ignorance of film techniques and equipment has become has really shocked me.

I thank fadu for my blessed ignorance of the ignorance abroad. ;)

Kat Barnett
5th August 2012, 01:00 AM
(Technical aspects aside), what do you think of the subjects/ composition of the black and white photographs? Sorry to be mean about somebody else's work but, for me, the archer doesn't work so well.

Terry S
5th August 2012, 01:21 PM
The link and article has done some good, for like Ian, I too have now been looking at some really old lenses to maybe buy and use one on my (home-made = by someone else) 5 x 4 camera, with some paper negatives. I think the tones are really good, as most of my previous efforts done like this, are more soot and whitewash. I wonder if he pre-flashed the paper? I also love the swirly background in the pictures that the old lens gives!

As for the marks on the negs and then prints, it could be a number of reasons. As said, could they have been added on purpose for effect or maybe the photographer is long out of practice in the darkroom side of things? It would also have been good if they had been contact printed rather than just scanned and inverted in a computer.

Overall and I know I'm a bit biased, but I much prefer the look of the b/w prints. The colour pictures are just a little too perfect and clean in their look, but that's what we get with all this new technology I suppose.

I also have to agree and say that out of all of the b/w prints, the archer is also the weakest one for me to. From first to third, I like the boxer (although the white of the eyes look a little bleached out for me but I do love the short focus), the cyclist (for the swirly background) and in third, the two badminton players (for the way that they are looking through their rackets).

Great article though and one that may encourage some of the papers readers to give the darkside a try.

Terry S