Anna No. 1

Posted on March 23, 2011 by spilledinkguy

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

57 thoughts on “Anna No. 1”

thedailydish on March 23, 2011 at 10:39 am said:

One word: STUNNING.

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 10:43 am said:
  
  Anna did all the heavy lifting on this one…
  I just clicked a few buttons! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Annabelle on March 23, 2011 at 11:45 am said:

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. 😛

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 2:32 pm said:
  
  That’s all part of the point – who could? Or did? Or can? Thank you very much, Annabelle! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Jillsy Girl on March 23, 2011 at 1:14 pm said:

faking processes…you could have fooled me!

And, the answer is “Yes”! 🙂

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 2:34 pm said:
  
  I’ve discovered if I through enough digital smoke and mirrors around… well… ah… it gets kind of smokey. And a bit reflective. Which helps. Sometimes. 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
George on March 23, 2011 at 2:24 pm said:

She looks very good to me, Robert!

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 2:34 pm said:
  
  Thanks very much, Mr. F! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Tony McGurk on March 23, 2011 at 2:59 pm said:

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

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm said:
  
  Hahaha…
  oh, the dangers chicken face (especially forest dwelling chickens)! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Tony McGurk on March 23, 2011 at 3:00 pm said:

Ummm… hether should read whether. Stupid keyboard

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 3:33 pm said:
  
  They’re evil, I tell ya’! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Tony McGurk on March 23, 2011 at 3:01 pm said:

and o should read on. doubly stupid keyboard

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 3:33 pm said:
  
  Doubly evil they are! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
  - Binky on March 23, 2011 at 9:04 pm said:
    
    Hether and o make you sound like a medieval philosopher.
    
    Reply ↓
    - spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 11:42 am said:
      
      ‘Tis true, good sir! 🙂
      
      Reply ↓
    - Tony McGurk on March 29, 2011 at 6:28 am said:
      
      ‘Tis a fine point thou hath makest
      
      Reply ↓
Mary on March 23, 2011 at 3:14 pm said:

Awww, I love Mr.Smiley in the previous post…it’s like the water tower at Calico Rock 😀 Love your Anna photo too!!!

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 3:34 pm said:
  
  Thanks so much, Mary – that’s very kind of you to say! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Robert X. Jones on March 23, 2011 at 4:03 pm said:

Sweet. Looks like a lot of work in Photoshop. Well done.

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm said:
  
  Thanks, Mr. J –
  I spent a while on it, but that’s part of the fun (sometimes, anyway)! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
Bearman on March 23, 2011 at 4:15 pm said:

ARGGGGH Pirate Anna.

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 4:18 pm said:
  
  Hmmm… I probably should have used a reflector, but I was trying to create some dramatic shadows…
  🙂
  
  Reply ↓
- Annabelle on March 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm said:
  
  Arrr avast ye scurvy dog! 😛
  
  Reply ↓
  - spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 10:05 pm said:
    
    But what about the rum?! 🙂
    
    Reply ↓
frigginloon on March 23, 2011 at 7:41 pm said:

Very silent movie Anna. Don’t let him tie you to a train track though!!!!!

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm said:
  
  Muhwahh ha ha ha!
  *twisting handlebar mustache maniacally*
  🙂
  
  Reply ↓
- Annabelle on March 25, 2011 at 8:31 pm said:
  
  Yeah that didn’t go too well last time! 😛
  
  Reply ↓
  - spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 10:04 pm said:
    
    Hey…
    you said if I let you go you wouldn’t talk about ‘the incident’…
    🙂
    
    Reply ↓
Binky on March 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm said:

Nice effect. It really does look like it’s from another era. Luckily Anna doesn’t object to you making her look old in that sense!

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 10:31 am said:
  
  Thanks, Binky!
  Yeah, I’m very fortunate Anna is willing to put up with my shenanigans! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
- Annabelle on March 25, 2011 at 8:33 pm said:
  
  I have to pick my battles. Lol.
  
  Reply ↓
  - spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm said:
    
    Wise beyond your years. 🙂
    
    Reply ↓
Syncopated Eyeball on March 24, 2011 at 2:45 am said:

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. 🙂

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 10:33 am said:
  
  Not at all, S.E.! I’m sure to have more portraits in the future… in the mean time, here’s another style…
  🙂
  
  Reply ↓
- Annabelle on March 25, 2011 at 8:35 pm said:
  
  *BLUSHES* … so many complements!
  
  Reply ↓
  - spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm said:
    
    🙂
    
    Reply ↓
nursemyra on March 24, 2011 at 3:11 am said:

beautiful mouth

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 10:34 am said:
  
  I sure think so
  (and you can’t argue with a medical professional)! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
  - Syncopated Eyeball on March 24, 2011 at 6:22 pm said:
    
    Oh yes you can argue with a medical professional!
    
    Reply ↓
    - spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 7:46 pm said:
      
      Hahaha – absolutely…
      just not in this case. 🙂
      
      Reply ↓
- Annabelle on March 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm said:
  
  Thank you Nursemyra! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
sonny on March 24, 2011 at 6:33 am said:

my god…she’s beautiful.

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 10:35 am said:
  
  Isn’t she, though?! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
- Annabelle on March 25, 2011 at 8:37 pm said:
  
  *Blushes again* Thanks Sonny!
  
  Reply ↓
jb on March 24, 2011 at 10:37 am said:

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.

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 10:50 am said:
  
  You are too kind, J.B. – thank you very much my friend!
  I’d believe the egg part, too – sure sounds about right to me! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
blackwatertown on March 24, 2011 at 3:30 pm said:

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

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm said:
  
  I believe you are right – I’ve heard that very same thing. Thank you so much for stopping by, blackwatertown! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓
The Good Greatsby on March 25, 2011 at 12:09 am said:

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.

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 11:44 am said:
  
  Ha!
  “Always play with their minds.” – empire records
  
  Reply ↓
milkayphoto on March 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm said:

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…:-)

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 1:50 pm said:
  
  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.
  
  🙂
  
  Reply ↓
  - milkayphoto on March 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm said:
    
    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!
    
    Reply ↓
    - spilledinkguy on March 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm said:
      
      I don’t get that, either.
      “This work is technically weak, but we MUST HAVE IT”!
      
      Very sorry to hear that, M.P.
      
      🙂
      
      Reply ↓
notajackass on March 28, 2011 at 1:33 am said:

Man are you sure you don’t work for Ghostbusters or something?

Reply ↓
- spilledinkguy on March 28, 2011 at 11:43 am said:
  
  Who you gonna’ call?! 🙂
  
  Reply ↓