also visit
for the complete gallery and technical background
The Great Master of Fashion still shoots...but on ...film! David Bailey refuses to go digital. For Karen Millen he made a very nice brochure. Maybe he did lose some hairs, but not the photographic tricks. Beautiful work.
For me a reason to look up some old books I have of Bailey and topmodel plus ex-wife Marie Helvin.
Dried peppers.............................................................................................................................................................Sybrand 2013
It takes half a second to make the picture, but you need approx. 4 hours in postproduction to make this fine painting...
Kodak yellow..................................................................................................................................................................Sybrand 2013
HeliRokkor/ColorCraft 7.1.4 300 ppi 20 x 30 inch. 54 megapixels. Tungsten light. Resampled to 96 ppi.
Is this better than a Hasselblad of 41 ms? Must be, because that 41 ms is related to a sensor of 36 x 48 mm. When you spread - say 7500 pixels over 30 inch - you get 250 ppi. So there must be a lot of resampling and upsampling inside the Hasselblad. Plus correction for chromatic aberration, contrast, colour, sharpening etc. It's a shame, all that work I have to do by hand...
.........................................................................................................................................................
What's the connection between Jaffa's, King Salomo and a silver pie form* in the shape of a David's star? ..............................Sybrand 2013
* battuto a mano by JE Benedetti Vicenza Italy
Herocar/ColorCraft 7.2, downsampled from 300 ppi.
Rolleiflex 1936..............................................................................................................................................................Sybrand 2013
Herocar/ColorCraft 7.1. Downsampled from 300 ppi. Illustrations/cover Plaisir de France 1936. They could print in those days. In the middle a reproduction of a bookcover of Erasmus: Eloge de folie. (Lof der Zotheid). The repro of the bookcover (of Rene Kieffer) is a masterpiece, with four colors letterpress and extra gold (bronze) printing (line).
About 1,5 million years later homo habilis, the Handy Man, invented instant photography.
I've got the blues...
Beautiful blues............................................................................................................................................................................... ...............Sybrand 2013
Lens: Herocar. ColorCraft 7.0. (There's always a way to improve, but now I think I reached the limit of boosting shadows, highlights, colors and sharpness...)
324 ppi, 30 inch long side. 63 megapixels. Downsampled to 96 ppi.
When you scroll the picture, you will note that this lens is absolutely distortionfree. Full frame.
Btw, the typewriter is a design of Mario Bellini for Olivetti. (also in the collection of MoMa). It was the first electronic typewriter with a memory of 12 K or so. Not long after the introduction came the first computers and this wonderful piece of design was outdated and soon forgotten.
The brochure at right is from Wolford, Austria. Sorry, no names of photographer or model.
My kingdom for a fish-2.......................................................................................................................................................................Sybrand 2013
Lens:Herocar, downsampled from 63 megapixels, 30 inch longside. ColorCraft 6.0.
Zebralin...............................................................................................................................................................................Sybrand 2013
lens: trionar. Downsampled from 300 ppi 20 x 30 inch (50ms). ColorCraft 5.0
Lens: Trionar. Sharpness increased, contrast enhanced, colors made stronger..3 hours and 5 programs later we can announce.: ColorCraft 7.1.4.
300 ppi downsampled to 96 ppi. Orig.20 x 30 inch.
1942. Japan attacks the East-Indies, a Dutch colony.
Distance: 2 m. Depth of field +/- 80 cm.
The picture in the background is made by Edgar Fernhout. First I thought it was a drawing, later I learned that it was a lithograph, maybe directly drawn on the stone. The landscape must be drawn in Zeeland, a province of Holland, where Fernhout regulary went on vacation.
Homage to Dick Ket.............................................................................................................................................Sybrand 2013 .............
Dick Ket (Den Helder, 10 oktober 1902 - Bennekom, 15 september 1940) was een Nederlandse kunstschilder. Hij kan worden beschouwd als geestverwant van de Groep van de figuratieve abstractie ('De Groep').
Ket heeft in zijn betrekkelijk korte kunstenaarscarrière een eigen stijl ontwikkeld. Rond 1930, toen hij bij zijn ouders in het door hemzelf ontworpen huis in Bennekom woonde, ging zijn gezondheid achteruit. Dit is ook de tijd dat hij verandert van stijl, van impressionistisch naar een meer magisch-realistische schilderstijl.
In een brief uit 1932 aan zijn verloofde Nel Schilt schreef hij:
"…dat er meer is tussen Hemel en Aarde, ik denk hieraan zo dikwijls als ik stilleven schilder. Juist in deze dode dingen voel ik de aanwezigheid van het alomvertegenwoordige en ik betrap me erop, dat ik met liefde over deze dode voorwerpen kan denken en ze behandelen"
I'm also working on the square meter, like Dick Ket. He couldn't leave the house of his parents because of a heart disease. (I'am fine, thank you). I don't know if there is 'life' in a still-life, but I like his paintings. Most of his works are exposed in the MMKA (Museum of Moderne Kunst Arnhem, Holland).
Tungsten light, ColorCraft 5.0. Downsampled from 400 ppi to 96 ppi.
Lens: Christocomar NTS. Honestly, I think this is the best lens I ever had on my camera.
.......................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue?
Lens: Isonar
................... ...
..................
Mars 1890 (also in the Agfa museumcollection)
Sliding magazine for glassplates with metal back. When you had taken the picture, you had to put the camera upside down, release the tension of the spring on the backside via ball and cord, then the plate fell into the magazine and by sliding it back you could transport it backwards. The plate became then the last one in a row of 12 plates. Cameranumber 316. Shutter (tension and release) by ball with cord.... Sturdy oak with brass. Two finders. Still working...
This is the application for the patent of the Mars, made by Emil Wunsche Dresden. Patented at 8 november 1890. Emil could not foresee that 120 years later people don't work with glass-plates, instead we have SD-cards with 8 Gig memory on it... but in these days, it was a nice trick.
Ziekmakende 'grap'van Oppenheimer in Villamedia (voorheen de Journalist), waarin hij twee versies van bovenstaande foto toont, met de tekst:
ZOEK DE VERSCHILLEN. Oppenheimer laat in zijn 'grappige' photoshop-versie iedereen breeduit lachen, waarmee hij zich voor de volle honderd procent achter de Amerikaanse 'expert' schaart, die beweerde dat de winnende World Press Photo uit minstens drie verschillende foto's zou zijn samengesteld. Die man, Neal Krawetz, is het waarschijnlijk nog nooit gelukt een scherpe foto te maken, maar hij weet wel alles van pixels.
Had Oppenheimer en de redactie van VM wat op Internet rondgedoold, dan hadden ze dit kunnen lezen:
Updated
@ 4:32pm 5/14: An independent expert in the field of image forensics, Eduard
de Kam, has analyzed the original Raw file, compared it to the prize-winning
JPEG file, and concluded that "all of [the pixels] are exactly in the same
place." He also says that the final photo has experienced "a fair
amount of post-production" (as in, dodging, burning, etc.), which probably
explains a lot of the seemingly incredible lighting in the image.
Updated @ 5:00am 5/15: Neal Krawetz, the forensic analyst who
originally claimed that the image was significantly altered, has issued a response
to the World Press Photo's independent analysis. In short, despite the independent
analysis, Krawetz still believes he is vindicated in saying the award-winning
photo has been significantly modified. There's a roll-over image on his site
that shows two different versions of the image - and it quite clearly shows
that the award-winning photo has been subject to more than just dodging/burning.
The original blog post remains below - but we have inserted new section that
discusses the new revelations.
Updated @ 6:31pm 5/15: Hany Farid, an expert in image forensics,
says: "We have reviewed the RAW image, as supplied by World Press Photo,
and the resulting published JPEG image. It is clear that the published photo
was retouched with respect to both global and local color and tone. Beyond this,
however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing."
Als klap op de vuurpijl zien we dat Dagens Nyheter vrijwel dezelfde foto al publiceerde op 21/11/2012. Er zijn geen significante verschillen te zien.
Het enige verschil is dat fotograaf Paul Hansen de huidkleur wat heeft aangepast, maar die benadert de realiteit waarschijnlijk beter dan de eerste 'Raw' dagbladversie!
Quote from a commenter on the flickr page. “A crowd of mourners, two dead children. Is one shot more honest than the other? More real? Would we have even been aware of the changes were they made in a traditional darkroom? When I see post production like this, especially when I see a change in tone, it reminds me of the days when we made choices between emulsions for specific color and tone—think Fuji v. Kodak v. Polaroid—the chemistry is unique to each and by default creates a specific mood. Is this kind of photo production any different? Does it matter when the choice is made? Digitally in post or up front when we would have put film in our cameras?”
Photograph: Paul Hansen.Original: Dagens Nyheter.
One quarter of an hour in the colorcraft-lightroom gives this effect (it's not my intention to steal this picture or to do a better job, I only want to show that there is no ONE reality in photography.) Different lenses, sensors, amplifiers, algorythms etc. plus different views on postproduction, plus what he photographer really saw and did feel on location, results in different pictures.
There is nothing wrong with that. The message must come across.
A Digital Darkroom Revolution
Nowadays programs like Photoshop make it easier than ever to edit photos
once they have been taken. In addition to making it possible to clearly manipulate
a photo, they provide the tools to almost effortlessly remove, add or modify
content. The computer perfects and expands the possibilities of what was once
done in the darkroom to enhance the effectiveness of a photo during development
and printing.
The procedure is called "post-processing," and Claudio Palmisano is
a master at it. He works with two colleagues in a garage-sized space on a quiet
street in Rome. His company is called 10b Photography, named after the
street address of the studio. The old Kodak slogan, "You press the button.
We do the rest" is on the door, but one word has been added: "better."
It isn't just an advertising pitch, but can also be interpreted as a suggestion
that what photos show has always been more than "reality." "It
used to be a chemical process, and now it's a mathematical one," says Palmisano.
Today people can use their computers to adjust contrast and saturation, elements
that were once determined by the film and its development.
Photographers upload 50 to 100 images a day onto 10b's server. Palmisano begins
by making automatic corrections to the photos on his computer, a process in
which he hardly pays any attention to the image itself.
Then the detailed work begins. He darkens areas along the upper edge of one
image to draw the viewer's eye toward the lower part. In a photo depicting a
soldier in the foreground, he carefully and manually enhances the gun. In another
photo, he makes the shocking and luminous red of a bleeding wound seem less
glaring. The supposed original, he says, would simply not have corresponded
to our expectations of what blood looks like.
Moving Pixels Oversteps the Mark
What distinguishes Palmisano is not just the virtuosity with which he uses the
software, but also perhaps the fact that he is aware of how sensitive his work
is.
Francesco Zizola, a photographer who co-founded 10b with Palmisano six years
ago, says: "The difference between photojournalism and photography is
ethics. We are good at trying out possibilities without overstepping limits."
For 10b, there is a clear definition of what constitutes impermissible manipulation
of a journalistic photo. It includes, for example, moving around pixels within
a photo. But the choice of development techniques, as well as modifying contrast,
saturation and density, are all allowed in principle.
"There are no 'correct' colors," says Palmisano. "It's all relative."
In 2008, his partner Zizola won a World Press Photo prize with a photo of a
Colombian refugee camp with a double rainbow overhead. The colors were so intensified
through editing that the scene looks almost surreal. This is allowed, says Palmisano.
What isn't permitted, he adds, is to change the relationship among the colors
and to turn, for example, the green house in the photo into a red one.
(read more on Spiegel.online)
Krawetz: full time agent of influence.
Als de journalisten eens de credentials van Neal Krawetz waren nagegaan, hadden ze vrij snel ontdekt dat we hier te maken hebben met een full-time agent of influence, een gewiekst mannetje dat (in dienst van welke overheid dan ook) zich laat inhuren om de publieke opinie in de gewenste richting te sturen.
Zo probeerde hij eerder al het onderzoek van dr Ron Polarik naar de authenticiteit van Obama's geboorteakte de grond in te boren.Dat hij weinig van images en scanners afweet, bleek wel uit zijn betoog: hij was verbaasd dat een jpg-scan van een zwart-wit pagina ook kleur bevatte...
Wat we ook mogen denken over de pogingen om Obama's geboorte-akte vals te verklaren, Polarik weet echt veel meer van images dan Krawetz.
Een stukje uit de site van Polarik:
Ron Polarik, PhD, MS
UPDATE: The self-proclaimed image analysis expert, Neal Krawetz, added the following lines to his Bad Science skreed:
Moreover, the only technical analysis that indicate a digital forgery are from TechDude (an impersonator and fraud) and Polarik. Polarik was recently outed and identified as a fraud who has no background in image analysis.
First of all, let's see what background Dr. Krawetz has listed on his biography:
About
Hacker Factor
The company, Hacker Factor, was established in 2002 by Dr. Neal Krawetz. (...)
The bottom line is that Krawetz has tried every excuse possible,
and every trick in the book to invalidate my research and to discredit me, and
he has fallen flat on his face.
He did not so much as make a dent in my research. By failing to counter my claims,
Krawetz reinforced them.
The forgery evidence is irrefutable, and that is not going to change by virtue
of any
claims made by charlatans like Krawetz or anyone else. I am sure that his remarks
will continue to be posted on many pro-Obama websites, whose
owners would like nothing better than for my research to be
invalidated. Yet, the only person who manipulated evidence and
who masqueraded as an expert qualified to judge my research, is
Neal Krawetz, and he is now duly notified that his slanderous
actions will not be tolerated.
Ook een firma, Gobbles security, werd al door Krawetz aangevallen/zwartgemaakt.
Below
is an email we sent to Dr. Neal Krawetz, author of
"who_is_n3td3v.pdf", a document that uses flawed logic
to "prove" that GOBBLES Security members are behind the alias n3td3v,
which
obviously is not true. We have tried numerous times to establish contact with
the good doctor, and to have him publish an apology
and retract his libelous allegations. He is however adamant in
his position that he is correct, and refuses to entertain any
evidence presented that proves his conclusions contrary.
Since
he is no longer answering our emails, and authoring
articles on the subject of internet character defamation for
securityfocus (..)
Also
for the record, Neal Krawetz is an academic fraud who cannot cite the source
of the axioms he constantly refers to, since the basis
of all his research is clearly horseshit.
In God We Trust,
GOBBLES Security.
De vragen die nu bij mij opwellen zijn: 'Welk ministerie zit achter de aanval op Paul Hansen?' Waarom moest die schitterende foto van de begrafenis in de Gaza-strook verdacht gemaakt worden? Waarom deze ongelooflijk platte prent in voorheen De Journalist?
Voor mij is het duidelijk: deze foto, dit bijkans Bijbels tafereel, gehuld in Rembrandtesk licht, mocht niet 'iconisch' worden. Zoals het Napalmmeisje dat geworden is. Foto's die op je netvlies blijven branden. De mensen die Hansen betichtten van malversaties, zijn keihard op hun bek gegaan en hebben nu dus datgene bereikt wat ze juist wilden voorkomen: wij zullen dit beeld nooit meer kwijtraken, maar Netanyahu ook niet. Never.
Krawetz:"
Yes, this is my good friend Ruben L. Oppenheimer. 100% sure. This is the man.
And I swear by The Holy G'd that this picture is real. Not one pixel is shopped."
Als look on
for the gallery and technical information
