Bruce Girrell on tue 20 oct 98
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU]On Behalf
> Of Neil Berkowitz
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> My new question concerns the use of slides for submissions. It seems to
> me that photographs of pots, as with architectural photography, should
> be done with a view camera.
[snip advantages of view cameras]
I shoot both 35mm and 4x5. A well made large format transparency is
something that you have to see to really appreciate and I could go on at
length about how wonderful they are and how I'm willing to put up with the
equipment setup, exposure measurements and corrections, the expense, etc. in
order to get that result, but I don't think that large format is the way to
go for jury submissions. Portfolio, yes. Jury submissions, no.
The people who have to review these things have to look at a lot of them.
They have to compare them against one another on a light table. The 35mm
format allows them to do that relatively easily. What if I decided that I
like 8x10 (or 11x14) and submit my images in that format? Where do you draw
the line?
The perspective problems that you bring up can be handled in a couple of
ways:
1) By using a longer focal length, perspective distortion is reduced. Too
long, though, and the pot loses dimensionality (it looks flat). I find
somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 mm to be good. Of course, there are
times when you may want to use some perspective distortion to emphasize some
feature of a pot and then you would accomodate that with a different focal
length. Pots don't (usually) move, so your depth of field can be handled
with a small aperture and long exposure.
2) Canon has a tiltable lens. Nikon has a perspective correction lens that
can be modified to tilt/swing. These lenses, while not providing the
complete control of a view camera, go a long way toward eliminating the
problems that you speak of.
There is no question that view cameras are capable of producing images far
superior to 35mm work. I'd even agree with the idea that if I'm willing to
learn how to use a view camera or hire a professional, then I deserve to
have the added advantage of an image that looks like a stained glass window
compared to the paint chip of a 35mm slide. But I think that the jurying
process is best served with a bunch of equal, easily handled 35mm slides.
Any people out there who have been on the receiving end of submissions care
to comment?
Bruce "just imagining a 4x5 transparency of these beautiful leaves outside"
Girrell
Bruce Girrell on thu 22 oct 98
Dear Clayarters,
I received the following information regarding the jurying of slides from
Dannon Rhudy.
> Jurors generally look at slides NOT on a light table, but
> use a projector; the slides are placed in standard carosels
> and ONLY standard 2x2 slides will fit. You will note on
> most prospecti/calls for entry that they are very specific
> about the slide size and construction (no glass slides) and
> no outsize slides. Large format makes great slides,
> but they can't be used for jurying purposes.
Thanks for the info. I'm more familiar with the editorial process where
light tables are the standard. Projectors can add color shifts to the images
and are not acceptable for reviewing slides to be printed. Comparisons are,
of course, more difficult with a projector. I just kind of assumed that art
show jurors would have gravitated to the same solutions as the publishing
community. Sorry for the error.
Bruce Girrell
| |
|
