100 year old lens, obsolete film, movement, and solarization

• jb7

  Participant

  September 18, 2009 at 10:58 am

  Thanks Miki, Lorraine, and John, of course-
  I’m happy now that you’re happy-

  miki, yes, might seem odd to still be using these things,
  but I don’t think they were designed with obsolescence in mind-

  Anyway, although I’ve been guilty of saying that it’s all about the picture,
  in this case, perhaps it’s more about the process-
  or at least, as much about-

  Lorraine, yes, being bothered is a good thing-
  I don’t make pictures to win popularity contests,
  so I don’t expect them to have universal appeal-
  so I appreciate you posting your concerns here,
  and they’re very valuable-

  John, I almost hear a verse welling up inside of me….
  DenverDoll

  Participant

  September 18, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  wow..took ages to read (and reread) through that….a lot of information and I had to look up Jim Galli.

  It’s the process that fascinates me over the result if I had to choose.

  Probably why I love crappy and old (not the same of course) cameras and film and dont have photoshop, and of course, that is personal preference.

  I love a great photo warts and all..or no warts at all.

  LoGill said

  most of what draws me to photography is the creative, emotive and narrative – regardless of methodology-

  That is hard to disagree with as well. For my own photos…I find more enjoyment in the process…for observing the photography of others..I am drawn to result..and question the methodology only once I am attracted to the picture for whatever reason.

  Kookiest answer so far..but it makes sense to me.
  jb7

  Participant

  September 18, 2009 at 7:05 pm

  Thanks Sharon-

  LoGill said

  Quote:
  most of what draws me to photography is the creative, emotive and narrative – regardless of methodology-

  That is hard to disagree with as well. For my own photos…I find more enjoyment in the process…for observing the photography of others..
  I am drawn to result..and question the methodology only once I am attracted to the picture for whatever reason.

  Kookiest answer so far..but it makes sense to me.

  No, I don’t think so- not at all kooky-
  but interesting in that LoGill adds the caveat- ‘regardless of methodology’

  Often the process or methodology adds to the creative and emotive-
  and not all pictures are required to contain a narrative-

  But we’re beginning to split hairs here, I think-

  Jim Galli is interesting for the variety of lenses he shoots with and displays the results of.
  If ever you want to check out the look of a particular type of antique glass,
  check out his site- he’s probably done it already.

  I’m very tempted to get a bigger one of these lenses,
  even though the look is so distinct, and has been done to death recently-
  but there are plenty of things I’d still like to see rendered swirly, apart from distant leaves-

  Thanks again Sharon…
  Gizzo

  Participant

  September 22, 2009 at 11:29 am

  ok trying to explain what I meant it’s no easy task.
  this is a picture that reflects your interest in researching and your skills in dealing with films, solarization and stuff.
  so, to me this picture means a lot because it says JB7 even with no signature.
  _but_ this is not immediate, if you know what I mean, most of the people will think about a strong post-production and that’s about it.

  in general your pictures are striking for other reasons -such as the portrait with the Arca you posted a while ago- , this one is technically striking and fascinating as well.

  hope this makes sense.
  jb7

  Participant

  September 22, 2009 at 11:13 pm

  Thanks Gigi-
  I think the signature here is from the lens-
  a lot of people use them,
  and a tree is good to show up the swirl,
  so it’s a pretty standard shot-
  plus a bit of solarizing-

  So this picture, just an exercise really, to see how the lens performed.

  Another Petzval was delivered on Monday-
  It’s slightly more usable, slightly longer.
  I did some tests today on digital, and it’s incredibly sharp in the centre, but quite poor contrast.
  Quite a look though…

  Thanks again-
  I have difficulty explaining myself-