NickTrop
Mentor
"Giallos" (means "yellow") are Italian murder/mystery/artsy/exploitation "grind house" films cranked out in droves from the mid-60's to early-70's before the cycle died down - but not quite "out" entirely. I love'em, and my Netflix queue is filled with these films - as many as are available. These films started out largely as Psycho clones but "Euro-ized" with an upped violence quotient (quantity and in the level of explicitness) and almost laughably gratuitous female nudity. They are usually artfully done with over-the-top direction and especially cinematography. Oh - and they're oh so dated. They might as well be wearing powdered wigs. The mise-en-scene is straight out of the 60's/early 70's: leggy babes in miniskirts, mens shirts had garish patterns and giant lapels and they all had pork chop sideburns with long unkempt hair. Sound tracks are usually trippy Euro-jazz seemingly recorded from a set of the house band of some five-star hotel in Rome circa 1970. Titles include "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Ward", "Deep Red", and "Strip Nude for Your Killer". And what started as "culturized tributes" to Psycho to become far removed from their origins as the years passed to become a ubiquitous film genre of its own. These films became "(re-)Americanized" in the 80's, starting with Halloween. Psycho->"Giallo films"-> 80's Slasher - as it went, as the "art progressed".
Viewing these films today, despite their sometimes tastelessness (not to mention atrocious dubbing), they are imbued with an incredible charm. I must admit, I'm hooked to the point where the few titles I haven't seen are being "saved" like a vintage wine stored in the basement for that special occasion. I'm not the only one... these films have a bonafide cult following (like rangefinder cameras) and attempts have been made to revive the genre (like rangefinder cameras) by other lovers of the genre. One recent attempt (2009) is a film aptly named, "Giallo" by one of the key directors of these films during their heyday, Dario Argento. Never heard of it? That's because it went straight to DVD. Only saw the trailer. I'll eventually watch it I suppose. It gets "meh" reviews. It's lukewarm reception probably isn't the film makers fault, however. Bet if it was released in 1971 it be hailed as one of the best along with his "Deep Red". Didn't see the film - don't have to, I know this in advance... It's inauthentic. A replica. It's "missing something". All attempts at this in any art - film, painting, photography is always ill-advised because to recreate something whose era is "over and done with" can't be achieved successfully.
Remember the "new" Psycho? The scene for scene shot for shot remake? No? It's forgotten, and deserves to be. Bad idear.
You can dust off the old technology - be my guest. The technology is only part of the equation. Besides, those who produced this art used the "latest and greatest" technology of the era - not old s--t. Guitarists go looking for that "vintage sound" by putting crappy old technology pick-ups in their Strats and go buying tube amps. Never works. Sorry. Futile. Film makers study set-ups, alter the look of their films in post - even putting fake gate scratches in (that horrified those filmmakers), try to mimic the soundtrack... The don't end up with a "giallo" film, they end up with "Giallo". The only way to produce the giallo - or any art of the past, is to go back in time with your time machine, with no knowledge of the future, be reborn, grow up all over again, and make a new giallo in 1970. This is true of painting, music, photography, film, literature, photography. That is, it's impossible.
I once asked an MFA friend if you could earn an MFA by painting something beautiful, like the Dutch Masters did. Why did all modern painting have to be so abstract and inaccessible. She laughed at me. No! And it shouldn't be that way! That era is over. If artists painted like this all the time art would stand still, become boring, and die out. Those works are products of their era... they can't be recreated. Even the best modern replicants of them - when descovered to be forgeries, lose their value.
Do you use rangefinders loaded with tri-x, hand developed in Rodinal because you want to make "art" (which is isn't - no photography is, but that's another topic) like HCB did? Is this because you love those old photographs which were products of the era in which they were made? Do you think using the equipment from that era (or worse, modern replications of that equipment) will "getchya there"? HCB did't use old technology during his heyday. He used the latest and greatest. And his work - and all the other work of his contemporaries, were the products of their era. The technology they used is but one part of the equation. Your work - if emulation of these photographers is your goal, will be "missing something" no matter what. It's impossible for it not to, and it is an artistic forgery deviod of value as is any forgery, regardless how technically proficient.
And, you're way off in the wrong direction. You're lost, chum.
You are chasing your tail... and your first step to not doing this is to quit recreating what has already been done. Admire the living daylights out of it! That's fine... with the melancholy realization that that era is over, never to come again.
Embrace what's new as the tools to create what's new and drive things forward as your first step. Creating "what's new" is nearly an impossible challenge in and of itself - but unlike emulation, isn't wholly impossible and can only be achieved using the tools of the creation trade of our times regardless of what it is.
And what it is today is "digital", "Photoshop". Computer chips, computers, software, and sophisticated printing machines. Not "Rodinal" from the 1800's. Not black and white films from 60 years ago. No rangefinders.
Relegate these to objects of antiquity. Or cherished toys. - And toys are okay. Nothing wrong with toys to be used for "play time". But not if you have higher goals.
Viewing these films today, despite their sometimes tastelessness (not to mention atrocious dubbing), they are imbued with an incredible charm. I must admit, I'm hooked to the point where the few titles I haven't seen are being "saved" like a vintage wine stored in the basement for that special occasion. I'm not the only one... these films have a bonafide cult following (like rangefinder cameras) and attempts have been made to revive the genre (like rangefinder cameras) by other lovers of the genre. One recent attempt (2009) is a film aptly named, "Giallo" by one of the key directors of these films during their heyday, Dario Argento. Never heard of it? That's because it went straight to DVD. Only saw the trailer. I'll eventually watch it I suppose. It gets "meh" reviews. It's lukewarm reception probably isn't the film makers fault, however. Bet if it was released in 1971 it be hailed as one of the best along with his "Deep Red". Didn't see the film - don't have to, I know this in advance... It's inauthentic. A replica. It's "missing something". All attempts at this in any art - film, painting, photography is always ill-advised because to recreate something whose era is "over and done with" can't be achieved successfully.
Remember the "new" Psycho? The scene for scene shot for shot remake? No? It's forgotten, and deserves to be. Bad idear.
You can dust off the old technology - be my guest. The technology is only part of the equation. Besides, those who produced this art used the "latest and greatest" technology of the era - not old s--t. Guitarists go looking for that "vintage sound" by putting crappy old technology pick-ups in their Strats and go buying tube amps. Never works. Sorry. Futile. Film makers study set-ups, alter the look of their films in post - even putting fake gate scratches in (that horrified those filmmakers), try to mimic the soundtrack... The don't end up with a "giallo" film, they end up with "Giallo". The only way to produce the giallo - or any art of the past, is to go back in time with your time machine, with no knowledge of the future, be reborn, grow up all over again, and make a new giallo in 1970. This is true of painting, music, photography, film, literature, photography. That is, it's impossible.
I once asked an MFA friend if you could earn an MFA by painting something beautiful, like the Dutch Masters did. Why did all modern painting have to be so abstract and inaccessible. She laughed at me. No! And it shouldn't be that way! That era is over. If artists painted like this all the time art would stand still, become boring, and die out. Those works are products of their era... they can't be recreated. Even the best modern replicants of them - when descovered to be forgeries, lose their value.
Do you use rangefinders loaded with tri-x, hand developed in Rodinal because you want to make "art" (which is isn't - no photography is, but that's another topic) like HCB did? Is this because you love those old photographs which were products of the era in which they were made? Do you think using the equipment from that era (or worse, modern replications of that equipment) will "getchya there"? HCB did't use old technology during his heyday. He used the latest and greatest. And his work - and all the other work of his contemporaries, were the products of their era. The technology they used is but one part of the equation. Your work - if emulation of these photographers is your goal, will be "missing something" no matter what. It's impossible for it not to, and it is an artistic forgery deviod of value as is any forgery, regardless how technically proficient.
And, you're way off in the wrong direction. You're lost, chum.
You are chasing your tail... and your first step to not doing this is to quit recreating what has already been done. Admire the living daylights out of it! That's fine... with the melancholy realization that that era is over, never to come again.
Embrace what's new as the tools to create what's new and drive things forward as your first step. Creating "what's new" is nearly an impossible challenge in and of itself - but unlike emulation, isn't wholly impossible and can only be achieved using the tools of the creation trade of our times regardless of what it is.
And what it is today is "digital", "Photoshop". Computer chips, computers, software, and sophisticated printing machines. Not "Rodinal" from the 1800's. Not black and white films from 60 years ago. No rangefinders.
Relegate these to objects of antiquity. Or cherished toys. - And toys are okay. Nothing wrong with toys to be used for "play time". But not if you have higher goals.
Last edited:
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Just because someone is using film, doesn't mean that they are trying to retread HCB...
Dang it, I fell for the bait.
Dang it, I fell for the bait.
NickTrop
Mentor
Heh, heh, heh... ya sure did. But lucky for you I'm off to work. I'll catch up with you later.
M4cr0s
Back In Black
You are very entertaining Mr. Nick. I always enjoy your posts and perspectives 
Mac
Mac
JayGannon
Well-known
No offense but who exactly gave you the right to decide these things that on many counts your plain incorrect on?
Who are you to define what is art?
Your going to tell me you can't hear the difference between a plywood guitar made today in a factory and a vintage J45 Gibson? In that case your tine deaf, the methods and quality of manufacture were entirely different producing a differnt sound. The same way Tri-X in Rodinal looks like Tri-X in Rodinal, if that is what I want to have a photo look like then that is what I will use.
I use film for work time, I make a living from it. I have a close friend who uses a Holga for work full time and makes well in excess of 100k doing so, are you going to tell me I am wrong to do so. I am not emulating anyone, I have my own style and its that that people pay for. I have in the same cabinet a D3 and an assortment of AF lenses, people pay me for that too, but some come to me and say I want a photo like that one you took there, and that one was film, souped, printed in a darkroom. I sell prints also, I do inkjet and fibre prints, people can tell the difference, and they willingly pay the difference.
Every photo I create is mine and mine only, I dont recreate anyone else, why would I? I have my own talent my own skill and my own ideas about how I wish to make photos. Why would i need anyone else to tell me how I should do it.
Your posts smacks of someone who doesnt want to understand/can't understand the craft and art photography and has become bitter because of it. And your MFA friend should spend more time being an artist and less time thinking about being an artist and worring about the politics of it. Art is whatever the artist/patron say it is, thats the very definition.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
You seem to confuse art and tools. Impressionism may be dead, but brushes and oil paint are not - and even if the art market should fall into a prolonged fashion of rejecting paintings, people will still want to whitewash their walls using brushes rather than an inkjet...
emraphoto
Mentor
"Not black and white films from 60 years ago. No rangefinders."
hmm, my tri-x is good until next year? i thus suspect it isn't 60 years old.
i shot digital cameras. still do actually. slung around the neck a pair of big honkin' state of the art modern technologies. i am pretty sure i could have landed aircraft with them. sadly though, i was a minnow swimming in a pool of millions. fast was the name of the game and boy oh boy these things are fast. the problem was, i was more interested in other things. good for instance. every time a mediocre photo appeared in a daily, credited to me, i would shudder. "ugh" was the culmination of my thoughts.
so a complete left turn i did take. dusted off the rangefinders, ordered up a couple of hundred rolls of ancient technology and stopped answering the phone for a while. "terror suspects arrested in Detroit! can i rush down there with the 80-200 and pop some off"? well, no. i can't they stopped calling eventually.
a few years on and i am still focused on different things. not your things or his things or her things... my things. individuality, conviction, detail, narrative, quality, vision to name a few. the path to what i want involves sh**ty ancient technology and ignoring the wonders of modern modernity. THE FUNNY THING IS. it has worked out really well. the years since i moved back into the sh**ty ancient technology have been the most productive and lucrative in quite some time. my year, 2010 is full with work. 2011 is also looking very good. top of my 'to do list' right now is deciding between one of the largest independent agencies in the world and one of the most supportive documentary agencies in the world. the contracts sit on my desk and the clock ticks. all of this 'success' resulting from completely ignoring what you are telling us all is the gospel Nick. strange this bag of sh**ty technology serving me so well. hell, i even write my grant apps with a pen! i wonder what Dave Burnett would have to say about this, knowing his fondness for sh**ty technology?
i can only suspect that you are a very talented photographer Nick and that you are working hard at presenting a new vision of the still image. i can respect that. what i can't really swallow is the doctrine you are preaching that seems to fly in the face of my own experience? it just doesn't add up? none of the old sh**ty technology in my bag has prevented me from creating a 'new vision'. on the contrary, in my case it has helped. sometimes 'new' is just not part of the equation.
hmm, my tri-x is good until next year? i thus suspect it isn't 60 years old.
i shot digital cameras. still do actually. slung around the neck a pair of big honkin' state of the art modern technologies. i am pretty sure i could have landed aircraft with them. sadly though, i was a minnow swimming in a pool of millions. fast was the name of the game and boy oh boy these things are fast. the problem was, i was more interested in other things. good for instance. every time a mediocre photo appeared in a daily, credited to me, i would shudder. "ugh" was the culmination of my thoughts.
so a complete left turn i did take. dusted off the rangefinders, ordered up a couple of hundred rolls of ancient technology and stopped answering the phone for a while. "terror suspects arrested in Detroit! can i rush down there with the 80-200 and pop some off"? well, no. i can't they stopped calling eventually.
a few years on and i am still focused on different things. not your things or his things or her things... my things. individuality, conviction, detail, narrative, quality, vision to name a few. the path to what i want involves sh**ty ancient technology and ignoring the wonders of modern modernity. THE FUNNY THING IS. it has worked out really well. the years since i moved back into the sh**ty ancient technology have been the most productive and lucrative in quite some time. my year, 2010 is full with work. 2011 is also looking very good. top of my 'to do list' right now is deciding between one of the largest independent agencies in the world and one of the most supportive documentary agencies in the world. the contracts sit on my desk and the clock ticks. all of this 'success' resulting from completely ignoring what you are telling us all is the gospel Nick. strange this bag of sh**ty technology serving me so well. hell, i even write my grant apps with a pen! i wonder what Dave Burnett would have to say about this, knowing his fondness for sh**ty technology?
i can only suspect that you are a very talented photographer Nick and that you are working hard at presenting a new vision of the still image. i can respect that. what i can't really swallow is the doctrine you are preaching that seems to fly in the face of my own experience? it just doesn't add up? none of the old sh**ty technology in my bag has prevented me from creating a 'new vision'. on the contrary, in my case it has helped. sometimes 'new' is just not part of the equation.
emraphoto
Mentor
by and by Nick, you do a very good job at keeping the conversations flowing.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
OK, Nick, let's try your own style of provocative argument:
You like shoddily produced rubbish in a foreign language.
Now: film or digital?
Cheers,
R.
You like shoddily produced rubbish in a foreign language.
Now: film or digital?
Cheers,
R.
Ducky
Well-known
About 15 years ago I wrote a travel piece, with photos, for a small specialty magazine. One of my photos was on the cover.
I got a free copy and $150.00.
I haven't made, or tried to make, a dime with my cameras since.
I shoot an M6 and tri-x, in Rodinal, because I respect the tradition and it's fun.
The fun goes, the camera goes. Then it's back to digital for a while.
I love this forum, it keeps me constantly confused, amused, broke, and it stimulates the intellect.
I'm waiting for Nick to get back on and answer a few of these comments.
I got a free copy and $150.00.
I haven't made, or tried to make, a dime with my cameras since.
I shoot an M6 and tri-x, in Rodinal, because I respect the tradition and it's fun.
The fun goes, the camera goes. Then it's back to digital for a while.
I love this forum, it keeps me constantly confused, amused, broke, and it stimulates the intellect.
I'm waiting for Nick to get back on and answer a few of these comments.
ederek
Well-known
Oh drats - I just ordered Steve Simmons "Using the View Camera" this morning. Hope it wasn't a total waste of $19, grrrr!
btw, been enjoying your sermons, what's the message for this Sunday?? Well, gotta run, see ya in church! :angel:
btw, been enjoying your sermons, what's the message for this Sunday?? Well, gotta run, see ya in church! :angel: