Richard Learoyd and his Camera Obscura Prints

[Dave_B]

What is the size of the print?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

It's more than life size. Roughly 4'x6'.

[Mark Sampson]

It's hard to imagine just how much strobe power you'd need to expose Ilfochrome at larger-than-life magnification, through a pinhole. And retain the impression of quiet stillness while you're at it. I'd love to see the original print- it seems like remarkable work.

[Vaughn]

It's hard to imagine just how much strobe power you'd need to expose Ilfochrome at larger-than-life magnification, through a pinhole. And retain the impression of quiet stillness while you're at it. I'd love to see the original print- it seems like remarkable work.

He used a lens.

Also, are we ohing and ahhing about the size of the equipment (in this case a room), or about the strength of the actual image? Or perhaps a bit of both?

Vaughn

[Bill_1856]

He used a lens.

Also, are we ohing and ahhing about the size of the equipment (in this case a room), or about the strength of the actual image? Or perhaps a bit of both?

Vaughn

Old artist saying: "If you can't make it good -- make it big."
The image is pretty ordinary.

[Vaughn]

Bill, it is difficult for me to judge without seeing the actual print, but I think it is a bit of both. The size and clarity of the images become an important part of the imagery.

But as far as marketing, it is genius. Very large, color, one-of-a-kind -- and selling in the 20 to 30 thousand dollar range if the info I have is correct.

Here is a link to a YouTube video of a show of his work. I do not know who would buy a 50"x50" image of a dead kangaroo on white blocks, but it is a nice image!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zCXYm66Z1Y

Vaughn

[Dave_B]

I recommend that you try to see some of his images in person. Looking at them on a website really misses what they are all about. The compelling feature is the quality of the images and their tonality not the composition. I think he is trying to make breathtaking images of ordinary compositions and in this he very much succeeds. He uses the camera obscura technology to make an image that is stunning in person but if taken with a DSLR would be mundane. It's not that it is a large image. It is that the detail for such a large image is beyond anything you have ever likely seen and it is really quite striking.

If you see Ansel Adams' images in a book, they look very good. However, once you have seen his prints in person, it's like you have seen them for the first time.

I think you may feel the same way about Learoyd's images.

[r.e.]

Myself, I plan to drop by the gallery that represents him in New York next week to have a look. I would love to see one of the camera obscura images, but actually there are some other photographs on his web site that intrigue me more.

[csant]

r.e., are you still talking about Richard Learoyd? I couldn't find any "other photographs on his web site", but maybe I am missing something? Would love to see some more of the work by Learoyd, if only in digital reproduction. Found a few pictures on the net, but nothing like a bigger overview of his work, unfortunately…

[r.e.]

Csant, sorry I was thinking of Abe Morell's web site, just one of those Alzheimer moments.

Learoyd is represented in NY by McKee Gallery: http://mckeegallery.com/

There a several images on the McKee site in relation to a show of Learoyd's work that just closed, together with a brief essay by the curator of photography at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Re the earlier question about the size of his prints, it looks like they run 68"x48".

[Oren Grad]

Thought I'd revive this thread - those within hailing distance of San Francisco might want to check out a show of Learoyd's work currently on at the Fraenkel Gallery:

http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/

See also James Danziger's take:

http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2011...d-learoyd.html

There's also another set of pictures online from a prior exhibition at Learoyd's other gallery, in NYC:

http://mckeegallery.com/exhibit/2009...e-photographs/