ha ha it is inescapable though. i think he is quite beatles-y, or like canon in d or something, in having just monopolised huge areas of ground one could otherwise cover. like taking photos of anything illuminated by window light on an aeroplane. or any sort of textural detail of the side of the house/the ground/some foliage. can't do it.
i could not compete with his redness though, no.
― Never translate German (schlump), Friday, 23 December 2011 00:27 (twelve years ago) link
speaking of no shadow detail
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/black-and-white-and-black-all-over/
also recommended: brassai's paris de nuit
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Friday, 23 December 2011 02:55 (twelve years ago) link
hey CV do you know this guy, feel like you both work the same beat
i have no thoughtful response to the b/w set above other than being okay with absolute blacks in bw phots; i've come to love midtones a lot, & be less into the extremity & pop of high-contrast stuff, but there's still a huge appeal, & i think a particular schematic appreciation for the feel of seeing that kinda thing in newspapers and on screens and in those like fifties-hollywood contexts for forever
― Never translate German (schlump), Friday, 23 December 2011 23:09 (twelve years ago) link
http://bremser.tumblr.com/post/14679643980/2011-photo-of-the-year
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Saturday, 24 December 2011 00:08 (twelve years ago) link
why is the SJ photo landscape when she is holding the camera portrait
― Never translate German (schlump), Saturday, 24 December 2011 00:37 (twelve years ago) link
want: http://www.steidlville.com/books/1172-Candlestick-Point.html
― milo z, Saturday, 24 December 2011 00:59 (twelve years ago) link
Oh yeah, Gus Powell. Part of the In Public scene that I'm inclined to make fun of, but generally I actually really like his pictures. They have that nicely "pulled back" view that I enjoy you know? And he's def on a lot of the same turf I roam around.
― chinavision, Saturday, 24 December 2011 03:09 (twelve years ago) link
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7002/6567899747_3e604eb8c7_b.jpgHey, she can smile. by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr
― milo z, Sunday, 25 December 2011 07:50 (twelve years ago) link
finally opened up 'for now' - gorgeous book! it's big, too
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Sunday, 25 December 2011 18:45 (twelve years ago) link
ha the festive update we have all been waiting for, so cool. i'm a little tempted.
i am photographically celebrating the holidays by, having finished a roll of some interesting kodak 100 (xl or xd or something) film, loading up a 24-exposure roll of 400 speed film that you used to get free from the developers with printing which probably expired several years ago & has been yellowing at my folks' place. january is gonna be bleached.
― Never translate German (schlump), Sunday, 25 December 2011 18:57 (twelve years ago) link
first edition already OOP and selling for $200 from the website. feel like I just slashed my copy's value in half by opening it. oh well, mazel tov!
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Sunday, 25 December 2011 18:59 (twelve years ago) link
oh dang, really? i checked rece & saw i could get it for like $50, who knows what edition. but i'm glad you opened it, well-preserved & desirable valuables are truly the possessions of savages imo
― Never translate German (schlump), Sunday, 25 December 2011 19:02 (twelve years ago) link
there's a picture from a medium format camera in here! wtf, get out :}
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Sunday, 25 December 2011 19:04 (twelve years ago) link
wau @ the dali emoticon there. WE branching out
― Never translate German (schlump), Sunday, 25 December 2011 19:07 (twelve years ago) link
used two Amex gift cards to get 35 rolls of rebranded Tri-X in 35mm and 20 rolls of Portra 400 in 120, along with the steal I got on Neopan 400 ($2.79 a roll for 25 rolls), I should have plenty of film for the forseeable future.
― milo z, Sunday, 25 December 2011 22:57 (twelve years ago) link
that is a lot. i spent $40 on prob seven or eight rolls of interesting (new) film a couple of weeks ago & that was almost as much as i've ever had planned out. it's running out quick but i get to swing by the place that stockpiles expired stuff next week, so i'll end up with another nine, ten. just out of curiosity, Milo, what's the deal with the stuff you shoot & post here?; it's all scans of film or is any of it digi?
― Never translate German (schlump), Sunday, 25 December 2011 23:02 (twelve years ago) link
99% digital - either my old D700 or the X100 I'm using now. I've only started shooting film again recently and haven't scanned anything I found very interesting.
― milo z, Sunday, 25 December 2011 23:17 (twelve years ago) link
My Flickr views have gone way up since I started putting up more photos of my roommate (that's her in the last picture) and my friend Erin (first photo in the thread). Shocking.
― milo z, Sunday, 25 December 2011 23:21 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i think flickr is pretty gross like that
― judith, Sunday, 25 December 2011 23:22 (twelve years ago) link
kinda grosser that they're not even 'sexy' shots
― milo z, Sunday, 25 December 2011 23:24 (twelve years ago) link
i totally co-sign this ^^^ & think flickr is the ultimate lol for getting 10 drooly photographer guys saying WONDERFUL LIGHTING, REALLY INTERESTING ANGLE at some emo nude shot, BUT, i do think there is some room to allow for it being like a general human response to another human subject, more than always being just a terrible, base urge. there are photos which are photos of people that are appealing for those people; either them existing, or gesturally, or whatever, & i think the tangling of "i am looking at a photo" & "i am looking at a human", to whom we might have a variety of responses (based on attractiveness or aesthetics or w/e), is pretty difficult to divorce. i just found an old flickr account i had for some digi-snacks a couple of years ago & it has photos i've favourited, & a bunch of them are these kinda radiant or colourful pictures that have a guy or a girl in. we are pretty drawn to that sorta thing & i wouldn't have to answer for my gravitation to them in some ways. so seeing the views go up, i can feel that there's obviously a WELL SEX SELLS response to it but i also think that wondering whether the views would be the same, say if the subject were interchanged, is a hard comparison to make.
maybe this is getting sorta pop your top off love i have an idea
― Never translate German (schlump), Monday, 26 December 2011 00:50 (twelve years ago) link
i wouldn't want to have to answer for my gravitation to them, rather
― Never translate German (schlump), Monday, 26 December 2011 00:51 (twelve years ago) link
it's like i was looking of that picture of giacometti's face. it is a pretty good face.
yeah i mean i like photos of hot guys
― judith, Monday, 26 December 2011 01:01 (twelve years ago) link
Everyone still <3 photography here? Before this thread drops off the bottom of the page I figure I'll revive it in the classic fashion, by posting another picture yet again:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6579139295_d02642ba0c_z.jpg
After a "fertile period" I'm running out of negs to scan though. It is now grey and cold and not as fun to take pictures, though I'll continue giving it a shot when the sun shows its face.
PS is anyone ever able to pick up Fuji Superia 400 in 36 exp rolls? Seems they've been discontinued. Yet another sign of impending doom. Love those film cameras while you still can.
― chinavision, Thursday, 29 December 2011 14:27 (twelve years ago) link
Everyone still <3 photography here?
ha, i had the same thought yesterday & wondered if this previously out-of-control-freight-train of a thread had run out of steam.
i think i occasionally get on top of photos i have to scan, & feel like they're p much done, but i still usually have twenty rolls of undeveloped film in a bag, so they're there for when i have the money to get prints. also i just got a scanner!, an old hand-me down that will diminish the amount of time i spend using the cuff of my sleeve to buff scratches on the library scanners. i'm mainly getting b&w stuff printed, recently, with a two week wait, but i like knowing i have so much old stuff (it's usually like a 12 month backlogue, interrupted by occasionally getting stuff developed after i've shot it).
i also spent a couple of days at my folks' place over the holidays scanning some old photos i took like five years ago in rome, on ilford delta 3200, which i tend to reflexively duck away from now - like it was a hallmark of my earlier attempts at boldness - but which holds up really well, & is more generous w/midtones etc than i remember (here's a couple).
like your photo a lot, the guy's modestly lilac ensemble is nice. that's w/flash, right?
i am p sure i can still get superia 400 (am in the uk), i'm not crazy about it though. you oughtta stockpile :/
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 15:00 (twelve years ago) link
God I can't even imagine that kind of backlog anymore. It is really kind of nice though, knowing that there's just a lot of stuff you've shot that's waiting to be seen. When I was broke for awhile I just didn't develop anything, and it was a lot of fun catching up at first. Until I started to recognize that I was catching up with my "lazy period" and then I couldn't get through it fast enough.Yeah that photo's with a flash, and I just realized it's a little odd to have put that up while complaining about the weather and lack of light outside.Those shots from Rome look great. And you're not kidding about the decent mids. Love the second one especially!I can get Superia 400 in 24 rolls still, but it's not as $$ efficient. Didn't used to like it, but now that I'm home scanning I can get it to look nice. And it's got finer grain than the cheap kodak stuff. And stockpiling is right. I think Fuji is quietly discontinuing stuff left and right. I bet they get out of film sooner rather than later.
― chinavision, Thursday, 29 December 2011 15:09 (twelve years ago) link
Ha, I have the same tie as the old guy in that photo, pretty sure.
― Hurting, Thursday, 29 December 2011 17:39 (twelve years ago) link
I have not taken a photo in days. Had almost three weeks of intermittent rain that was just a beatdown.
The Fort Worth stock show is coming up in January, I think I'm going to try to make several trips to that to see what I can get.
― milo z, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:02 (twelve years ago) link
God I can't even imagine that kind of backlog anymore. It is really kind of nice though, knowing that there's just a lot of stuff you've shot that's waiting to be seen.
yes. for sure. i mean i forget what's on there (i only started even labeling film w/time periods a while back), so there's this weird gulf between taking and getting, which is generally v true of (film) photography anyway. i think having had a few unspooled roll disasters recently (they're piling up, but i'm going to just start really being thorough, now, & accepting 36 shots a roll instead of a plucky but risky 39; i am outsourcing some of the blame for this on OM-1s, though probably carry more myself) has forced me into accepting a weird serendipity about what i even manage to catch; i'm sad when things don't appear, or if i've shot ten photos inside on a day when i was using 100 speed film & all i got was muted shapes, but maybe buffering the time between shooting & seeing relaxes me about a specific shot having been lost to time. i def think one of the more profound things about photography is the time capsule element, so i almost think you improve 'lazy period' photos by seeing them six months after the fact.
here is another rome pic, it's so funny looking at these because i don't really take anything on this scale anymore, but it's just almost gratuitously easy to get something in somewhere so picturesque, just collaterally, it's like if you take a picture of grass & are satisfied that your camera bothered to render each blade.
i just hit up my exposed film place & they hardly had anything - i bought a single role of konica slide film, which is fun at least (idk if i posted thanksgiving-porn.jpg from a couple of weeks back). so i went around the corner & bought some weird fuji colour 160 pro film to tide me over for awhile. i might try an expired ebay lot.
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:03 (twelve years ago) link
i would love a photo-geek response re: why all expired film all seems to reside in israel btw, ebay search is throwing up mysteries
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:09 (twelve years ago) link
my skills are pretty amateur compared to you folks, i have a panasonic lumix, a holga, and an old canon 35mm, and i don't photograph nearly enough i'm afraid.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6595276693_64152bb01e_b.jpg
― omar (son), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
ha that's nice!, i am amateur as fuck, represent.what did you take it with? i was saying before about avoiding & then embracing midtones, i think i like more blacks in a b&w photo but it's a nice shot.i think photographing enough is just taking your camera w/you when you leave the house
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:13 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i have a few rolls that i should get developed.
― judith, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:14 (twelve years ago) link
this one was taken w/my panasonic lumix (model # escapes me.) i prefer it mostly for B&W, the color is nice for random family gathering pics but not spectacular.
― omar (son), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:16 (twelve years ago) link
I like that son
― river wolf, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:18 (twelve years ago) link
i'm trying to develop my tech abilities a little more, which is tough since i've never been particularly tech-savvy. always been fine w/composition, which occasionally makes up for it.
― omar (son), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:19 (twelve years ago) link
using the 'amateur' thing to play the pro huh
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:21 (twelve years ago) link
re: spooling disasters etc., I now have a fair number of, say, misloaded rolls, or rolls where I set the flash sync speed wrong, shots that were just way off (focus, etc.) and these things all used to just KILL ME, but by now it's not really much sweat. Having thought I shot a roll on a trip some months back only to realize the camera was empty, it just kind of didn't even matter much to me anymore. If the film isn't loaded, or I ruin a roll somehow (oh yeah, also through disastrous processing at some local shops a while back!) it's almost like no big deal. I never saw the thing anyway so I've got nothing to miss. If a beloved negative went missing or something though that would be different. I guess I figure all of my shots might as well be disasters until I actually get them scanned.Plus I get really used to discovering that all of the OMG CAN'T BELIEVE I GOT THAT AMAZING SHOT pictures are generally nothing to write home about, with some exceptions.
PS NICE MIDS!!
― chinavision, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:24 (twelve years ago) link
thx riv and schlump~
― omar (son), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:26 (twelve years ago) link
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:21 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
ha, i deliberately didn't put a comma in there to avoid this
― river wolf, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:27 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i think its best to just take photos and then wait a while so you forget all the ones you're crossing your fingers for.
― judith, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:27 (twelve years ago) link
I 'finished' that eggleston book - some interesting stuff in the interviews & articles towards the back
-wish I didn't know that it was curated by michael almyreda or w/e his name is - doesn't 'feel' like an eggleston book or at the very least has a different character to it. a lot more 'people' shots, and I think that was intentional, to distance itself from the other egglestone books out-eggleston majored in painting in college & still paints (hey him and HCB). apparently knows a bit about color theory, probably more than he lets on-sometimes he shoots the same thing more than once
good book though, I'll have to return to it
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:32 (twelve years ago) link
yes. p much. there are exceptions. i remember meeting jim jarmusch when i was young & a young man & living in new york & shooting a couple of pics of him & someone taking pics of me talking to him (i wrote my dissertation on him so it seemed like this weird quintessential moment) & them just never printing, i couldn't even work out (because of my backlogue-disorganisation) which roll they'd been on, my olympus would sometimes jar on 24 & shred the rest of a roll. & that was sad. but it just sorta isn't the same thing. i wrote down an index from memory of one of the recent rolls i lost & that exists even if the film doesn't, it's just different. & to go an extra philosophical mile, anything i shoot after a mis-fired role wouldn't exist had i spooled that one correct, everything would be different, so you deal with what you've got. people are always like WELL GUESS IT'S TIME TO GO DIGITAL when i lament some classically-analogue failure but its limits & risks are cool with me, it's just a different thing to the documentation i'd be pulling with digital.
OMG CAN'T BELIEVE I GOT THAT AMAZING SHOT
ha, yes.
looked through yr recent flickr stuff CV, real good, these guys-w-ties are so good, they're a series in themselves.
― river wolf, Thursday, December 29, 2011 6:27 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink
i still jumped all over you on it, it happened. have you been shooting, btw, i only worked out your sandbox disguise identity a couple of days ago & wondered.
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:35 (twelve years ago) link
-sometimes he shoots the same thing more than once
sitting here tearing pages out of william eggleston's guide right now
― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:36 (twelve years ago) link
I specifically chose to go to a digital showing of mission impossible 4 today instead of a film one
*impales self*
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:38 (twelve years ago) link
gah no, i haven't :(
i mean, i've got a few rolls from the m6 that need developing, but i haven't really been anywhere or doing anything that i thought merited documentation. need to be better about a) bringing the cam with all the time b) being more fearless about whipping it out (!!) and c) getting that shit developed in a timely fashion
― river wolf, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:38 (twelve years ago) link
hah I just developed 5 rolls yesterday from the summer that I had forgotten about
― nice catch cuauhtemoc blanco niño (dayo), Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:39 (twelve years ago) link
still would love developing stuff (almost asked for that for xmas) and a scanner
― river wolf, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
I have three rolls of medium-format film and a roll of Tri-X on my desk that have been waiting for me to build up enough film to send off for development.
I actually think backlog is good - the Instagram/Flickr/etc. 'need to post something on the reg' is not necessarily the best. I mean, you wouldn't mail a curator or gallerist one print at a time as you did something, you'd amass a body of work and display it. Better not to die with thousands of undeveloped rolls (ala Winogrand or Vivian Maier), but some space between what you did and what you're seeing on the light table/in prints is not a bad thing.
― milo z, Thursday, 29 December 2011 18:42 (twelve years ago) link