Frank Gaydos on fri 8 feb 08
Hummmm,
When I entered the Functional National this year, they fined you if you did
not use digital. ($20.00 extra?)
At work, (Community College of Philadelphia) we are gearing up for digital
projectors in every studio/classroom. We are scanning all our slides to
digital and joining a national firm that distributes digital images for a
flat yearly fee.
There will be no turning back. IMHO Kodak does not even make their slide
projectors anymore.
Frank Gaydos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cbaker"
To:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:52 PM
Subject: Digital vs. slides Opinion?
This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the latest info
is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and prepare portfolios.
The following quote is from a slide processor in the Phoenix area. This is
what he told some of my watercolor friends. They don't have a Clayart to
ask so.....any opinions? I sure love my digital camera.
"....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in the pan
since they are too easy to manipulate and come up different on different
projectors. He says that film is here to stay and also that NY, the east
coast and Europe are having nothing to do with digital images."
And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
Carol Baker Cotton
Scottsdale, Arizona
http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots2@visi.com
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008
10:59 AM
Tony Ferguson on fri 8 feb 08
Hey Paul--so good to meet you last year.
A lot of the loose ends you describe has to do with proper (self taught, formal, workshop, whatever) education about the new media, how it works, and how to apply it to the specific context of use. A lot of folks expect it to work without knowing how to work it. It's a new technology and it requires some fundamental study. We all studied for a driver's test, learned the rules, applied some knowledge, got some feedback and perfected our driving right? It is not any different with technology--there is a learning curve and like any new process, the sooner you learn to crawl the sooner you can run.
That said, I have a canon g1 that is 3 mega pixels and just about any good quality camera that is 3 mega-pixels with know how can produce excellent images and slides. That G3 produced many excellent slides for me--which I did use to enter shows, apply for fellowships I did receive, etc. It worked fine and I used it for 5 years I would say and could have except I wanted an SLR. I also have a digital rebel and a Canon 40D and a cyber-shot and they all take great pictures because I learned how to do it, understood light, how to edit, tricks, etc. I had students the last 2 semesters with every make and quality of camera from not the greatest to cameras better than my high end and I taught them composition, an understanding of light, f-stop, shutter speed, how to use their cameras, resizing images, what ppi and dpi is, etc. It's know-how, plain and simple and anyone can learn if they want to.
It's knowing how to use the technology you have that is important and it is not necessary to buy and update every two years--I wear my stuff out out of frugality before I buy new (most of the time) and all my cameras still work fine except my damaged card port on my rebel which needs fixing--that was actually my excuse to purchase a 40D.
Another example about updating--I have Adobe Photoshop elements 2.0 (6 or 7 is out I recall). Even though I have the 2008 Adobe Master Collection, that 7 year elements 2.0 program works just fine for any photo editing--and I used it for the courses and video tutorials I developed and taught. That software, which came with my G1, covers and can do all the basics of photo editing and you can find on ebay for $20. The knowledge learned from those video tutorials I developed allowed my students to pick up and use any photo editing software because of the basic skills learned. I even use 2.0 when I give my photography workshops for artists because realistically a potter/3D or 2D artist is not going to go out and buy Adobe Photoshop CS3 at $650--but any version of Elements, Corel, etc., will work just fine for anything you will need to do with your images as an artist and you can get them from $20 to $80. I know how and use the industry standard, but I also use older
versions so I can show people that they work just fine and are affordable and teach universal photo editing skills.
So, there is plenty of inexpensive technology laying around to be bought inexpensively on ebay if you need to get the digital photography job done. Start adding up what it costs you to pay someone else--well, I guess its all what your time is worth and I am happy to take money to photograph but being a do-it-your selfer, I say, anyone can do it yourself. I mean, come on people, were potters, we can figure anything out, we're used to disappointment, failure, but crazily we carry on and we learn and we grow and what didn't make sense at one time all of sudden wakes us up in a moment of clarity--until we explore new territory and change our variables and try something new--and a new adventure of disappointment, learning, and enlightenment begins.
As for your book, I feel your pain. I don't know if you did, but setting image guidelines, resolution minimums, etc., as a guide to help people submit is always hopeful and helpful if people follow them. This is one of the biggest issues I hear is people essentially disregarding the requirements thinking they can just send any old thing in and call it good--for grant apps, shows, books, etc. Well, back to my earlier statement, education. A potter wouldn't just start pushing numbers on their electric kiln without first learning how to program it and expect professional results? You just wouldn't start throwing wood into a wood kiln (ah, wait, I did that) and expect hibusa effects?
The same goes for their photography. It too is technical but also very creative and there is something wonderful that happens when you start to not just shoot your images for the practical things, but rather, start really documenting your progress, your trials, and the learning that takes places when you review images over various periods of time.
I realized one day that I was done paying photographers (and yes, we need to get paid too) to shoot my work and invested in the equipment, books, and software and learned how to do it with film and then a canon g1 3.0 mega pixel. So can anyone if you want to.
Tony Ferguson
Paul Lewing wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Hollis wrote:
but it's hard to believe that the convenience and relative low
price of digital won't win out in the end.
Yeah, digital is cheaper once you have the camera, plus the computer,
plus the software, all of which you have to replace every few years.
Having finished a book which included photos by over 80 different
people, I see advantages to both systems.
When someone sends you 20 pictures, if they're slides you hold them
up to the light and see all of them at once. If they're high
definition enough digital to print, this will take you a while.
If people have done their slides right, all the information you need
for a caption is on the slide. With digital, there's no convenient
place to put all that information. You have to make up a separate
document and send that too. I found that at least half the people
who sent me digital images sent me no information at all, and I had
to chase it down.
For taking step by step process shots, digital won hands down. I
took both every time I did that and used the digital ones every
time. There was always something wrong in the slides that I couldn't
check out before they were developed. If there was something wrong
with the digital, I just did it over.
Still, even now, many people do not know what they need in a digital
photo. I had to reject many pictures of nice stuff that was just not
high enough resolution.
Many people do not have digital cameras good enough to make an image
that will print a full page size.
And so on. I agree digital is here to stay, but there are a lot of
things I miss about slides.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Cbaker on fri 8 feb 08
This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the latest =
info is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and prepare =
portfolios. The following quote is from a slide processor in the =
Phoenix area. This is what he told some of my watercolor friends. =
They don't have a Clayart to ask so.....any opinions? I sure love my =
digital camera.
"....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in the pan =
since they are too easy to manipulate and come up different on different =
projectors. He says that film is here to stay and also that NY, the east =
coast and Europe are having nothing to do with digital images."=20
And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
Carol Baker Cotton
Scottsdale, Arizona
http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
Rider,Francis - Art Studio Technician on fri 8 feb 08
Carol
At the NCECA conference in Portland Oregon there was a lecture titled: Deat=
h Of The Slide Projector: They do not manufacture slide projectors anymore,=
parts are hard to come by and nobody wants to service them anymore. Many s=
hows now only except digital and some even charge you more of an entrance f=
ee because they have to scan the slides. Our College is in the process of s=
canning over 50,000 slides for our art history program. Too many things are=
digital to call this movement a flash in the pan.
Sincerely
Francis Rider
Lake Tahoe Ca.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Cbaker
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:52 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Digital vs. slides Opinion?
This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the latest info =
is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and prepare portfolios. =
The following quote is from a slide processor in the Phoenix area. This =
is what he told some of my watercolor friends. They don't have a Clayart =
to ask so.....any opinions? I sure love my digital camera.
"....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in the pan si=
nce they are too easy to manipulate and come up different on different proj=
ectors. He says that film is here to stay and also that NY, the east coast =
and Europe are having nothing to do with digital images."
And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
Carol Baker Cotton
Scottsdale, Arizona
http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
___________________________________________________________________________=
___
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers=
.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.c=
om
Hollis on fri 8 feb 08
Carol: I would say that quote sounds like a slide processor whistling
past the graveyard. Last year's State of Clay exhibit in Lexington,
Mass., was juried entirely from digital images and juror Chris Gustin
was extravagant in his praise of a convenient system that allowed him
to sit down at his computer over a long period of time and look at each
of the images from the CDs sent to him. As a consequence, when the Cape
Cod Potters call for entries for next year's show at the Cape Museum of
Arts, no hard copy entries will be allowed. It will all be digital. As
for "different on different projectors," anyone who has worked with
slide films know that each one is just a bit different. Your watercolor
or your blue pot will not look the same on Fujichrome as it does on
Kodachrome. Yes, some shows still specify slides, and some allow either
medium, but it's hard to believe that the convenience and relative low
price of digital won't win out in the end.
Hollis Engley
Hatchville Pottery
E. Falmouth, MA
hatchvillepottery.com
On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Cbaker wrote:
> This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the latest
> info is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and prepare
> portfolios. The following quote is from a slide processor in the
> Phoenix area. This is what he told some of my watercolor friends.
> They don't have a Clayart to ask so.....any opinions? I sure love my
> digital camera.
>
> "....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in the
> pan since they are too easy to manipulate and come up different on
> different projectors. He says that film is here to stay and also that
> NY, the east coast and Europe are having nothing to do with digital
> images."
>
> And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
>
> Carol Baker Cotton
> Scottsdale, Arizona
> http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
> http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
Larry Kruzan on fri 8 feb 08
Hi Carol,
Before clay I made a pretty good living doing other things including contract photography. Worked for McGraw Hill and others and sold a lot of "art" prints - all from a wet dark room. Been shooting since 1968. You could never accuse me of hating film or the dark room - I love them - I love them so much that I gave it all up because digital does it all so much better. It took all the fun out of the process for me.
Nobody in the publishing industry wants film - at any level. A few people who have shot film for decades sell to old accounts because their work sells and they won't change but like the dodo bird, their days are numbered.
Even our local art guild, a very conservative group, is finally accepting digital images for juroring it's art fairs. Most grad programs want digital pics for the applications today.
The last book project I worked on (4 years ago) was all digital.
I pass on any show that wants slides - shows they have no clear grasp of current technology and do not understand that unless you live in a large metropolitan area you can't buy or have slides processed locally. They don't care about the artist. When asked about the policy they always say that digital can be manipulated too easily - truth is slides can be too, if know what you are doing. Reality is, they don't want to replace their ancient slide projector with a computer they probably can't operate.
Plus slides are a pain in the tail even for folks who work with them for years.
Now factor in the fact that most makers of slide film are ceasing production of it, the fact it is hard to get processed today, the costs associated with it, the chemistry is ALL hazardous materials that will kill you and you get the perfect storm to wipe out slide film.
Let me guess - the guy who said this sells and processes film - right?
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Cbaker
Date: Friday, February 8, 2008 14:35
Subject: [CLAYART] Digital vs. slides Opinion?
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the
> latest info is on the use of digital for images to enter shows
> and prepare portfolios. The following quote is from a
> slide processor in the Phoenix area. This is what he
> told some of my watercolor friends. They don't have
> a Clayart to ask so.....any opinions? I sure love my
> digital camera.
>
> "....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in
> the pan since they are too easy to manipulate and come up
> different on different projectors. He says that film is here to
> stay and also that NY, the east coast and Europe are having
> nothing to do with digital images."
>
> And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
>
> Carol Baker Cotton
> Scottsdale, Arizona
> http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to:
> clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
> http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
John Hesselberth on fri 8 feb 08
Hi Carol,
I suspect that slide processor is desperately trying to cling to his
business. Slides are about gone from what I can see. You can
manipulate them just about as easily as a digital image. Scan--
manipulate--remake slide. The capability of those steps is so high no
one will know the difference. A cheater can cheat either way.
We had a show promoter our here (mid Atlantic) by the name of
Sugarloaf that last year had a statement on their application that
they would never take digital images for the reasons you mentioned.
This year they are taking digital images.
If you want to see some shows that have gone to a formal digital
image submission process check www.zapplication.org Click on
participating shows. My view is that their system is too complex and
expensive for any but the biggest shows, but there are simpler ones
being developed. My own guild, The Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen,
has gone all digital this year. I can't image us turning back. We
were prompted to move by the fact that our 5 slide projectors are
just about worn out and, of course, they aren't even being made by
Kodak any more--maybe they are still available somewhere.
It's a digital world from what I can see and I don't think it will
reverse.
Regards,
John
On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Cbaker wrote:
> This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the
> latest info is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and
> prepare portfolios. The following quote is from a slide processor
> in the Phoenix area. This is what he told some of my watercolor
> friends. They don't have a Clayart to ask so.....any opinions? I
> sure love my digital camera.
>
> "....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in
> the pan since they are too easy to manipulate and come up different
> on different projectors. He says that film is here to stay and also
> that NY, the east coast and Europe are having nothing to do with
> digital images."
>
> And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
>
> Carol Baker Cotton
> Scottsdale, Arizona
> http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://
> www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
John Hesselberth
www.frogpondpottery.com
"Man is a tool-using animal....without tools he is nothing, with
tools he is all" .... Thomas Carlyle
Tony Ferguson on fri 8 feb 08
Digital all the way for all the reasons stated and more. The individual is also giving you a very limited view of the present and future and appears to be milking a dead horse.
I taught digital photography the last 2 semesters face to face and online. I also give workshops specifically for artists who want to learn to light, shoot, and edit their own digital images for all applications and uses including documentation, promotion, show entries, grant applications, etc--on the cheap and also buying professional equipment. In fact, I have 1 or 2 digital photography workshops it looks like (still tentative) I will be giving this spring. One is in North Carolina through the efforts of Susan Philly and the other is through Nick Mohler via the Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen. Hope it happens as I have a lot of information and know how to pass on to artists.
Tony Ferguson
"Rider,Francis - Art Studio Technician" wrote: Carol
At the NCECA conference in Portland Oregon there was a lecture titled: Death Of The Slide Projector: They do not manufacture slide projectors anymore, parts are hard to come by and nobody wants to service them anymore. Many shows now only except digital and some even charge you more of an entrance fee because they have to scan the slides. Our College is in the process of scanning over 50,000 slides for our art history program. Too many things are digital to call this movement a flash in the pan.
Sincerely
Francis Rider
Lake Tahoe Ca.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Cbaker
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:52 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Digital vs. slides Opinion?
This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the latest info is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and prepare portfolios. The following quote is from a slide processor in the Phoenix area. This is what he told some of my watercolor friends. They don't have a Clayart to ask so.....any opinions? I sure love my digital camera.
"....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in the pan since they are too easy to manipulate and come up different on different projectors. He says that film is here to stay and also that NY, the east coast and Europe are having nothing to do with digital images."
And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
Carol Baker Cotton
Scottsdale, Arizona
http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
patsgreenpots on fri 8 feb 08
I can speak only from my experiences, as such please do not mistake my
words as 'the case'.
I found when it comes to digital images, it seems, most of the old
guard tend to be against them. The problem with them 'looking
different' is by no means the fault of the technology but rather those
who choose to use it. Monitors and projectors can be adjusted to show
the 'true color' of the image taken, failure to do so can hardly be
placed on the shoulders of the image.
The idea that it will 'only be a flash in the pan' seems a bit
ridiculous to me. It is a technology, one that is taking the place of
a previous technology, that in turn took the place of another. And
eventually it will be replaced and many will say this (insert new
Technology here) is nothing like the old digitals we used to take, its
too this or too that. Surely it won't last. But it too will, and
eventually be replaced as well.
Digital Images are simply a more time and cost efficient way of taking
photos. One doesn't have to wait tell they develop to see if they are
any good, the less than desirable images can be scapped immediately
rather than after the investment for development is made. Most cameras
have a white balance option, an exposer option, an apratture option,
and even a view screen(so if your thumb was in that frame you can take
another). And honestly if you want to get technical digital images are
far more ecco friendly than stacks and stacks of developed film.
In short, I have done both. When I started everyone everywhere wanted
slides, and so I have several groups of slides, most of which have
been used very seldom in relation to their cost and at this point are
sitting in a drawer collecting dust. Now Slides are an option but most
universities, Galleries, etc.. want work on a format they can easily
handle. No more setting up the carousel and clicking in a dark room.
You pop in the CD or zip drive, the images appear they are looked at
and we move to the next entry or candidate. Want to go back and look
at another piece? No problem we will just change out CDs and there you
go. And lets face it, cost of living are steadily climbing, college
tuition these days is criminal (seriously look at it some time)we as a
people have gone and gotten ourselves in a big damn hurry(for no
particular reason I might add) Using a digital camera is one of those
little bits of technology that kept its promise to make life easier,
but for some reason some find that upsetting.... Sadly the fact is a
digital camera can take a far more precise image than a slide ever
could and the only reason I can muster as to why one would favor 35mm
over a 8.2 mp is because they are stubborn and don't want to learn
anymore. But then I suppose alot of people get to that point. I just
hope I never fall into their ranks.
--Patrick Andrew Green
Theres my 2 cents....Wheres my change?
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Cbaker wrote:
>
> This has been discussed before, but I'm curious as to what the
latest info is on the use of digital for images to enter shows and
prepare portfolios. The following quote is from a slide processor in
the Phoenix area. This is what he told some of my watercolor
friends. They don't have a Clayart to ask so.....any opinions? I
sure love my digital camera.
>
> "....said that he thinks digital entries will only be a flash in the
pan since they are too easy to manipulate and come up different on
different projectors. He says that film is here to stay and also that
NY, the east coast and Europe are having nothing to do with digital
images."
>
> And Clayart says??? Thanks for any info.
>
> Carol Baker Cotton
> Scottsdale, Arizona
> http://carolbakercotton.blogspot.com/
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________=
___
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@...
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@...
>
Paul Lewing on fri 8 feb 08
On Feb 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Hollis wrote:
but it's hard to believe that the convenience and relative low
price of digital won't win out in the end.
Yeah, digital is cheaper once you have the camera, plus the computer,
plus the software, all of which you have to replace every few years.
Having finished a book which included photos by over 80 different
people, I see advantages to both systems.
When someone sends you 20 pictures, if they're slides you hold them
up to the light and see all of them at once. If they're high
definition enough digital to print, this will take you a while.
If people have done their slides right, all the information you need
for a caption is on the slide. With digital, there's no convenient
place to put all that information. You have to make up a separate
document and send that too. I found that at least half the people
who sent me digital images sent me no information at all, and I had
to chase it down.
For taking step by step process shots, digital won hands down. I
took both every time I did that and used the digital ones every
time. There was always something wrong in the slides that I couldn't
check out before they were developed. If there was something wrong
with the digital, I just did it over.
Still, even now, many people do not know what they need in a digital
photo. I had to reject many pictures of nice stuff that was just not
high enough resolution.
Many people do not have digital cameras good enough to make an image
that will print a full page size.
And so on. I agree digital is here to stay, but there are a lot of
things I miss about slides.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
| |
|
