Duotone and Neo-Noir

RE*AC*TOR

Fajitas! wrote: »

But the hons. degree in Fine Art might help with that

I love when people start listing their qualifications.

eas

vroom...and where off!

I'm not sure how my post above came across, but I was only making a point that there is a difference between split toning and duatoning. I was certainly not trying to be nit picky.

As fajitas said, these are terms that have been around for a very long time and DO have exact definitions. It's not to cause argument or to divide technical from artistic, the names of these processes actually used to mean something and relate to an exact process for artistic results. You can add cyanotype and numerous others to the list too.

Like elven said, these effects are easily simulated now using any number of techniques that in digital terms their true definitions have more or less become meaningless.

smelltheglove

Covey wrote: »

At last a robust debate on boards. Not really interested in the subject matter, but this is rivetting stuff indeed. Just like the old days around here

lol Covey, have to laugh a bit, its true, very tame lately.:D

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

I have all the time in the world.

Which one though? Was it this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rymus/2314775272/

Yes. It got a lot of attention on the Internet at the time, and I think it was posted onto a page with a very compatible template as well. The Flickr background, with so much white, can often drain away the impact of more subtle colours.

rymus

Covey wrote: »

At last a robust debate on boards. Not really interested in the subject matter, but this is rivetting stuff indeed. Just like the old days around here

I thought the old days were the bad days. At least that's what I took from all those reported posts I had to ritually wade through and ignore blissfully.

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

lol Covey, have to laugh a bit, its true, very tame lately.:D

Well, we could go for the "Neo-Noir" side of the thread...

"Chinatown" meets "The Big Sleep"....

rymus

Anouilh wrote: »

It got a lot of attention on the Internet at the time

It did?!?

and I think it was posted onto a page with a very compatible template as well. The Flickr background, with so much white, can often drain away the impact of more subtle colours.

Yep, flickr's not the most gorgeous way to display photos. Can't think where I'd have posted all the blog awards shots. Maybe on pix too...

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

Next, many artists have no degrees or education, I dont think that is the be all and end all, but to be honest the majority of artists will tell you art requires no explanation. Why did Van Gogh cut of his ear???? Because he felt like it, he wanted to paint his ear! Not comparing myself but why did I do this for artistic reasons, because I felt like it, I wanted edginess, something different.

Next. The photo was taken initially with this intention. If you looked through the full set you would see a trend in the style of the shot as well as the style of the edits, all pre planned. As soon as the style was developed and appreciated by past and future brides it was added to some of the traditional wedding shots and hugely appreciated.

Off topic, I mean online via the forum and pm.

Lol, don't worry, I definitely think before I post

Actually, these days the majority or practising artists do have an education in art (some make the branch over from craft/design too) and an explanation, including research is incredibly essential in any artists statement, never mind applying for exhibitions.

Van Gogh most likely didn't cut his own ear off, it's now thought he lost it in a fight, but regardless of newer theories (The other was he cut it off with his razor in a fit of possible epilepsy, rage and drunken stupor), it was never cut off to be painted. As far as artists go, he was unappreciated in his own time, and led quite a poor life (I'd rather make my money now :pac: ) - It was far from trying to be different or edgy! Also, comparing any art made in contemporary times to art from the 1800's is completely irrelevant, as major progressions have been made - A brief containing only 'aesthetic' (Pretty flower syndrome) will find it incredibly hard to find money/fame/exhibitions these days due to this. If it's art you're talking about, again, bringing up that C word, conceptualism is the biggest part in this, you can't just say "it works" or "it looks really nice" because it's going to need more than that.

In summary; Contemporary times mean artists need education. The majority of artists will tell you explanation is essential to art. Van Gogh isn't relevant

Aaaand... I don't know where the third paragraph comes into it.

Off topic; Ah, that explains it. \o

smelltheglove

Ah come on guys I mean a little bit of blood boiling is good for the soul and you need to laugh about it too.

We do not agree on everything, digital has changed the old technicalities and things are much broader than the used to be, we have got to move with the times and accept everyone is different. I mean sure if we were all the same producing the same work this place would be boring!!!!

Fajitas!

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

I love when people start listing their qualifications.

Ah yes, it comes in handy in the...

"you're not a surgeon, you can't do that, you might kill them!!!!"

"Actually, yes indeed I am, and have numerous years experience in this exact field, now let me do what I've been trained to do"

Debate.

:pac:

Covey

rymus wrote: »

I thought the old days were the bad days. At least that's what I took from all those reported posts I had to ritually wade through and ignore blissfully.

Ah jaysus not at all. Since the introduction of the "Pastaurized" forum it's been like a Mausaleum around here. Even some of dead have arisen, aka your good self. :cool::P

Fajitas!

Covey wrote: »

Ah jaysus not at all. Since the introduction of the "Pastaurized" forum it's been like a Mausaleum around here. Even some of dead have arisen, akka your good self. :cool::P

I lol'd

RE*AC*TOR

Fajitas! wrote: »

Debate.

:pac:

It's good alright, saves me having to read the debate, and weigh up the arguements, I just see who has the most qualifications and accept whatever they say.

This is the efficient way to do forums.











:pac:

Fajitas!

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

It's good alright, saves me having to read the debate, and weigh up the arguements, I just see who has the most qualifications and accept whatever they say.

This is the efficient way to do forums.

Not just forums; life. :pac:

rymus

Covey wrote: »

Ah jaysus not at all. Since the introduction of the "Pastaurized" forum it's been like a Mausaleum around here. Even some of dead have arisen, aka your good self. :cool::P

I just came back to eat your brains..

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

in thought, which would be the conceptuality behind the piece of art.

This is where the third paragraph comes into it, thought behind the piece........ I'll refer to the first paragraph of your most recent post should I????


Also I did state I wasnt comparing to Van Gogh purely using it as an example. Again your first paragraph.....

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

Ah come on guys I mean a little bit of blood boiling is good for the soul and you need to laugh about it too.

We do not agree on everything, digital has changed the old technicalities and things are much broader than the used to be, we have got to move with the times and accept everyone is different. I mean sure if we were all the same producing the same work this place would be boring!!!!

Rembrandt, who was always up to his neck in arguments would have loved digital toning. When I think of the number of artists whose lives were probably cut short by selenium and other art materials I'm very pleased to be living in the 21st Century. I've often wondered if Van Gogh overdid exposure to paint thinners.

Getting back to the OP, I was trying to recreate some early 20th century effects when I chose blue against chocolate sepia. I very quickly came up against my lack of technical knowledge in relation to curves and levels. I can work intuitively, tweaking until the picture looks just right to me. However, a professional photographer will know, like STG, exactly what they are doing.

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

This is where the third paragraph comes into it, thought behind the piece........ I'll refer to the first paragraph of your most recent post should I????


Also I did state I wasnt comparing to Van Gogh purely using it as an example. Again your first paragraph.....

a)I don't see any concept in the third paragraph.

b)I was showing your use of Van Gogh was irrelevant in this argument.

Maybe I'll refer you back to your own post?

smelltheglove

Anouilh wrote: »

Rembrandt, who was always up to his neck in arguments would have loved digital toning. When I think of the number of artists whose lives were probably cut short by selenium and other art materials I'm very pleased to be living in the 21st Century. I've often wondered if Van Gogh overdid exposure to paint thinners.

QUOTE]

Anoulih getting back to the original post for a moment too here, it was a lovely picture and a great idea to start a thread for toned images, I am delighted that your image became a book cover, it does remind me of something but I cannot put my finger on it right now. Professional or ametuer or any type of photographer, none of us are better than the next, there is always more to learn, and we will never ever shoot everything, there is always somebody beside us that has done something we havent!

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

a)I don't see any concept in the third paragraph.

b)I was showing your use of Van Gogh was irrelevant in this argument.

Maybe I'll refer you back to your own post?

Look at this stage there is now need to pick. The relevance was as far as my history studies went, all of 10 years ago, it was purely because he wanted to paint it.

So refer me back if needs be but I am feeling that this argument is dead in the water.

Covey

Anyone got the loan of an oversized wooden spoon :P

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

Look at this stage there is now need to pick. The relevance was as far as my history studies went, all of 10 years ago, it was purely because he wanted to paint it.

So refer me back if needs be but I am feeling that this argument is dead in the water.

Hilarious! Picking! I was responding to the exact two points in your previous posting which, to be anal 'picked' from mine. :pac:

Tommy, might have something in the kitchen, you popping in for a cuppa?

Covey

Would it be fair to say to say that if Al and Rachel were in close proximity, he might very well smell the glove :pac::pac:

Fajitas!

Covey wrote: »

Would it be fair to say to say that if Al and Rachel were in close proximity, he might very well smell the glove :pac::pac:

That sounds a bit too kinky for my liking.

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

Anouilh wrote: »

Rembrandt, who was always up to his neck in arguments would have loved digital toning. When I think of the number of artists whose lives were probably cut short by selenium and other art materials I'm very pleased to be living in the 21st Century. I've often wondered if Van Gogh overdid exposure to paint thinners.

QUOTE]

Anoulih getting back to the original post for a moment too here, it was a lovely picture and a great idea to start a thread for toned images, I am delighted that your image became a book cover, it does remind me of something but I cannot put my finger on it right now. Professional or ametuer or any type of photographer, none of us are better than the next, there is always more to learn, and we will never ever shoot everything, there is always somebody beside us that has done something we havent!

Thank you, STG. I think the OP image could be in a fairy tale. I've been looking at Arthur Rackham's work again and really, everybody must carry his imagery lodged somewhere in their brain, considering the influence he has had on childrens' books.

rackham.artpassions.net/ has some very beautiful images.

What you say about others doing different work is exactly the "Raison d'Etre" of this thread. There has been so much debate... now for some more dazzling photos.

It would be interesting to know what your subjects say about your work. The portrait of the young man on your Blogspot blog is astonishing. Beautiful balance of muted colours.

smelltheglove

Covey wrote: »

Would it be fair to say to say that if Al and Rachel were in close proximity, he might very well smell the glove :pac::pac:

Hilarious.:D:D:D

Seriously lads I'm finding this quite amusing now, I was not picking I was stating the bits you overlook whilst stating you did think before posting. Anyways dead in the water, I have work to do, stop distracting me......:p


Oh and trust me Al, if you knew anything about me you would know I am very very far from anal.

smelltheglove

Anouilh wrote: »

smelltheglove wrote: »

It would be interesting to know what your subjects say about your work. The portrait of the young man on your Blogspot blog is astonishing. Beautiful balance of muted colours.

Some of my clients are added on my facebook, they get to see what I am up to on a daily basis and chat to me about anything they need if they are onlin. I upload some pictures there but it also links to my flickr too. I have received bookings through this also where clients friends may also add me and then book.

I will quote one response that can be seen publicly on facebook.

The bride in question here absolutely loves her photos... the photographer was amazing... and is amazing, a beautiful person xx thanks Rachel

Covey

Fajitas! wrote: »

That sounds a bit too kinky for my liking.

I think it's a boxing term Al

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Handy tip; Easy to do split-toning, buy some C41 monochromatic film, I like Ilford's XP2, shoot, and scan in colour. Blue/Yellow split toning is done for you.

I cannot understand this, Fajitas. If I scan Neopan negatives, will the same thing happen.

At least now I'm beginning to see why some of my attempts at BW photography a few years ago came back with a colour cast.

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

I just came back to eat your brains..

Funnily enough, Alan Glynn's first thriller "The Dark Fields", is about a man who goes into hyper-overdrive on a brain-enhancing drug.

The art design for the book covers for that book are very strong. I'll post a link when I get a moment.