December 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Nov   Jan


Previous / Next

IMAGES FROM THE BLOG


Wednesday, December 29, 2004


Christmas Models - 2004

There's a lot of detail in this print and I've been using it to do small crops from at various resolutions, and sizes.   This one was shot at ISO 100, and stopped down etc.  I don't really want to do this one at 12 x 18 inches, but it can easily go to that size.  Prints from negative film can or can't go to larger size depending mostly on how they were shot, i.e. if they would print nicely in the darkroom, they can print at large sizes with 2200 and the 5400 scanner (but I didn't expect that to be any problem).

I'm still experimenting with protective sprays.  To put it bluntly, the Krylon is a finer spray than the Lumijet, which means it is easier to screw up a print with the Lumijet by overdoing it.

3:36:00 PM    

Dave, I've been reading your journals for a long time and following your move into digital - and was wondering - do you consider digital to be revolutionary or evolutionary? I know this isn't that clear so let me give you an example: when the film business moved from silent to sound film - that was a revolutionary step in cinema. Anyway, keep up the good work. - J.S.


Dear J.S.,
I'm not sure. It does depend on how you define revolutionary. Compared to the transition in film from silent to sync-sound - I would say that the transition to digital (and by that I'm talking about the full input / output digital) photography is evolutionary. The final product is changed, but not all that much. You can alter the digital image more. But basically, at least at this point, you could show a digital print to someone, and an old darkroom print, and most people couldn't tell the difference. Not even sure at this point that anyone could tell the difference without a magnifying glass.

But suppose you look at how things are produced, rather than what is produced. Suppose you go back to the industrial revolution. What changed, if I remember my ninth grade history, was how cloth was produced in England. Machines, run by steam engines, could make cloth - as opposed to human beings weaving by hand.

This was revolutionary because it meant that clothing could be mass produced at a much lower cost than doing it by hand.

So if you go to the how of digital - it is revolutionary. The way that images can be moved around the world; the way that they are produced; the way that they can be mass produced - is revolutionary. But in some ways, it isn't any more revolutionary than the word processor. Don't expect better novels because of the invention of the word processor (in fact, you might expect worse ones).

So in short: revolutionary process, evolutionary results.

- - -



The finished product, the photograph itself, may be indistinguishable despite the chemical or digital origin, but the range of possiblities for manipulation, the ease of manipulation, and the facility of communicating the work of art to an audience has forever changed the art form. - AG

This year almost everyone has a camera (not general public but people going to events like processions, parades, street festivals). The big change this year was that a number were carrying dSLRs (D70s and Rebels with the odd 10D and 20D). - Luke

Maybe I'm too close to it to know. From my point of view, having made the transition, it had an evolutionary feel to it. It was still important to figure out what was going into the frame, and what tones it would have. But it is true, that just about everyone now has a digital Point & Shoot. (Does this mean that the one thing that all cameras have in common now is digital processing and that Adobe will become the next Microsoft?) What does seem revolutionary to me is THE WEB / THE BLOG and all that. This combination has given people like myself who might never had a voice other than to try and self-publish a book - a soapbox that just never existed before. That is revolutionary.

9:54:42 AM