40s Dodge

Thanks for the links, Michael. I think the examples there pretty much explain what we are looking at - including the sky, if we consider that IR + Bromide should pretty much resemble what we see here, based on the skies I saw in the pictures proposed on that web site.

The more I look, the less I think any Photoshop was involved. Had PS been involved, no major issue with me anyway. I just regret to read all these suspicious posts. Is that really the way artistic attempts should be questionned ? If the photographer doesn't wish to give the details of his techniques, I can understand that too. Nobody owes us all his secrets. End of the day, I love the effect created for this picture, and it is at least clear that a fair amount of skills have contributed to the success of the process. Conclusion: beautifully done, Michael.

It's not a matter of being suspicious. It's not a matter of judging

the value of the image based on what techniques were used,

although there are other images on this site where I think that

becomes more of an issue. There have been specific

references made here to three different pre- and / or post

processes, and I'm simply trying to figure out which techniques

are responsible for which effects.

 

Some poeple are interested only in how they feel about the

image. Impact is essential, but I can't understand why anyone

who takes pictures themselves would have no interest in how an

image is created. I also can't understand why someone would

be reluctant to discuss what they've done. We have all seen

cases where photographers have lied through their teeth about

what they saw and what we're looking at. I'm not saying that's

the case here. Perhaps the point is that it's unfortunate that

there have been so many cases of deception that the possibility

arises even when it's not warranted.

 

I'm also influenced by my own profession where my ability to

make a good living is the direct result of the previous

generation's willingness to share what used to be considered

trade secrets. The standards of the profession is now a lot

higher and every one is better off as a result.

How did deception ever get to be an issue? The man uploads a photo, it gets PoW, and suddenly he is under attack. It's a tired and tiring scenario.

Maybe you missed the other image in his folder which was

discussed earlier. Either the car itself - or the entire image, I'm

still not sure which - was reversed. Was it a clone off this car in

this image? Responses have been, well, cryptic.

 

If you don't care about authenticity, that's your right. If I want to

inquire about what I'm looking at, that's my right. I'm not entitled

to an answer. . . . . Stalemate.

The Salt Lake City image has a clone of this car. As stated above, the car was flipped in Salt Lake City by request of the distributor.

OK.

 

So the cloud 'overlap' in this image is the result of IR film, not PS.

(just a question, not a value judgement). I'm also curious about

the hard white line just below it and to the left.

Carl, I have missed neither the other photo nor the discussion, nor am I indifferent to questions of "authenticity." It is simply that, in this case, phrases referring to "cryptic" responses suggest that the photographer has something to hide. I frankly doubt that, but I respect you and your work too much to want to make this into a dispute between you and me.

 

I, too, would like to know as much as possible about how the photo was done, but it would not affect my judgment as to the merits of the photograph, which I believe can and must stand on its own.

Please bear in mind that my comment was made some time ago when I happened onto the photo and before the details of the effect and how it was achieved were discussed.

As an illustration of what a bromoil transfer is, and how it can be achieved, I certainly find no fault, nor with the execution; nor do I care whit whether photoshop was used to flip the image or whatever.

My point was, that the dominant theme of the piece is that "it looks like a charcoal sketch". Now while charcoal sketch can be a viable medium, I do not see that achievement of that effect per se adds merit to a photograph. In particular, I do not see it enhancing this photograph. In this case, the effect dominates and detracts from the other merits I and others have mentioned by focusing the attention of the viewer on the effect.

Having said/written that, I do acknowledge that it does visually date the the photo to match the car, which appears to be one of Michael's objectives, but don't think that positive outweighs the negative.

(As an aside, check this out for an example of exposure effect is used to "date" a photo.)

In general, one wonders why so many photographers make so much effort and use so many techniques (gratuitous toning, cross processing, add your own list,...) to make their photographs not look like photographs. In this vein, "it looks so painterly" is commonly used as a compliment to a photograph. Why? What is wrong with photographs?

End of minor rant, and apologies to Michael for using your photograph as a platform (especially in perspective of your comments subsequent to mine). I do (as previously mentioned) see a lot of merit in the underlying photo, and agree with Marc that it probably took considerable skill to execute the effect even tho I don't like the effect.

To quote the original response as to "why" this image was chosen as a POW: "... and in a way, managed to bring back the flavor of years gone by...."

I understand people want to know how the image was made so perhaps they can make something similar. However, it would be nice if we could discuss the content, context and meaning of the image too.

This obsession with technique is like the old anecdote about the guy who asked Robert Frank what camera he used on his book "The Americans."

Frank's reply to the startled man was "What *^&&^%@* difference does it make?"

I'm guilty of being too technically obsessed as well, but let's try and think first about the communication of the image before we start taking it apart technically.

I suspect that this POW commits a fundamental anachronism in putting together subject, composition and technique as it does. Bromoil is a great half-forgotten printing technique, well summarized in previous contributions here, but it belongs to the age of "pictorialism" in photography (of which, actually, it is a very late manifestation). An age in which photography had not yet fully estabished itself as an autonomous artistic medium, and it was regarded as desirable for it to imitate more established media (painting, charcoal sketching and the like). Starting from the 1920s or so, people like Weston, White and Adams, not to cite the Europeans, deliberately upset this picture, and by the 1940s-1950s photography had developed its own language and had taken its autonomous place among other fine arts (besides being a general-purpose information-carrying medium). The subject of the POW clearly belongs to the 1950s or so, and explicitly evokes the feeling of that period. Bromoil belongs to many decades before - not a great span of time, perhaps, but in the XX century, and with WW2 in between, a cultural chasm. Thus I wouldn't say that this POW is "moody" or "evocative"; actually it points to 1910-1920 in the technique, to 1950 in the subject and to the present days in the digital manipulation and in the fact itself of being on the web. Nothing wrong in this, of course, just eclectism, or synchretism, or whatever term is most appropriate - but it is better to be fully conscious of these aspects.

That was well stated with the exception that you failed to mention Walker Evans in your list of anti-pictorial photographers.

Don't go riding your bicyles to see the countryside, boys and girls. You'll be committing an anachronism, or maybe your bicycle will. And, PLEEEZ, no pinhole camera shots of ANYTHING.

 

Ah, the dangers of a misplaced historicism. . . .

Bromoil is alive and well by lots of recent practioners. Ironically, the last of the American pictorialists and master of Bromoil was William Mortensen, who often composited negatives to make complex (and somewhat heavy handed) photo realistic "photo illustrations." Of course he was crucified by the likes of Weston and Adams, and written out of academic photographic history. But in the '90s when Photoshoppers began making allegorical photo illustrations, guess who was "rediscovered" as a precedent setter? Yup. Mr. Mortensen. I'm sure Adams is still spinning in his grave....

I don't know nuthun' bout pictur taken, but.. I love this picture of the old Dodge. I had a yellow 48 Dodge convertable it was just three years old and I was just seventeen. It brings back nice memories seeing that square egg-crate grille again. Thanks for the memory.

Bob

This and many of your other photos have a tinge of addictive gloom. Almost "twilight zonish"...

 

Keep it up. I can't wait to see more.

 

Jonathan

I am seriously considering a revisit to this style of photography. The

series of shots will be specifically for children's book

illustrations. Before I do, I thought it would be worthwhile to hear

your suggestions or thoughts.

 

Thanks in advance for your response. I intend to post the resulting

shots here as well.