Anna No. 1

You’ve likely noticed I’m a big fan of attempting to recreate processes I completely lack the knowledge/materials to explore. So, its probably no surprise I’ve recently been faking old wet plate collodion photographs (to the best of my ability, anyway).

Hmmm… am I still dishonest if I admit to being so? Will a fallen tree make any noise if the chicken came before the forest? Perhaps we’ll never know.

Isn’t Anna lovely, BTW?!

About this image: digital photograph highly modified / combined with acrylic plate scan

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “Anna No. 1

  1. I love the way it turned out! Though I wish I could have sat still for you better! Apparently I can’t stop jumping around even for 15 seconds. πŸ˜›

  2. She is lovely but I am more concerned as to hether the tree actually fell o the chicken or not. I guess it didn’t if the chicken came before the forest but if it didn’t the tree was there already when the chicken arrived thus the chicken was in danger of a crushing blow from the tree

  3. That’s a lovely portrait of a beautiful face… and so… um… I’d like to see a simpler rendering. To focus on her face and what you’ve captured there. I hope you don’t mind my saying so. πŸ™‚

  4. I have said it before and I will continue to say it. You have a real talent. It don’t mater if it is fake or real. And you know the egg came before the forest. It is common knowledge everybody knows that.

  5. I wonder if the sitting still challenge is why people tended not to smile in old photos – harder to hold a grin convincingly as the minutes tick by. That’s what someone suggested to me anyway when I posted an old police picture with just one sneaky smirker at the back http://wp.me/pDjed-b8

  6. I wish I could make old-timey looking photographs like this because I’d take a picture of my wife and tell people it was my great-grandmother and when people remarked how similar it looked to my wife I’d say I didn’t see her resemblance to Grandmother Padgett. Then my wife would say, wait a second Padgett is my mother’s maiden name.

  7. There will always be some controversy over ‘manipulated images’ in the digital world. For me, I don’t really care as long as the artist comes clean and refers to the image as ‘digital art’ rather than a photograph. I don’t think what you are doing is any different than what they did in the early years in the darkroom. We just have different tools now.

    I appreciate all kinds of photography and this is a fine example of a moody, thought-provoking portrait. The only thing is this…for someone like myself, who tends to stay on the side of photographic realism, I am finding there is no room or appreciation in the art-gallery world for artists like me. I’ve been rejected more times than I can tell you since they tend to go the route of digitial art. Sigh. Lucky for you, bad for me.

    Sorry for the ramble…:-)

    • Not at all, M.P. – I’m thrilled with feedback!

      I guess that’s a good way of looking at it… a tool is a tool is a tool. I think it’s great how easy it has become for people to express themselves. On the other hand, it seems a lot of craftsmanship is lost to technology.

      This last bit I found shocking. Honestly, I have very little gallery experience; I’ve been in only one show other than my undergrad thesis (and that was a collegiate deal, too.) Nothing against digital, but how can people not be interested in classic work? Set a wet-plate image next to one of my Photoshop jobs and there’s no question I’m drawn to the real thing.

      Also, when it comes to digital art, you can quite often tell who has an analogue background (or at least a history of working with photo). That’s not necessarily a compliment to those who don’t. It blows my mind when people seem in awe of an image that’s had the same tired filter thrown at it as the last six did. I really don’t get that.

      πŸ™‚

      • No idea. Maybe that is the excuse I am using for the rejections. They always say the work is ‘technically strong’ but yet ‘not suitable for them at this time’. Never know what to do with that kind of broad critique.

        Thanks for understanding!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s