Posted By:
AnonymousI saw a display of modern made Daguerreotypes. They weren't made or intended to resemble antiques, but modern works of art. For example, you don't see a Corvette in a 1850s photo.
The vast majority of modern art/hobby photographers who reuse old processes (modernized versions) aren't trying to make them look like antiques, but modern photographs with a bit of antique sensibility or qualities. For example, an art photographer might like the tones of the albumen process, but isn't intending anyone to mistake it for an 1800s photograph. That he signs, limited edition numbers and expects to get named credit for the image, proves this.
For paper photos, the old-time processes really aren't the same as the originals but modernized versions using modern substances and materials. One of the keys is the modernized versions are made so the images don't age and fade like the vintage versions. In other words, some of the visual qualities of 1800s albumen and other antique prints are intentionally removed. The average modern art photographer doesn't want his his albumen image of his brother to fade to yellow, tone or gain foxing. For the same reason Mitchell & Ness doesn't want its retail Throwback 1952 Yankees jerseys to have moth holes, fading spots, missing buttons and to smell like grandpa's foot locker. Not every old fashion quality is a good quality, especially when you're trying to get a date. So the modern versions of old time processes are usually easy to differentiate from the original versions, only in part because the images and paper are in too new condition, type and quality. The modern art photo also will usually not be in antique format. For example, it may be on obviously brand new, thick, unmounted 8x10" photo paper instead of an aged, soiled cabinet card. As I said, most of these photographers like some (not all) of the old image qualities, and are trying to make modern works of art not Chanel? knockoffs.