RANT: The Sky was not Green....

[Ysarex]

You know I always feel that film treats blacks in photos better than digital does. Sure digital can recover more detail from darker areas; but the way that film renders blacks generally appears more pleasing to my eye (granted in digital you can get similar effects by adjusting sliders but its not the default view it gives).

By default view you mean the camera generated JPEG and by film you mean negative film -- nothing cuts to dead black faster than a color transparency. I've gone round and round for years with many of my academic colleagues over this. There's a wide range of different media available for us and there are variations in character and performance, but it's our job to learn to use them all to advantage. For years so many of my colleagues resisted the transition to digital with excuses about how film looked better in this way or that or digital didn't give them as good this or that and my assessment of the bottom line is they didn't really want to take the time to learn something new. Not that that applies to you. We're craftspeople -- we learn our craft.

Joe

 

[Gary A.]

I didn't know there was color film way back in the vintage era.

 

[Ysarex]

I didn't know there was color film way back in the vintage era.

Is 1910 vintage enough for you? (Sergei Gorskii)

And look at that! Sky was blue then too -- amazing!

Joe

 

[dxqcanada]

Hold on ... yes, the sky was not Green.
My collection of old family photo's are proof that the sky was Magenta ... and for some reason yellow blobs would frequently show up to photo bomb.

The faded/shifted colour dye effect is the same as the over use of sepia tone.

 

[Derrel]

I thought Gorsky's photos were tri-color photos made from three, separate images, each one made through a different filter? I do however love looking at his color images of pre-revolutionary Russian and the surrounding areas. Fasicinating to see colors on things that we mostly have only seen in B&W. Rare Historical Photos Show 1910s Imperial Russia In Glorious Color

Since the 1940's, color images (movies, print, film, video,etc.) have become the normal type. I think, since we're about 80 years into the of color images, that maybe it's time we start being a bit more accepting of stylistic differences in how people want their color images to look. I mean, really, clinging to the past decades of strict, faithful, representational color seems like a desperate attempt to insist that ONLY the old styles are acceptable. Styles change over time. Music has changed since the 1950's. Cars have changed since the 1950's.Politics have changed since the 1960's.

I do not see much sense in continuing to denigrate newer ways of doing photos. It just makes little sense to celebrate the ideals of the 1950's and 1960's as being the only, one, true way. Do we still love Perry Mason, and consider that the ne plus ultra of courtroom TV drama? Do we all sit around smoking joints and going to Ginsburg poetry readings? Are we all cranking our phonographs and rocking out to Bob Dylan's Blown In The Wind, and considerering that every type of art or entertainment that came after these cultural icons is rubbish?

Sorry to respond to a self-described rant with such sincere questions, but, hey, it's a Saturday morning here.

 

[Gary A.]

I didn't know there was color film way back in the vintage era.

Is 1910 vintage enough for you? (Sergei Gorskii)

View attachment 136017

And look at that! Sky was blue then too -- amazing!

Joe

Most likely Photoshopped by Sergei.

 

[Ysarex]

I thought Gorsky's photos were tri-color photos made from three, separate images, each one made through a different filter? I do however love looking at his color images of pre-revolutionary Russian and the surrounding areas. Fasicinating to see colors on things that we mostly have only seen in B&W. Rare Historical Photos Show 1910s Imperial Russia In Glorious Color

Since the 1940's, color images (movies, print, film, video,etc.) have become the normal type. I think, since we're about 80 years into the of color images, that maybe it's time we start being a bit more accepting of stylistic differences in how people want their color images to look. I mean, really, clinging to the past decades of strict, faithful, representational color seems like a desperate attempt to insist that ONLY the old styles are acceptable. Styles change over time. Music has changed since the 1950's. Cars have changed since the 1950's.Politics have changed since the 1960's.

I do not see much sense in continuing to denigrate newer ways of doing photos. It just makes little sense to celebrate the ideals of the 1950's and 1960's as being the only, one, true way. Do we still love Perry Mason, and consider that the ne plus ultra of courtroom TV drama? Do we all sit around smoking joints and going to Ginsburg poetry readings? Are we all cranking our phonographs and rocking out to Bob Dylan's Blown In The Wind, and considerering that every type of art or entertainment that came after these cultural icons is rubbish?

Sorry to respond to a self-described rant with such sincere questions, but, hey, it's a Saturday morning here.

Yep the Gorskii images were tri-color and not technically color film. I grabbed one because they were just so good for the time. There was however color film at the same time:

Autochrome by Tournassoud.

So yes, I'm fair game to the criticism that I'm not accepting enough of stylistic differences for the sake of personal expression. But adding fake dust, scratches, lint and light leaks to a photo is too extreme for me. I've seen a lot of pushing limits over the years given my stint in academia. I can muster a long list of; "I remember the guy who used to lay out his negs on a wooden table and go at them with an ice pick before printing them" and of course "I remember when melting your negs first with a cigarette lighter before printing them was THE FAD" and etc. I have survived to see most of that stuff forgotten, but of course replaced by its latest reincarnation. It's a line to walk that encourages experimentation and expression and at the same time establishes some appropriate constraints where a logical argument for the departure from norms can be supported.

Joe

 

[table1349]

Actually the sky was green when you were growing up, your folks just didn't want to tell you that you are color blind.

p.s. that is a blue smiley.

 

[dxqcanada]

Wasn't the sky green in LA during the 80's ... or was that brown ?

 

[table1349]

Tan in the morning, mauve in the evening, except on rainy days.

 

[limr]

Actually, smog can make for some really colorful sunsets, not just brown.

 

[fmw]

At least we don't have to fool with color correction filters any longer. How well are color temperature meters selling these days?

 

[Gary A.]

Living in SoCal since birth. The sky has never been green as a result of smog. In the 60's and 70's the sky was gray and brownish-gray. The summer smog would block the view of the 10,000 foot high local mountains which are less than an hour drive away. Walking around LA in the 60's, your eye would tear-up. By the 80's the air was getting significantly better.

 

[mmaria]

My sky is green.
Sometimes it's red.
Sometimes it doesn't have any color to it.
Sometimes it has scratches, dirt blobs, clouds, grain, noise, rainbow colored creatures and sometimes it's perfectly clear.
And sometimes it's even blue! Can you imagine?

 

[Ysarex]

My sky is green.
Sometimes it's red.
Sometimes it doesn't have any color to it.
Sometimes it has scratches, dirt blobs, clouds, grain, noise, rainbow colored creatures and sometimes it's perfectly clear.
And sometimes it's even blue! Can you imagine?

Yes, I certainly can imagine.

Joe