« I'll Be Back in Seven Minutes (Thanks to John Krumm) (OT) | Main | Thanks »

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Comments

The BBC article on this photo is cropped to a 35mm [4x6 snapshot] format.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33729714

To my eye the crop ruins the sense of spaciousness and composition of the original.

Why are people so afraid of square photos? Or alternatively, why are they so rigidly committed to a 3:2 35mm format?

Starting with the end, but bridging it with the mystery woman's picture, I discovered the body of work of a very promising boy named Alex Currie on Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcurrie
Some of his pictures have a moody feel to them that I find somewhat similar to the picture of the mystery woman. There is the same dreamy feel, those quiet colours adding to the mood. I can't help noticing, however, that these teen photographers of now are quite narcissistic, seeming to love to be the subject of their own pictures. (Ellar Coltrane, the actor who plays the role of Mason Evans Jr. in 'Boyhood', does the same.) I'm not sure what this means, but I don't really mind it as long as it's done properly.
Not quite sure what to make of the news of Ilford's purchase. Ilford have been under the Harman group for ages and survived the transition to digital. Let's hope Pemberstone Ventures allows them to keep championing analogue photography. Having been photographing almost exclusively with Ilford FP4 for the last year or so, I hope they can keep the promise stated in the press release. Ilford film is quite expensive (though its quality justifies it), so making it accessible for young people would be great. If those youngsters can afford proper film rolls instead of expired film - another unexplainable trend -, that's very good news indeed.

The photo of the woman looks synthetic to me, almost like a photo of a painting (except that the bottom of her dress is wet.) But given the fact that it's on film, you wonder how they held the clouds and the detail on the rocks.

ahhh - the color characteristics of 50-60s color negative films makes me pine for the good ol' days

re: interesting on the web - http://www.wired.com/2015/09/camera-wont-let-take-photo-everyone-else/

"Seen anything interesting on the Web lately?"

Yes, in fact. At OpenCulture.com.

Watch 1915 Video of Monet, Renoir & Rodin Creating Art, and Edgar Degas Taking a Stroll

I’ve seen the Rodin and Renoir films but never the short Degas or Monet. The icons of art are like the faces on Mt. Rushmore until you see them in such motion picture films. Then they descend from the mountain to become mortals who breathed and had pulses and probably had bad breath (and other mortal maladies).

Here's one about Hollywood style portraits:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/aline-smithsons-homemade-hollywood-portraits

and one about contact sheets:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/02/contact-sheets-magnum-photography-magic-chaos

That National Geographic link...just...wow...

I am literally stunned.

Here's a good mystery and the search for answers, from the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/magazine/shadows-in-sao-paulo.html

The picture of the girl in the water reminds me of Christina (1913) by Colonel Mervyn O'Gorman. An enduring theme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/theatre/2015-07/july22/viewfinder/mervyn-o-gorman-1-large.jpg

Given the numbers of photos being taken today, every day, in 5-10 years this camera will not be able to take any photos :)

It seems like people have already figured out the location as Mahattan beach in LA,

I don't know why, but it looks like a professional photographer's snaps after a day of shooting - family friend of Peter Gowland perhaps?

To put the K-01 case into perspective, an example of Marc Newson's signature piece, the Lockheed Lounge, sold at auction in April for 2.4 million pounds (around 4 million dollars) which is the highest ever price for a piece of furniture from a living designer. If you love high end design but have a modest budget that might represent a good choice.

To me, knowing the identity of the woman in the photograph diminishes it's impact. At heart it's a mystery story, after all.

Re National Geographic, it must be liberating to be able to say what you really think than being confined to a politically correct view. For most people concerned about nature, wildlife and habitats, human influenced climate change is low on the list of priorities to be tackled. And unfortunately the scaremongering and fictitious "research" by some has damaged the reputation of all. By destroying credibility, this will make all future campaigns for environmental causes harder to succeed.

Rather than a political cause like climate change, imagine how much better it would have been if all the money, research and effort was targeting a real problem, such as invasive species.

I wonder if we will ever find out who that woman is in the photograph or is it just another spoof?

Who is that jerk who wrote the disgusting piece in National Geographic? Is he someone "important?"

Regarding the Nat Geo post - it has already disappeared (not just moved) between this morning and just now, which is also a very bad sign for NG.

This interested me:
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2015/08/asx-tv-paul-graham-at-pier-24-the-whiteness-of-the-whale.html

Re: The NatGeo link

It appears to have been removed. I can no longer access it, nor can I find it at Steyn's blog page.

Just as another voice on the Epson story. I have the 3800, precursor to the 3880 of Ctein's. I have cracked four or five empty cartridges over the life of the printer and they are almost dry, more like 2% left than 15%. Anecdotal, I know, but I do not feel cheated by Epson in that regard.

Dear PhilR and MarkB,

I can testify it was there previously. It seemed out of character for both the author and the publication. It was an extraordinarily stupid, even childish, piece. I wonder if they were the victim of a hack?

In any case,I smell a story here.

Possibly a very, very small one.

pax / Curious Ctein

That camera is ridiculous! Why would anyone (especially a photographer) invent a camera that restricts photo opportunities just because you weren't the first to shoot from that vantage point? Heaven help us all If this kind of technology enters the mainstream.

Re the Ilford quote, sounds like corporate exec bs-speak to me.

As of Thursday, 3:15 edt the NG link returns Page not found. Was that the point?

That camera restricta sounds like a hoax to me. What's the point of it? Why would anyone buy it? What does it matter if I take cliche shots? It's not as if I'd be using up the world's resources, as might have been said in film days. No, there's something fishy about that story.

The comments to this entry are closed.