Nude

[Frank Petronio]

Scratching the negatives like that is pretentious and way too arty for me. I don't want to argue over it but I think you're a better photographer than that and should work at making stronger images without adding another layer of artifice.

[Emil Schildt]

Scratching the negatives like that is pretentious and way too arty for me. I don't want to argue over it but I think you're a better photographer than that and should work at making stronger images without adding another layer of artifice.

thanks - I think...

Allthough I have no idea what you mean...

[Asher Kelman]

Scratching the negatives like that is pretentious and way too arty for me. I don't want to argue over it but I think you're a better photographer than that and should work at making stronger images without adding another layer of artifice.

Frank,

I'd agree with you for a majority of photographers, more artifacts hardly ever transform a weak image into something worthwhile. Here, however, Gandolfi has built his picture to his specifications, not rescued a failed image. In fact, even without the scratches and paint, both images are already delightful and succeed on their own merit as written in the sliver grains.

Why object to scratching? Yes, one could make analagous effects with dodging and burning, but this approach is finely effected and although extreme is, I would contend, in the essential tradition of Ansel Adams, who used scratching to add effects that the silver did not record well or at all.

LF photography, itself is "art" anyway. One can get a good enough image with a digital camera but the LF allows one to carve planes of light in ways not generally available to the digital camera folk. Also, each of the pantheon of LF lenses, has, like any particular Greek God you'd also choose to venerate, its own unique lineage and character. Is not one being arty in using a Petzval?

So, Frank, maybe allow that, just on these two exceptional occasions, the scratching is part of the print making.

Asher

[r.e.]

thanks - I think...

Allthough I have no idea what you mean...

Maybe have a look at John Deakin's work.

For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/a...ey-review.html

Leaving aside the question of whether it was carelessness, deliberate or a combination of the two.

[ImSoNegative]

I think they are very cool looking, nice work

[Asher Kelman]

Leaving aside the question of whether it was carelessness, deliberate or a combination of the two.

r.e.,

What's the above "it" referring to? Also Gandolfi or Francis Bacon?

Asher

[kev curry]

In my view the overwhelming majority of photographers are just that...photographers; men with cameras. They have some understanding of 'gear' and such and like to point them at things in order to take pictures...sometimes pretty sometimes interesting but mostly just tedious, repetitive, mundane and unoriginal.

Gandolfi's photography on the other hand elevates photography to the level of a creative art form...evidently that's why his work sets him apart and stands him head and shoulders above the majority.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I have to agree with Kev.. I like Gandolfi's work here ! It reminds me of my idol, Leonardo DiVinci and his sketches..

steve

[Steve M Hostetter]

I have to agree with Kev.. I like Gandolfi's work here ! It reminds me of my idol, Leonardo DiVinci and his sketches..

steve

[Steve M Hostetter]

I have to agree with Kev.. I like Gandolfi's work here ! It reminds me of my idol, Leonardo DiVinci and his sketches..

steve