Jim's SECRET WEAPON Lens!

[Jim Galli]

It's been a while since I regaled you with one of my infamous pages of pictures! (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Secret%20Weapon%20Lens/Everything_with_Nothing.html)

Just when you thought it was safe.....he strikes! You know the drill, take 5 minutes
if you're mildly interested in antique lenses / fuzzy pictures. The ones I did Saturday AM last are some of the finest I've produced. BTW, the first 3 were done with normal lenses before I made my discovery....

....my new Secret Weapon Lens!

I hope you'll let me know what you think! Good or bad! I can take it :D :D

[David Karp]

Lovely. Jim, you are amazing.

[eric black]

Superb Jim!!!- makes me want to put a lens in the oven or drive around with one unprotected in my trunk for a while

[katie cooke]

oooh la la! I don't often have lens envy, but, all of a sudden my eyes have turned bright jealousy green!

[Toyon]

Poetry, dude.

[Ash]

And that's why I've spent the past year reaping lens elements from any-format lenses. Often a front or rear element has crazy potential when separated from the rest of the group. Great shots Jim. I hope I can find a few SW's myself :)

[vinny]

That spider grass shot is exceptional.

vinny

[Dave Wooten]

I really like the last 2 shots...

[Marko]

Are you sure it's the lens?

[Jim Galli]

Are you sure it's the lens?

I'll take that as a compliment. Lenses are like violins......

[sparq]

I bet Jim could take an astonishing picture with a bottom of a beer bottle ... :)

[MIke Sherck]

In other news, prices for random pieces of broken glass recovered from trash cans reached a new high today on reports...

Just kidding! Lensmakers worked hard for decades to make sharper and more contrasty lenses and photographers mortgaged their homes to buy them. It's all well and good if that's what you want but it's great that every once in a while someone comes along to remind us of some of the alternatives. As human beings, we tend to forget easily.

Thanks, Jim: what a wonderful example of serendipity!

Mike

[Dave Wooten]

I bet Jim could take an astonishing picture with a bottom of a beer bottle ... :)


I am certain that I have actually seen some of them in the very bottom of beer mugs, on occasion.:D

[Kirk Gittings]

That Spider Grass image is a knockout. You are a magician, a poster boy for dispossessed photographers.

[Dave Wooten]

I am certain that I have actually seen some of them in the very bottom of beer mugs, on occasion.:D


(note little green man laughing hysterically....:D :D oops they'e here!

[Marko]

I'll take that as a compliment. Lenses are like violins......

Yes, they still require a master. Of course it was a compliment! :)

[John Kasaian]

Beautiful shots, Jim!

[Captain_joe6]

damn it, Jim...just...damn...now there's another camera bit I'll have to justify to my fiance. :)

They do look so lovely, so smooth, and to think that you've got a 7" lens that will cover more than 11x14 is in itself mond blowing. Mount it in a shutter and sell it for $$$!

[gregstidham]

Beautiful work. Thanks again for some inspiration. :)

I like the SW designation.

[C. D. Keth]

oooh la la! I don't often have lens envy, but, all of a sudden my eyes have turned bright jealousy green!

Either that or I wouldn't like you when you're angry.;)

[Asher Kelman]

....my new Secret Weapon Lens!

I hope you'll let me know what you think! Good or bad! I can take it :D :D

Jim, the images are besutiful. I guess you don't have an aperture to be able to say whether the effect goes away at small aperture!

I wonder whether you get the same effect in diffuse v. hard light.

Asher

[Jim Galli]

Jim, the images are besutiful. I guess you don't have an aperture to be able to say whether the effect goes away at small aperture!

I wonder whether you get the same effect in diffuse v. hard light.

Asher

Thanks for all the nice words! Asher, I do plan to take it outdoors and see how it acts in different light. No aperture at all and nothing but a Packard shutter for control. It might work well with Ortho Lith film asa 3. We shall see.

[domenico Foschi]

YEah Jim,
you are full of S@%*t!
IT's not just the lens, you know....!
It takes a discerning eye to see what's beautiful.
The images are beautiful, congratulations.
The spider grass is wonderful, I like almost all of them.
COngrats.

[janepaints]

Lenses are like violins......

Hi Jim

Hmmm....well, I know that violins are like trampolines. (because it feels real good to jump up & down on 'em.) So that must mean that lenses are like trampolines. It's logical-like.

However.

I've found your Reckless Abandon and 'To Heck With Fine & Super-Expensive Optics' attitude inspiring. I joined this forum only about a month ago, but encountering your photos (as well photos by many other folks!!) has quickly made this here LF joint a fave daily destination.

Such images made me realize something. Previous the soft-focus style of the 'Secessionists' et al usually left me cold. They seemed like artsy-fartsy 'I-really-want-to-be-a-painter-but-can't-draw-for-beans-so-I-bought-a-camera-instead' stuff.

"Look here Steiglitz Old Chap, I made a photograph that kinda sorta looks like a blurry so-so painting! I've titled it 'The Equivalent Of A Flattened Iron Building.' Voila-ART!!!

(I may be 100% wrong here, but what the hey. I know, I know--those guys lived in a different time & place when attitudes were different etc. Everybody got their burdens to bear. They shoulda had the sense to be borned in some other time & place.)

But now, after seeing what you're doing with that old glass n' brass, I've another take on this issue. Maybe them old-school guys, having mainly not-so-sharp lens to work with, decided (for god knows what reason) that their photos would be, somehow, much-improved if they MADE THEIR UNSHARP-TO-BEGIN-WITH IMAGES EVEN BLURRIER.

Say--this lens is pretty dang blurry. I don't dare exhibit these photos at the next Armory Show. Eureka--I'll smear my lens with Mabel's cold cream, print it on an emulsion-coated scrap cut from the Shroud Of Turin and then ask that Monet fellow to take some Marshall's Tints to it to add that final 'Sparkly Dim Artistic Glow' touch which will surely earn me Best In Show. Then none will daresay that photography isn't artistic! Harumph.

They shoulda just let their lenses do what they were capable of and so be it. I dunno--maybe they never bothered to take an actual look at the ground glass, had assistants do all those lowly mechanical tasks. Tell me when the shot's all arranged, Nigel, so I can operate the cable release mechanism. I'm expected at the Yacht Club by eight, dash it all. Hurry, Nigel!

Steichen's soft-focus work especially always annoyed the heck outta me. I smelled Big Noble Big Ideas, Explained To Me From Afar By A Great Mind From On High instead of "holy moly, take a look at that, wouldja!"

So what I'm saying is that when I see your photos I smell holy moly, take a look at that wouldja!" (I bet when you see that ground glass you're hollering 'holy moly, take a look at that'! Right?)

Which is to say that your cheapo-ancient-lens pictures smell good. And look good. Plenty.

I was just kidding about the trampoline-n-violin stuff. It only feels good when you jump up and down on banjoes ;)

[Mark Sawyer]

I suspect that little lens is probably too over-the-top for portraiture, but it does what it does so wonderfully well, and your use of it captures its potential so beautifully. If we ever meet, can I go through your garbage?

[PViapiano]

I was just kidding about the trampoline-n-violin stuff. It only feels good when you jump up and down on banjoes ;)

Hey...I take issue with that remark :D

BTW, the original joke is...violas, not violins.

What's the difference between a viola and a trampoline.

You take your shoes off to jump on a trampoline!

[Michael Roberts]

Jim, Wow!
Love the spider grass!

[ondebanks]

Marvellous. I don't usually go for that uber-soft closeup stuff, but there is a fantastic quality delivered by the spherical aberration of that half-a-lens. The spider plant is gorgeous.

[Jim Rice]

The difference beteen violins and fiddles: fiddles burn hotter, violins burn longer. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[janepaints]

The difference beteen violins and fiddles: fiddles burn hotter, violins burn longer. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The old-time music world is chock full of such genre-deprecating cornball jokes--I love 'em. They're also easy to adapt-convert to the topic of LF photography. Examples:

[i]* Large Format photography--it's better than it looks!"

*There's not much difference between taking LF photos and not taking photos at all!

*Many noted LF photographers, like Ansel Adams, were also musicians gifted with Perfect Pitch. Perfect Pitch is when you get both the Deardorff AND the 48" Red Dot Apo Artar Gilgamesharon Zeiss-Dagor Drektar Triple-Convertible F: 1.8 lens into the dumpster with one smooth toss.

*Q: What's the difference between a dead possum on the roadside and a LF photographer staggering around Yosemite with his tripod, 3" x 96" ULF panoramic field camera and 300 pounds of lightweight gear?
A. The possum was on her way to a gallery which had agreed to display her work.

* LF Format photography is one of the most popular photographic idioms in the world today, surpassed only by Snapshooting, Security Camera Operating, Accidental Exposure Making, Digital Photography, Insurance Documentation, Cameraphone picture-taking, Wedding work, Passport Picturing, Mug Shots, the 35mm SLR hobby, Disposable Camera fanatics, Webcam Enthusiasts, Casual Users, Voyeurism Applications photography, Private Eye Evidence Gathering, Holiday Gathering photo specialists, Inmate Rehabilitation Programs, the Real Estate Ad Photo field, Newspaper Shutterbuggery, Polaroidaholics, Holgatics and Diana Syndrome Sufferers.

[Marko]

The difference beteen violins and fiddles: fiddles burn hotter, violins burn longer. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The difference between a violine and a pizza: pizza can feed a family of four.

[Asher Kelman]

The difference between a violine and a pizza: pizza can feed a family of four.
A violin can not only feed a family of four but also pay the mortgage on the 4 bedroom house, buy two cars and the education of the kids!

Not only that, after 40 years of good use, the violin can be sold for much more than the original cost! Try that with a 40 year old pizza!

Asher

[Bobby Ironsights]

Hi, I enjoyed much of your website, kudos.

I didn't like the blurry shots you linked to, with your "secret weapon" lens. In fact, I think they really suck, and I would hazard a guess that they may be a product of restlessness or boredom.

But hell...what do I know? I'm not all that big a fan of abstract art either.

Bobby Tinsley.

[Marko]

A violin can not only feed a family of four but also pay the mortgage on the 4 bedroom house, buy two cars and the education of the kids!

Not only that, after 40 years of good use, the violin can be sold for much more than the original cost! Try that with a 40 year old pizza!

Asher

Yes, but a violin can to that only in the hands of a master. Relatively few people learn to play violin like that.

Most everybody can learn how to make a pizza...

:)

[Jim Galli]

....and I would hazard a guess that they may be a product of restlessness or boredom.

Bobby Tinsley.

Neither. They are purpose driven and very close to what I'm personally looking for.

[Pat Kearns]

Even if they were a product of boredom... I can only wish that my boredom could be that beautiful.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, I enjoyed much of your website, kudos.

I didn't like the blurry shots you linked to, with your "secret weapon" lens. In fact, I think they really suck, and I would hazard a guess that they may be a product of restlessness or boredom.

But hell...what do I know? I'm not all that big a fan of abstract art either.

What art are you a fan of? Art is only representational of things, never more!

I really doubt we can show a photograph one likes as art, one that commands by it's own life, by some special identity, a picture that pulls one back to revisit, which is not to some extent, abstract!

So that is the challenge. Where are such masterpieces of photographic art which are not abstractions?

As long as one samples light from an object, it's by definition, abstract!

Jim's work admits this function of photography and exploits it giving a delicate representation, The missing detail is filled in by our minds.

Asher

Any well-trained technician can make a sharp 3D well-lit photograph, but that is not necessarily making art! Art has to carry something from the artist to the next person, the Arc of Intent! Without that, it's just another photograph!

[rippo]

violin blah blah....i saw your pictures the other day jim, and thought they were amazing. i saw the post and just had to go look at them again. "you can't fake the funk" as they say, and there is some real good funk going on. i hope my homebuilt lenses that i'm mounting in the next day or two give me a little of that quality. thanks for the inspiration.

[Bobby Ironsights]

What art are you a fan of? Art is only representational of things, never more!

I really doubt we can show a photograph one likes as art, one that commands by it's own life, by some special identity, a picture that pulls one back to revisit, which is not to some extent, abstract!

So that is the challenge. Where are such masterpieces of photographic art which are not abstractions?

As long as one samples light from an object, it's by definition, abstract!

Jim's work admits this function of photography and exploits it giving a delicate representation, The missing detail is filled in by our minds.

Asher

Any well-trained technician can make a sharp 3D well-lit photograph, but that is not necessarily making art! Art has to carry something from the artist to the next person, the Arc of Intent! Without that, it's just another photograph!

Cow crap.

You can look at blurry, out of focus images, with half an old lens, and call it fine art if you want.

I'll call it like I see it. I think Jim Galli is making crappy pictures with this "secret weapon lens", and his reputation is such that it's gained not merely acceptance, but critical acclaim. I also think that if he had posted these images under a pseudonym, with the caption, "Hi, my name is Jimmy Newbie, I'm 17 years old and just getting started, what do you think of my pictures with my homemade lens...." Then the resulting comments would have been.....different.


Anti pictoralism has been around in one way for a long time, and that doesn't make it suck any less, no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon when experiences it's recurring vogue.

If bad equipment can only make bad photographs better for you....great. Get your lomography on and power to you.

But it's still crap.

P.S. I'm still at the near end of the learning curve in photography, but by all means, if I master my craft, and then I get bored with the tedium of trying to make excellent images in a technically excellent way, I expect I'll simply take up another art form and start from scratch.

What I hope I won't do, is start making crap, and calling it art, while all my buddies pat me on the back enthusiastically. I hope I'll have at least one genuinely good friend who'll look me in the eye and say, "Hey buddy, I'm not sure where you think you were going with that....but you ended up in Craptown, Crapsylvannia, and I think you should back that up and go back where you came from".


And finally, to answer your first question directly, Asher Kelman, I'm a fan of well compsed images made in a technically excellent manner. I'm a fan of realism, or hyper-realism if possible.

It's why I have taken up photography rather than watercolours or pottery.

[walter23]

I appreciate your sentiments and your honesty here and to a great extent agree with what you're saying. The points you raise are things I've thought about a fair bit as well.

This doesn't really reflect on the merits of the images themselves though; Jim Galli has made it his photographic purpose to reflect on everyday objects in his world through the eyes of different chunks of salvaged glass, and that's no less respectable an effort than your efforts at hyper-realism. All we gain from this exchange is the recognition that these things are all very subjective. You simply can't separate art from the viewer, nor can you remove these subjective aesthetic judgements from the circumstances or reputation of the "artist" (unless you present the image without context or information about who was responsible). The appreciation of art is a human perceptual and psycho-social phenomenon and it simply can't be turned into something objective. Your opinions of the maker will always taint your opinions of the art.

I actually find most of the abstract images aesthetically pleasing, even if they don't go much deeper than abstract images of house plants (which they don't - let's be honest here). The spider plant image, while "just a blurry photograph of a spider plant", is something I've never seen quite like that before, and I really enjoyed looking at it.

And hey - let's face it - Jim's already established himself as a talented portrait photographer - which affects our judgement of his other images.

Not to put Galli into Picasso's league (or perhaps to put Picasso into Picasso's league either - I'm not a fan ;)), but looking at this image without knowing it's a picasso is like looking at some talentless crayon drawing. Subjective perception and opinion of the artist are inseperable for a lot of people.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ESC/AP625~The-Dance-of-Youth-Posters.jpg

I think this image is crap. But I'd sure like to have an original to sell to an eager collector ;)

In some respects, we can grant artistic license to someone we *know* can do more elaborate things simply because we recognize (or suspect we recognize) that they're not just being lazy. There's a Kurt Vonnegut novel about a guy who gets famous painting single fluorescent lines on canvas, which would normally be intolerably lame except for the fact that the artist has exhausted all other media and expressive forms and realized that the only way he can paint the "soul" is to draw these stupid fluorescent lines. He, of course, can do a perfect photo-realistic representation, but they just don't fit his vision. I sort of agree with this; it's easier to take an unusual and possibly trite-looking image seriously if you know what the artist is capable of. I suppose there are still talented artists who, once they've earned a name, start pumping out pure crap as quickly as possible to make a few bucks.


Cow crap.

You can look at blurry, out of focus images, with half an old lens, and call it fine art if you want.

I'll call it like I see it. I think Jim Galli is making crappy pictures with this "secret weapon lens", and his reputation is such that it's gained not merely acceptance, but critical acclaim. I also think that if he had posted these images under a pseudonym, with the caption, "Hi, my name is Jimmy Newbie, I'm 17 years old and just getting started, what do you think of my pictures with my homemade lens...." Then the resulting comments would have been.....different.


Anti pictoralism has been around in one way for a long time, and that doesn't make it suck any less, no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon when experiences it's recurring vogue.

If bad equipment can only make bad photographs better for you....great. Get your lomography on and power to you.

But it's still crap.

P.S. I'm still at the near end of the learning curve in photography, but by all means, if I master my craft, and then I get bored with the tedium of trying to make excellent images in a technically excellent way, I expect I'll simply take up another art form and start from scratch.

What I hope I won't do, is start making crap, and calling it art, while all my buddies pat me on the back enthusiastically. I hope I'll have at least one genuinely good friend who'll look me in the eye and say, "Hey buddy, I'm not sure where you think you were going with that....but you ended up in Craptown, Crapsylvannia, and I think you should back that up and go back where you came from".


And finally, to answer your first question directly, Asher Kelman, I'm a fan of well compsed images made in a technically excellent manner. I'm a fan of realism, or hyper-realism if possible.

It's why I have taken up photography rather than watercolours or pottery.

[rippo]

Anti pictoralism has been around in one way for a long time, and that doesn't make it suck any less, no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon when experiences it's recurring vogue.



you've got your terms wrong. the pictorialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialist) movement was actually an artsy-fartsy blurry painterly photographic period, which was superceded by Ansel and his f64 crowd. you are in fact an anti-pictorialist. you might want to get that straight before you walk into the wrong bar on the wrong side of town.

it's generally considered polite to keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything nice to say, especially when commenting on someone's art.

perhaps you should start a separate thread on the superiority of realism vs pictorialism, where you can argue your opinion with anyone who cares to discuss it. but why you need to single out any one individual and disparage their work, well...that just shows poor breeding.

[David Karp]

What I hope I won't do, is start making crap, and calling it art, while all my buddies pat me on the back enthusiastically. I hope I'll have at least one genuinely good friend who'll look me in the eye and say, "Hey buddy, I'm not sure where you think you were going with that....but you ended up in Craptown, Crapsylvannia, and I think you should back that up and go back where you came from".

Before pitching cow patties, where is is said that Jim has lots of buddies here who pat him on the back and compliment on work that they don't really care for? I have been around here long enough to know that people are willing to speak their minds. Some can do it civilly, others sometimes less so. Or, perhaps those who don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. Or perhaps they contact people via PM or e-mail for such comments. But to assert that the people who say that they like Jim's photos really don't, and that they are just patting Jim on the back assumes a lot of facts that are not in evidence. You may not like soft focus or pictorialist photographs. That speaks for you. Nobody else.

For the most part, I cannot stand soft focus photos. I don't have a soft focus lens in my kit, probably never will. However, for whatever reason, I have usually liked Jim's work, whether soft or "Group f/64." I enjoy his portrait work, environmental and otherwise. I really like a couple of the photos linked to this post. When I don't like his soft focus stuff, I can still respect another person's viewpoint. I am not wed to the idea that I am the only one who has the "right" idea about things.

And it is particularly interesting to see Jim's work after having looked through his camera with an old brass soft focus lens on it. How he even composes a photograph using one of those things is a testement to his skill and understanding of his tools. When the lens was open wide enough to get a good view of the screen, it was hard to make out the image. When the lens was stopped down to sharpen things up, the image was pretty darn dark.

[domenico Foschi]

Bobby,
there are different and more polite ways to express your opinion.
The fact that you are at the beginning of the learning curve in photography, somewhat explains your lack of tact and respect toward a FELLOW photographer who works hard and is getting pretty amazing results.
I am not telling you that you should like his work, what I am suggesting is that if it's a critique that you want to express make it constructive: explain what is wrong with the images in your opinion and, please, write them as if you would like a critique be addressed to you.
Think respect. This forum has been succesful because in the 98% of the occasions there is cameraderie and respect, we don't want to change that, now, would we?!
Good luck with your photography.





Cow crap.

You can look at blurry, out of focus images, with half an old lens, and call it fine art if you want.

I'll call it like I see it. I think Jim Galli is making crappy pictures with this "secret weapon lens", and his reputation is such that it's gained not merely acceptance, but critical acclaim. I also think that if he had posted these images under a pseudonym, with the caption, "Hi, my name is Jimmy Newbie, I'm 17 years old and just getting started, what do you think of my pictures with my homemade lens...." Then the resulting comments would have been.....different.


Anti pictoralism has been around in one way for a long time, and that doesn't make it suck any less, no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon when experiences it's recurring vogue.

If bad equipment can only make bad photographs better for you....great. Get your lomography on and power to you.

But it's still crap.

P.S. I'm still at the near end of the learning curve in photography, but by all means, if I master my craft, and then I get bored with the tedium of trying to make excellent images in a technically excellent way, I expect I'll simply take up another art form and start from scratch.

What I hope I won't do, is start making crap, and calling it art, while all my buddies pat me on the back enthusiastically. I hope I'll have at least one genuinely good friend who'll look me in the eye and say, "Hey buddy, I'm not sure where you think you were going with that....but you ended up in Craptown, Crapsylvannia, and I think you should back that up and go back where you came from".


And finally, to answer your first question directly, Asher Kelman, I'm a fan of well compsed images made in a technically excellent manner. I'm a fan of realism, or hyper-realism if possible.

It's why I have taken up photography rather than watercolours or pottery.

[Marko]

perhaps you should start a separate thread on the superiority of realism vs pictorialism, where you can argue your opinion with anyone who cares to discuss it.

Or better yet, go start a whole new discussion board. That way, you will have the benefit of controlling what goes and what not, while we will have the benefit of you having your own board. ;)

[Dave Wooten]

actually I like some of these recent images Jim has posted, (the plants),
it does'nt matter if they are plants , puppets, or tadpoles in a pond. But then I also like some of those paintings of soup cans that Andy guy used to do a while back, and I have a tie with lots of repeated images of M M on it.

[eddie]

har har har.

thanks to jim for another wonderful posting.

thanks to ole ironsights for the ensuing discourse......fun photos followed by a fun exchange!

eddie loves this post

[Asher Kelman]

Cow crap.

You can look at blurry, out of focus images, with half an old lens, and call it fine art if you want.

I'll call it like I see it. I think Jim Galli is making crappy pictures with this "secret weapon lens", and his reputation is such that it's gained not merely acceptance, but critical acclaim. I also think that if he had posted these images under a pseudonym, with the caption, "Hi, my name is Jimmy Newbie, I'm 17 years old and just getting started, what do you think of my pictures with my homemade lens...." Then the resulting comments would have been.....different.

Hi Bobby,

Despite you using totally dismissive and devaluating descriptors of Jim Galli's work, I take you own values seriously. You can find Jim's soft images unimportant and without artistic merit. That is a report and I'd believe you. When, however, you repeatedly imply objective classification in fecal terms, which I find is in itself an argument of to say the least lacking solid substance and for sure, tainted by the source.

I do still respect and allow that you have no positive feelings at all for Jim's work since you have a right to your own reactions. These re both eruptive and based on your own cultural preparation. You are the only reporter and judge possible for your own thoughts.

When you talk about art, however, and deny as fact any artistic photographic value of Jim's pictures you trespass, invade and wound and insult my own pretty well-informed sensibilities.

I have no previous knowledge of Jim's work or status here. I'm new to this forum, have never met him or owned his images or traded with him. My only basis for judgment is my extensive experience in artworks from the earliest civilizations to the present. I personally travel a lot visiting many important National, State and city galleries, private collections and commercial dealers. In addition, I look at some 30 to 3200 pictures every single day and photograph for several organizations. In my own work I make about 500- 2000 pictures a month at events, street and portraits as well as a few important works for my own portfolio.

My level of education would match or surpass that of most people, however, I'm no better than anyone else and certainly not fit to have my own hard-won esthetic reactions to a photograph dismissed and trivialized by you or anyone else.


Anti pictoralism has been around in one way for a long time, and that doesn't make it suck any less, no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon when experiences it's recurring vogue.

Where did you get "Anti pictoralism" from? I don't follow your logic?


If bad equipment can only make bad photographs better for you....great.

By what set of standards do you find that Jim was using "bad equipment". Do you mean it did not fit the purpose Jim assigned to the lens?

Then for the concept of "making "bad photographs better for you", where are the "bad photographs" you refer to? BTW, Jim never claimed they were good photographs, just merely shared his pictures from otherwise nearly nothing to buy to inexpensive lenses.


P.S. I'm still at the near end of the learning curve in photography,
With due respect, you have a poor idea of what education might include in photography. Photography as art is about representation, not documentation, although the latter is not excluded. Art is a process whereby feelings and thoughts are transmitted by doing work in a physical medium such that some related feelings, thoughts and consequences will be invoked first in the artist, completing the work of art and next, hopefully in others, then completing "An Arc of Communication".

Photography as art is not about exactness, although that parameter can be admired and celebrated but is not at all required for the work to be art.

Creativity and genius requires openness to new ideas. If one does not possess that, just hubris towards others, as you have shown till now, then one is preventing any substantive education in photography as art.

While you may well succeed in learning the technical art of photography, art is totally different. Although the word "art" is used in both cases, but there is no necessary connection!


but by all means, if I master my craft,

You can master the craft from a technical point of view. Technical prowess might never be needed if the picture works without it! Certainly mastering the craft will not make you a master of anything except perhaps to copy someone else's type of work. The key qualifyer is the "perhaps" I attached as a condition. I personally doubt you would succeed since you would still lack insight and humility.


and then I get bored with the tedium of trying to make excellent images in a technically excellent way, I expect I'll simply take up another art form and start from scratch.

I'm a stickler for perfection and am hard on myself, knowing that the path I seek has been well worn by better men. However you have little chance of making meaningful art in any medium with a haughty dismissive attitude that is closed to work that doesn't move you right now.


What I hope I won't do, is start making crap, and calling it art, while all my buddies pat me on the back enthusiastically. I hope I'll have at least one genuinely good friend who'll look me in the eye and say, "Hey buddy, I'm not sure where you think you were going with that....but you ended up in Craptown, Crapsylvannia, and I think you should back that up and go back where you came from".

Well I'll be your friend and let you know that last paragraph of writing would not enhance people's opinion of you since you present here an impoverished representation of your own vocabulary.

Think Duchamp! That art challenged and changed our view of what art might be.


And finally, to answer your first question directly, Asher Kelman, I'm a fan of well compsed images made in a technically excellent manner. I'm a fan of realism, or hyper-realism if possible.
It's ironic that a person who insists on technical excellence, talks of "well compsed images". Then who you mention being even a fan of "hyper-realism"; you have missed the point of what abstract means. It is an extraction of some parameters of a subject to make some representation, more or less. Doing it "more” is still, by logic, abstract. There is no difference between "hyper-realism" that you would embrace and glowing soft abstractions that you dismiss so rudely.

You might do yourself a great service by rereading my post a number of times, as it's pretty sound advice. It is not directed against you but is a generous sharing from someone who really cares about art education and allowing people to understand what is possible.

If you can take what I have written not as a challenge or smack in the face but a kindness, then you will at least be able to take the first rung on the ladder to becoming a photographer. For technical capability, just get an apprenticeship and practice.

[Dave Wooten]

Well said Asher.

[Jan Pedersen]

I'd like to second that..

[Scott Squires]

As a Landscape guy my whole LF career I never really paid attention to anything except getting tack sharp Images. The only lenses I used were the newer Multicoated ones. Then I saw Jim Galli's Portraits and Landscapes on his website and the great article on his Portraits and using old lenses in the Sept/Oct issue of View Camera. I wanted old lenses and the ability to shoot that type of portrait (and Landscape). I got the lenses (from you know who) and now I have to learn how to use them. Thanks Jim and keep those photos coming.

[Bobby Ironsights]

Ok, my liberal use of fecal adjectives is less than ideal.

I'll not go back and change them as they might detract from the continuity of this thread.

Now, and in future, I'll endeavor to use less inflammatory adjectives like, "poor", or "unappealing".

Also, I'm giving serious thought to your last post Asher. It's true that I'm not an "art-God" incapable of errors and misjudgement. But I also hate the "I'm OK-you're OK" postmodernist nonsense. At some point it's essential to say...This is what I beleive.

But on the other hand.....you've made powerful arguments.

I'm in the midst of writing my end of term critique of Yousuf Karsh, and this may affect the direction it's moving in.

[tim810]

Beautifull Photos!!!
Tim

[Mark Sawyer]

Some people can truly enjoy a fine India Pale Ale, and some hate the stuff. For those who appreciate it, they can only pity the others for their loss of the experience...

Same with opera, same with rock and roll...

Personally, I've admired Jim's work and contributions, and learned from him, in a few different ways...

[Jan Pedersen]

Me too and same goes for you Mark..

Long live Rock and Roll.

[Ron McElroy]

A violin can not only feed a family of four but also pay the mortgage on the 4 bedroom house, buy two cars and the education of the kids!

Not only that, after 40 years of good use, the violin can be sold for much more than the original cost! Try that with a 40 year old pizza!

Asher


That is it the violin is a valuable old one. A good friend in the '70s played with the local symphony with a violin insured for $70,000. He also didn't drive a car so he would travel on a bicycle between his teaching job and practice with this violin on his back.

[Jim Galli]

I was away all day and got very tickled by all this attention when I arrived home! Thanks Bobbie. The way I look at it is 1690 people looked at the thread and maybe at the pictures. So I have to assume that out of 1700 people 25 or so actually liked them. Hey, that's a home run.

I don't care to be the country western music of photography thank you very much. I'll leave that to the hordes of Nikon D300 owners.

If you study a bit you will find the original photo secessionists and their ilk were reacting to a very similar phenomena exactly 100 years ago to what we have today. The anastigmat lens and the roll film camera had put cheap sharp snapshots into the hands of the mindless hordes. The pictorialists were a knee jerk reaction to the flood of sharp snapshots. Ultimately if all you are interested in is hyper-sharp pictures, I think perhaps you've wandered into a dead end alley. Eventually you'll end up happily snapping a Nikon D300. Why would you bother with all this film stuff?

[venchka]

Jim,

Thank you! I became the owner of an almost old, maybe 100 years, brass lens last summer. When I first held it and read the maker's name I knew I wanted to use it. I had no idea then that so many people use and appreciate 100+ year old lenses. Heck, I didn't know there were so many around.

You've pointed me down the road. I'm stumbling and bumbling now. I hope to be able to walk down this road someday.

[walter23]

I looked back over the images with the critique raised in this thread in mind and only found I liked them that much more.

I mean, let's face it - they are extraordinarily mundane subjects. And that's why the sublime way they are displayed is so particularly effective.

I like it.

[Bobby Ironsights]

Well. I think I learned something tonight.

Jim Galli was out making photographs(at least in my mind), that I don't like, while I was critiquing the photographs I don't like, instead of trying out the three stop tri-x pushing technique, for night photography.

Yup, I'm reading and writing too much and spending too little time under the safelight.

[Hugo Zhang]

Jim,

Many photographers working hard everyday to make beautiful images. What makes you a little bit different is you have got your own style that people like and even imitate. You are having tons of fun. Purpose driven or out of boredom is not that important.

In a nutshell, art is more about manners than matters.

BTW, the only complaint I have heard about you is that the prices of all old funky lenses, working or nonworking, spiked up and stayed up whenever you posted some "new" pictures. Consider that as a compliment, my dear friend.

Thanks.
Hugo

[wfwhitaker]

If I'd kept the crappy lens, we wouldn't have this crappy thread.


;)

[gbogatko]

If you study a bit you will find the original photo secessionists and their ilk were reacting to a very similar phenomena exactly 100 years ago to what we have today. The anastigmat lens and the roll film camera had put cheap sharp snapshots into the hands of the mindless hordes.

Precisely, and that's why I'm leaning toward older aberrant lenses. I'm struggling to photograph the wilder areas of New Jersey, "the jungle state". Like the 'pictorialists', I'm coming to the conclusion that avoiding the "wiry sharpness" of the anastigmatics with older rapid-rectilinear and petzvals is meeting my aesthetic needs. Here in NJ, something wild and intricate is in front of or a part of just about everything. Making the whole frame sharp just increases the clutter, and trying to separate things into different front and rear focal planes doesn't help. The lenses I mentioned offer the possibility of selective focus on the _same_ plane. But... older lenses don't completely eliminate the problem, they're just one answer.

Here're some attempts at landscape with aberrant lens:

1. Part of a swamp in Watchung Reservation, NJ - Chatham Rapid Rectilinear.
2. An old railroad bridge in Lockwood Gorge, NJ - Voigtlander Petzval
3. A stand of trees in Watchung - Wollensak Petzval
4. Backside of a McMansion in Watchung, NJ. Voigtlander Petzval half open -- this is the most experimental -- very drugular. It works a LOT better in 11x14.

George

[walter23]

Really nice shots George. The first is my favorite.

[Jim Galli]

George, they are wonderful. I love 2 and 3, the Petzval shots. All of them are gorgeous although I think I'd need to see #4 in the bigger size.

[janepaints]

I'm struggling to photograph the wilder areas of New Jersey, "the jungle state".


2. An old railroad bridge in Lockwood Gorge, NJ - Voigtlander Petzval


George


Nice photos, George. In case you haven't heard: There's been much talk recently of closing public access to Lockwood Gorge. Not sure if the proposed prohibition would be solely for vehicles or if foot traffic would still be allowed. I'm not surprised the issue came up--Driving there in winter once I came very close to going into the water.

That gorge-side road is barely a road.

[gbogatko]

Thanks all. Glad to know it's not idiotic.

Lockwood Gorge is probably going to be closed to cars and the like as a lot of the road was washed away last winter. There's also a stretch near solitude village that was "posted", but I think High Bridge is going to buy it.

The fly fisherfolk would probably revolt in arms if the gorge was going to be closed to all.

Cheers,

gb

[Alex Hollmann]

Number 4 is my favourite - it's spectacular enough in the JPEG image, must be fantastic in 11X14.

[Dave Wooten]

The first one is really beautiful...all are interesting

[Jan Pedersen]

Number 1 and 4 are my favorites. 1 has that lovely diffused look and four is really funky with that sharp waterfall and the ghost building in the back ground.

[Kirk Gittings]

Bobby, your comments would not seem so much like cheap shots if you would show some of your work. It would help to establish your expertise for such pronouncements.

The fact is the Jim for years has been on a long term exploration of the artistic potential of these old lenses and we have been fortunate to share in his journey. Like any such investigation there are successes and failures.

George number 4 is transcendent.

[Greg Lockrey]

Cow crap.

You can look at blurry, out of focus images, with half an old lens, and call it fine art if you want.

I'll call it like I see it. I think Jim Galli is making crappy pictures with this "secret weapon lens", and his reputation is such that it's gained not merely acceptance, but critical acclaim. I also think that if he had posted these images under a pseudonym, with the caption, "Hi, my name is Jimmy Newbie, I'm 17 years old and just getting started, what do you think of my pictures with my homemade lens...." Then the resulting comments would have been.....different.


Anti pictoralism has been around in one way for a long time, and that doesn't make it suck any less, no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon when experiences it's recurring vogue.

If bad equipment can only make bad photographs better for you....great. Get your lomography on and power to you.

But it's still crap.

P.S. I'm still at the near end of the learning curve in photography, but by all means, if I master my craft, and then I get bored with the tedium of trying to make excellent images in a technically excellent way, I expect I'll simply take up another art form and start from scratch.

What I hope I won't do, is start making crap, and calling it art, while all my buddies pat me on the back enthusiastically. I hope I'll have at least one genuinely good friend who'll look me in the eye and say, "Hey buddy, I'm not sure where you think you were going with that....but you ended up in Craptown, Crapsylvannia, and I think you should back that up and go back where you came from".


And finally, to answer your first question directly, Asher Kelman, I'm a fan of well compsed images made in a technically excellent manner. I'm a fan of realism, or hyper-realism if possible.

It's why I have taken up photography rather than watercolours or pottery.

Ah man, you don't know how to have fun, do you?

I guess you haven't gotten far enough in your studies to take any experimental photography classes yet at your school. It's probably reserved for an Honors Level curriculum anyway.

BTW, everyone knows that watercolorists and potteriers make more money than photogs.

[Ole Tjugen]

"Anti-pictorialism" - wouldn't that be the f64 group? After all that was started as a reaction to pictorialism...

In that case, what Jim Galli and others are doing might better be called anti-anti-pictorialism. ;)

[Gary Tarbert]

bamboo #3 & spidergrass are top class IMHO all the others i like & the only one that doesn't ring by bell at all is the lightfitting.
But overall a splendid body of work and i enjoyed viewing thank you Jim

[gbogatko]

George number 4 is transcendent.

Wow. Now that gives me hope!! Thanks

GB

[ljb0904]

Makes me wanna go out and shoot B+W :-)