digital photos made to simulate other processes

<p>Hello.<br /> <br />I stopped to look at a painting in a gallery in the town in which I was raised yesterday, and, against my better judgment, was persuaded to enter to talk with a couple of guys who I was told were local photographers. One of the guys went on about himself and what he was doing currently, and showed me a photo on his mobile device, and indicated it was a tintype. <br />Of course, the mention of such a process piqued my curiosity. <br />Upon being asked a few questions, it was clear that he was not actually making tintypes. Our conversation revealed that, apparently, he was shooting digitally, and sending the files to a technician who did some photoshop stuff to make the images LOOK like tintypes. Sort of.<br /><br /><br /> Before I go on, please understand that I have no problem with the recognition of digital capture as a legitimate medium. That being said, I was offened. The more I talked with this guy, the more offended I became. Why? Read on, gentle photography enthusiast...<br /> <br />First, initially, he gave me the impression he was making tintypes; of course he had no idea that I was familiar with REAL tintypes. I think that, had I not queried him regarding the making of the same, he would not have come clean about his (or rather, his computer technician's) process.<br /> Second, making tintypes require skill and knowledge, neither of which I possess, but can appreciate. I was offended because i felt as though he was trying to pass them off as tintypes, even though they clearly were not. Even the selective focus, which is something seen in wet plate photography, was simulated. How do I know? Because, close to ending our conversation, I asked him if he at least was responsible for the selective focus indicated in the photos. He said he used a lens baby. Apparently, even the aged look, and the tattered edges of the images were digitally created.<br /><br />OK... so I was pissed because I got the impression that here I was, confronted with yet another...person... trying to make his work look like something it was not, only to find out that it was simulated, and that he didn't even do the simulation! To me, this is a slap in the face of true artisans who learn the craft and develop it in order to make art. OK, so maybe that makes me anal, an over the top bohemian, even a dweeb of sorts. So why waste energy on related the scenario?<br>

The subject matter was the homeless.<br>

For some reason, this really stuck in my craw.<br>

Oddly enough, he railed against the people who go to the city (Detroit, a truly devastated city) and capitalize on photographing the "ruins". Clearly, the analagous nature of his endeavor seemed not to register.<br /> Leave your thoughts if you will.</p>

<p>So did you like the resulting image, or not? My perspective comes down to that. </p>

<p>Well, I admit to not liking photos made to look like something they're not -- e.g. fake aging, fake tattered borders, fake spots and crinkles, etc. However, I'm not going to get angry about it. I just don't see the use in it. Of course that doesn't mean I won't use an occasional trick to invoke a "feeling" of antiquity grounded in the modern, such as partial desaturation of a photo:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phthereenactorssm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I very much love anachronisms such as these re-enactors present. Hopefully my photo looks modern, yet invoking a sense of antiquity. At least that's how I intended it.</p>

<p>I agree with David. I don't care how they got there, unless they tortured animals, I want to see how it looks. A rant about how it was made is more annoying than anything the photographer could do, other than torture small animals and children.</p>

<p>I don't have a problem with photographers using digital processes to emulate historic processes. I do, however, have a real problem with the photographer misrepresenting the work and saying it was a tintype. This is misleading at best. <br>

</p>

<p>What exactly did the photographer produce? Was it an image on metal or paper? Did the photographer use methods similar to the original tintypes? </p>

<p>Here is an article from Digital Photo Pro describing a photographer using digital to make tintypes. He uses the original chemicals to develop the image.</p>

<p>http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/wet-plate-digital.html</p>

<p>I appreciate your inner desire to protect, (stand in defense), of honesty, integrity, and true work.<br>

It seems that today there are many opportunities to be thusly offended. </p>

<p>Welcome to the matrix, where nothing is as it seems. It's all a facsimile. I'm sure there's a factory in China who will make you real tintypes if you send them the digital files. If there isn't one today, just wait until tomorrow.</p>

<p>I'm waiting for a large format photographer passing his work off as Instagrams. It has to come.</p>

<p>Nothing intrinsically wrong with either activity of course, as long as you subscribe to the notion that it's the final image that's<em><strong> all</strong> </em>that matters. A table from Ikea is just as good as one made by hand by a Swedish carpenter if you can't tell them apart. A copy of the Mona Lisa is just as good as the original if it's done well enough to fool the viewer. A poster of Adams' Half Dome may be as good as an original print - and it's a lot cheaper.</p>

<p>I have no problem w/ this, but clearly the gallery needs to inform it's customers that it's a digital process and not original tintypes. Does anyone other than artists or photographers even know what a tintype is these days? I doubt it.</p>

<p>I also don't have a problem (I suppose) with him making images that look like tintypes. But I do have a big problem with him saying it is a tintype when it isn't. </p>

<p>A few now have made the comment that they object to someone claiming an image on an iPhone is a tintype. Maybe I'm being a bit dense, but wouldn't it need to be printed on metal before anyone could actually believe him? I think I would have just laughed at the guy and said, "Silly, that's not a tintype. It's an iPhone!" Had he tried passing off an inkjet print onto aluminum as a tintype, then there might be something to get offended about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Silly, that's not a tintype. It's an iPhone!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> :-)<br>

I am really curious now, was the photo any good? </p>

<p>This notion of defending this art... you defend by upholding the practise itself. Not by feeling offended by somebody who did not use the technique but implies he did. That is not going to save a single thing. If you really would have cared deeply about the real art of tintype prints, you would have calmly explained him it wasn't quite the same, and offered him lessons to learn how to really do it. That preserves the art.<br>

Getting angry at people for something like this is quite useless, and in the end typically says more about you than it does about them.</p>

<p>A few years ago I saw an exhibit of photos where the photographer ("faux-tographer") had obviously just clicked on the Mosaic option in Photoshop. There were lots of "ooohs" and "aaaahs" but I just laughed to myself. For one thing, a giant photo of a flower is a photo of a flower is a photo of a flower. That's bad enough. But to resort to pre-loaded software patterns in order to create "art"?<br>

So, as Wouter says, I guess it says more about me for disliking this kind of thing. And that's fine because I also have come to despise all the rest of the fakery--grain, fake edges, etc. However, I do understand the psychological buttons these things push.<br>

In my field, music, there is debate amongst many string players about the merits of the antiquing of brand-new violins. Many makers refuse to make non-antiqued instruments because they feel the market won't support something that looks new. There is something so compelling about an old-looking instrument that it totally overrides the fact that we know it's just fakery. <br>

However, over the decades, instrument makers have improved the subtlety with which they antique their instruments--they don't ' just beat them up gratuitously and dip them in acid like they did in 1900. I think we're at the same phase in photography. </p>

<p>Hello, again.<br>

As far as the question being annoying, Jeff, you have every right to simply ignore the post completely. Why not comment on posts you find less annoying? I am sure someone would welcome your input. Attacking everything I post--and I so seldom post a question or comment these days-- is a very poor hobby, I think...</p>

<p>The photo was good...in my opinion. I do not question the photographers skill at making an image.<br>

A $20 poster of a Maxfiend Parrish image can look good. BUt I despise photographs being put on canvas to simulate a painting. Even good photographs. Again, this is my OPINION; I welcome yours, thus the original post.<br>

I simply wanted to get the thoughts of others on the subject. I think I would have been less put off if the homeless were not the subject. Enhancement of any kind, save for spotting and cropping, seems somehow less appropriate for representing the subject matter, in MY opinion. I wanted to solicity some of yours. I thought that was the purpose of the forum. <br>

I did not mean to discredit the photographer in any way. I come from a fine arts background. I remember being taught that materials are essential to the purpose at hand. For instance, I was made quite aware, by artists for whom I had respect, that the first drawing I ever sold would yellow and rot withing a few years. I did not realize newsprint, while wonderful for practicing drawing figurative gestures, was inappropriate to use to support a piece meant to be sold. <br>

Perhaps this is what drives my interest in the subject at hand.<br>

I am interested in knowing what others, who approach photography as an artisan might approach making a sculpture or painting, think about the subject. If it is something yoo cannot relate to, then feel free to refrain from contributing an answer. Please do not take offense... it just seems that some like to make a point of contributing a response, even though they don't understand the question, or think it is silly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By the way, I agree with Scott.<br>

And, yes, it does say quite a lot about me, I suppose, Wouter. I have been making art a long time, far longer without cameras than with. If that comment should get under my skin, I think you need a sharper knife. :)</p>

<p>Any way, I see this is devolving into the kind of pot shot slinging, I-don't-understand-the-question-or-have-a-legit-response-but-I-will-use-the-opportunity-to-make-smart-assed-remarks sessions that drove me away from photo.net a while ago. Thought things would have changed a bit. Apparently, only some of the names. No more for me. <br>

Peace.</p>

<p>A friend of mine bought a "Decisive Moment" app for his digital. I was wondering if anyone knows if I can get something similar for my Argus C-3?</p>

<p>I'm mad about PS plugins! Just go nuts with NIK and Topaz. None of<a href="http://www.panoramacamera.us/SKETCHBOOKFIVE-1.html"> these</a> are what they say they are.</p>

<p>About ten years ago I was all anal about authenticity too. I learned that ANYTHING you do to the image <em>informs</em> what you are trying to do or tell with the picture. That is all that counts. There are both decorative and illustrative issues that must be addressed. That is where the art lies.<br /> Whether you crafted something is another issue. It is not uncommon for production work to be phoned in<em>. </em>We assume the collaboration. The photographer plays the role of an art director.</p>

<p><br /> <em>Ceci n'est pas une pipe.</em> R. Magritte (painting)</p>

<p>I think that I, too, would have been a bit offended at being presented with an image on an iPhone and told that it was a tintype. But I feel the fault is as much with the level of intelligence of the general public as anywhere else. Saying an "image reminiscent of a tintype" or "approximating a tintype" is just too cumbersome for the American public. Too many words. Just call it a tintype. Who cares? And the public, most of whom have never heard the word tintype before, comes away with the belief that it is no more than the simulated look (or not) of an image rather than the actual object. And so our language morphs.<br>

Have you ever seen the term, "Freezer fresh" in food advertising? Same thing. I try not to get upset. I'm only hurting myself, and life's too short.</p>

<p>Unless the final image is on a metal plate that has been exposed directly in the camera - it can't possibly be a tintype. Tintypes were direct positives. A metal plate was lacquered black, a collodian emulsion was painted over the top of the black plate and exposed directly in the camera. Tintypes were popular because the photographer could produce the finished product in about 10 minutes start to finish. The were the low tech photo process popular at fairs, expositions, etc.</p>

<p>A digital image may be tintype "like" in aesthetics and look - but, it's hardly a tintype. Anyone claiming that their photograph is a tintype without it being a direct positive on a metal plate done in the camera is simply a fraud.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel the fault is as much with the level of intelligence of the general public as anywhere else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I know, it's so much better to be superior to the "general public."</p>

<p>"Had he tried passing off an inkjet print onto aluminum as a tintype, then there might be something to get offended about." How about some copper coated aluminum?</p>

<p>I can't tell the difference between diamonds and cubic zirconia. If someone sells me something and claims it is a diamond and six months later I find out it is cubic zirconia I like everyone else in this thread would be upset. Common sense doesn't go on vacation just because we are talking about photography.</p>

<p>My humble advice to artists is to use tools and materials that you are proud of. If someone wants a unique hand made darkroom print I charge accordingly. If they will settle for an inkjet print made from a negative scanned on a $130 consumer scanner then I give them a discount. I educate the consumer and let them decide what their pocketbook will bear. I don't sell art to feed myself. But I do take pride in what I do. I also think of every sale as an opportunity to pique the public's interest in photography. I show them there are multiple ways to get various results. When you put the results side by side and point out what to look for most people can tell which one is the high craftsmanship example. Even if they ultimately purchase the inkjet print they know if their ship ever comes in they can indulge in the wonderful fiber paper goodness of a wet darkroom print. And to complicate matters I like to show people the drum scanned Photoshopped print too.</p>

<p>Truth be told once you meet a certain minimum level of quality most people are happy with no need to know the details. But if you are going to advertise certain niche processes my advice is you better be doing those processes or disclosing they are merely simulations. This is Ethics 101.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If that comment should get under my skin, I think you need a sharper knife. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I feel no need to get under anybody else's skin, my own skin works just fine, thanks.</p>

<p>Yes, there is an ethics side to it - when you're selling it and asking big money because you claim to have used a process you did not use (which would also imply higher material cost). There is an ethics side to it when the artist claims to be good at specific process, or use of specific materials, while actually using a totally different means to come to seemingly equal results.<br>

Showing a photo on an iPhone in a casual conversation is something different, though. It's a quite different context. Nobody was selling off something in misleading terms, nor does it sound like the 'artist' was making explicit claims about his skills. But I guess making this distinction is "<em>I-don't-understand-the-question-or-have-a-legit-response-but-I-will-use-the-opportunity-to-make-smart-assed-remarks</em>" kind of reply. If so, I guess my knife is sharp enough after all.</p>

<p>The National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC currently has an exhibit pretty much on point with this discussion on the intersection between drawing and photography: http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/drawing/</p>