Hank Murrow on wed 26 jun 02
Lois Ruben Aronow wrote;
>I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
>application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
>one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
>While the snail mail option is still available, they are really
>encouraging people to apply via the internet, and charging a slightly
>higher jury fee in order to convert slides to scans.
>
>They want the jurors to be able to zoom in on the images, should they
>desire.
>
>This throws a curve into a jurying process I know many people have
>thought long and hard about. We've had many discussions here about
>what order to send your slides in, etc etc ad nauseum. Now, jurors
>can look at their leisure, and not at a big blurry image for half a
>second.
>
>I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I'm nowhere
>near ready for this particular show, but I imagine other shows will be
>doing this method of application in the future.
Dear Lois and others;
For forty years or so, I have only juried in with real live
pots. I have always felt that only a real live pot can reveal its
qualities. When I got an invite to send slides to the American Shino
Show, I softened my stance and had a few slides done of my work.
Since then, the museum photographer who did my slides has taught me
to take my own, and now I have them made into a CD holding around 120
images with incredible resolution. My website was built using
lower-res images from such CDs. The digital files get one closer to
the work than ever, though I would still prefer to jury in with real
pots. Soon, I will get a digicam to shoot along with my SRT-101
Minolta with the 100mm Macro. Maybe I will switch over entirely. Only
took 40 years to go with slides!
Cheers, Hank
Lois Ruben Aronow on wed 26 jun 02
I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
While the snail mail option is still available, they are really
encouraging people to apply via the internet, and charging a slightly
higher jury fee in order to convert slides to scans.
They want the jurors to be able to zoom in on the images, should they
desire.
This throws a curve into a jurying process I know many people have
thought long and hard about. We've had many discussions here about
what order to send your slides in, etc etc ad nauseum. Now, jurors
can look at their leisure, and not at a big blurry image for half a
second.
I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I'm nowhere
near ready for this particular show, but I imagine other shows will be
doing this method of application in the future.
--------------------------------------------
Lois Ruben Aronow
gilois@bellatlantic.net
=46ine Craft Porcelain
http://www.loisaronow.com - Newly updated! New Work and Tattoo pictures!
Jocelyn McAuley on wed 26 jun 02
Hi Lois,
For those interested, Crafts Reports has an extensive write up on the
Smithsonian's digital jurying process.
I say, about time! Digital images distribute easier, their light
levels can be easily corrected by novices, and there are no "hard" copies
to get lost. I don't have to wait for my digital images to come back from
such and such gallery.
Quality is just as good on a computer monitor or projection.
> I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
> application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
> one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
--
Jocelyn McAuley ><<'> jocie@worlddomination.net
Eugene, Oregon http://www.ceramicism.com
Tony Ferguson on wed 26 jun 02
This is the wave of the future and a great idea because jurors can really
look at the work at their leisure. Also, jurors can load the jpegs into the
newer electronic slide projectors or computers and view them on the big
screen collectively if they wish. This is how I plan to jury the teaware
show: via internet submission. You can also utilize jurors from around the
world in way not feasible before. It also makes it more accessable to folks
and saves money. You can usually get your slides scanned in onto a CD when
you have them taken for a minimal fee--it is when you wait that they charge
you $1 or more a slide. None the less, internet is how folks will be seeing
our work.
Thank you.
Tony Ferguson
Stoneware, Porcelain, Raku
www.aquariusartgallery.com
218-727-6339
315 N. Lake Ave
Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lois Ruben Aronow"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
> I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
> application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
> one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
> While the snail mail option is still available, they are really
> encouraging people to apply via the internet, and charging a slightly
> higher jury fee in order to convert slides to scans.
>
> They want the jurors to be able to zoom in on the images, should they
> desire.
>
> This throws a curve into a jurying process I know many people have
> thought long and hard about. We've had many discussions here about
> what order to send your slides in, etc etc ad nauseum. Now, jurors
> can look at their leisure, and not at a big blurry image for half a
> second.
>
> I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I'm nowhere
> near ready for this particular show, but I imagine other shows will be
> doing this method of application in the future.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Lois Ruben Aronow
> gilois@bellatlantic.net
>
> Fine Craft Porcelain
> http://www.loisaronow.com - Newly updated! New Work and Tattoo pictures!
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Donna Sparks at Almost Art on thu 27 jun 02
they can look long and hard, and i can edit the digital image for hours or
days to get it looking its best, add highlights, cover blemishes, adjust
the shape, even... In fact, perhaps the pot doesn't even exist....
I have converted all my 'print' work to digital, but figured i'd have to
keep the slide film and camera to keep me honest in depicting the pots.
Dave Gayman on thu 27 jun 02
There are digital photos and there are digital photos. The best quality
digital images (which are not all that high in quality) still cost a lot,
because really good digital camera equipment still costs a lot. Clay
artists going this route are going to add substantially to their cost of
doing business.
The problem is resolution, expressed in pixels (picture elements, the
smallest image dot available to the camera). No juror would be able to
zoom in very far on a shot taken with my $140 2.1 megapixel Fuji digital
camera, and there are $40 play-toy cameras that have 1/4 to 1/2 the
resolution of my entry-level camera. For those, even the overall shot
would be blocky and severely lacking in detail.
If I want really good digital photos at the highest current resolution,
I've got to cough up the cost of something like a professional Nikon D1X at
roughly 5.5 megapixels -- close to $5,000. Or I could shell out $1,000 to
$1,500 for a 5 megapixel "prosumer" model. Or I have to pay a pro to take
the photos, figuring at least $1,000 a day.
Granted, you could get workable images with a $500-750 camera. But now
let's take a look at conventional film, for which you can get a really good
camera for $200-350. Ektachrome slide film provides resolution equivalent
to some 28 megapixels or more at 35mm -- at 4 x 5, you get the equivalent
of some 50 GIGapixels. Conventional film also offers a much better ability
to handle both highlights AND shadows in the same shot.
Digital does NOT offer better images or easier zooming. Digital offers
ease in exposure balance, (interestingly) an ability to alter photos
without detection (just remove those blemishes...), the ability to re-shoot
instantly if you screw up, and especially, ease in handling / storing /
viewing.
Digital photography is still basically for amateur home snapshots, photos
for TV and computer monitors, or images for printed ads. Grampa Bob or
aunt Betsy don't much care about the image quality of shots of baby Emily,
any more than they really care about the image on their TV. Human eyes
make up all sorts of details that aren't really there, smoothing over and
filling in what in reality are lousy images. But I'm hoping that the eyes
being used for jurying are better.
(If you've ever discussed a good photograph with a good photographer,
you'll know that the photog sees things you just aren't seeing -- image
details, color hues and values, graininess or lack thereof, exposure
details, and on and on. Good, trained eyes need good images, and digital
just doesn't provide truly good images yet.)
Dave
At 04:17 PM 6/26/2002 -0400, Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
>I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. ...
>
>I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on [digital photo
>submission].
Timakia@AOL.COM on thu 27 jun 02
I am glad to hear and see some competitions going that way. For long now, I
am struggling to get my work out because of bad slides, whereas my digitals
is good. I think many persons felt that they have to become good
photographers in order to be good potters, which is giving a very crooked
perseption of the representers of pottery.
Because of the cheaper way and maybe easier way to look at photographs,
judges will also be able to see more detail on work, which can be lost in one
or 2 slides.
Antoinette Badenhorst
http://hometown.aol.com/timakia
105 Westwood circle
Saltillo, MS
38866
Richard Jeffery on thu 27 jun 02
I just wish everyone would catch up with it - I'm having to run around and
get some new slides done today for submission to a juried show in Sussex -
great place, but they reckon their computers aren't up to digital images
(? - I'm an IT trainer, so have some doubts about that...). good job my lab
does a 45 minute turn around for E6.... I've moved to digital for just
about everything...
Richard Jeffery
Web Design and Photography
www.theeleventhweb.co.uk
Bournemouth UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Tony Ferguson
Sent: 27 June 2002 06:46
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
This is the wave of the future and a great idea because jurors can really
look at the work at their leisure. Also, jurors can load the jpegs into the
newer electronic slide projectors or computers and view them on the big
screen collectively if they wish. This is how I plan to jury the teaware
show: via internet submission. You can also utilize jurors from around the
world in way not feasible before. It also makes it more accessable to folks
and saves money. You can usually get your slides scanned in onto a CD when
you have them taken for a minimal fee--it is when you wait that they charge
you $1 or more a slide. None the less, internet is how folks will be seeing
our work.
Thank you.
Tony Ferguson
Stoneware, Porcelain, Raku
www.aquariusartgallery.com
218-727-6339
315 N. Lake Ave
Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lois Ruben Aronow"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
> I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
> application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
> one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
> While the snail mail option is still available, they are really
> encouraging people to apply via the internet, and charging a slightly
> higher jury fee in order to convert slides to scans.
>
> They want the jurors to be able to zoom in on the images, should they
> desire.
>
> This throws a curve into a jurying process I know many people have
> thought long and hard about. We've had many discussions here about
> what order to send your slides in, etc etc ad nauseum. Now, jurors
> can look at their leisure, and not at a big blurry image for half a
> second.
>
> I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I'm nowhere
> near ready for this particular show, but I imagine other shows will be
> doing this method of application in the future.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Lois Ruben Aronow
> gilois@bellatlantic.net
>
> Fine Craft Porcelain
> http://www.loisaronow.com - Newly updated! New Work and Tattoo pictures!
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Richard Jeffery on thu 27 jun 02
you may get better results from digital from tricky subjects, because it is
no longer prohibitively expensive for the photographer to do trial Polaroid
shots to get the set up and lighting right. apart from time (and you don't
have to translate Polaroid into "real film" exposure. so it's quicker/more
reliable too), and the usual overheads on equipment, there is no additional
cost.
5 years ago i would not have believed it, and for some things like landscape
i still like the romance of film, but now digital has come of age.
Richard Jeffery
Web Design and Photography
www.theeleventhweb.co.uk
Bournemouth UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Ilene Mahler
Sent: 28 June 2002 00:06
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
I think its' wonderful as I'm on the 2nd photographer to take crystalline
pots....It seems easier to take digital pictures..ilene in Conn
----- Original Message -----
From: Lois Ruben Aronow
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
While the snail mail option is still available, they are really
encouraging people to apply via the internet, and charging a slightly
higher jury fee in order to convert slides to scans.
They want the jurors to be able to zoom in on the images, should they
desire.
This throws a curve into a jurying process I know many people have
thought long and hard about. We've had many discussions here about
what order to send your slides in, etc etc ad nauseum. Now, jurors
can look at their leisure, and not at a big blurry image for half a
second.
I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I'm nowhere
near ready for this particular show, but I imagine other shows will be
doing this method of application in the future.
--------------------------------------------
Lois Ruben Aronow
gilois@bellatlantic.net
Fine Craft Porcelain
http://www.loisaronow.com - Newly updated! New Work and Tattoo pictures!
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Luis Fontanills on thu 27 jun 02
I feel that anything that would allow a juror to obtain more information for
assessment is good. The ideal, of course, is to have the artifact in person,
but this is difficult to coordinate for most ventures.
One note of concern is that the manipulation of digital images is very easy.
Adjusting the photo to show the artifact off to its best is perfectly
acceptable; removing a flaw or changing the color, texture, proportions,
etc., is not.
Luis Fontanills
Miami, Florida USA
Bruce Girrell on thu 27 jun 02
Tony Ferguson wrote:
> Also, jurors can load the jpegs ...
(Tony, I know that your focus was not on the term "jpegs" so please don't
think that I'm picking on you.)
What Tony wrote, though, does raise the issue of how the "slides" would be
distributed. When I create an image suitable for projection it is usually at
least 10 Mbytes, often larger. JPEG compression is NOT an acceptable means
by which to reduce the file size for transmission. The artifacts that JPEG
compression introduces into images would seriously reduce the quality of the
image. Lower compression factors would improve the situation, but then you
still end up with a big file.
The discrete cosine transform employed in JPEG compression introduces blocky
looking noise into the image, especially near areas of sharp transitions,
such as near the edges of a pot. Wavelet transforms promise far superior
lossy compression, but wavelet compression has not been widely accepted or
standardized yet.
So what form does the Smithsonian expect the submitters to use? How does the
Smithsonian plan to distribute the images to the jurors?
Bruce "I'll be to bed soon, honey. Just 4386 more megabytes of images to
download from the Smithsonian." Girrell
Tony Ferguson on thu 27 jun 02
Donna,
Why would you cover blemishes and change the shape of your work? Don't you
want the jurors to see what your pots really look like?
Thank you.
Tony Ferguson
Stoneware, Porcelain, Raku
www.aquariusartgallery.com
218-727-6339
315 N. Lake Ave
Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Sparks at Almost Art"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
> they can look long and hard, and i can edit the digital image for hours or
> days to get it looking its best, add highlights, cover blemishes, adjust
> the shape, even... In fact, perhaps the pot doesn't even exist....
>
> I have converted all my 'print' work to digital, but figured i'd have to
> keep the slide film and camera to keep me honest in depicting the pots.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
Richard Jeffery on thu 27 jun 02
<for TV and computer monitors, or images for printed ads.>>
which is why the local Pro camera shop - Robert Whites, who sell mail order
across the planet - no longer stock much roll film in their fridge. they
will get it, but don't stock it - all the local pros and studios have gone
over to digital.
this is the sort of post I might have written 5 years ago. it simply isn't
true any longer.
expensive for quality? yes, that's certainly true. but the quality is
there, with professional equipment, and pretty damn close with pro-am stuff.
Richard Jeffery
Web Design and Photography
www.theeleventhweb.co.uk
Bournemouth UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Dave Gayman
Sent: 27 June 2002 12:50
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
There are digital photos and there are digital photos. The best quality
digital images (which are not all that high in quality) still cost a lot,
because really good digital camera equipment still costs a lot. Clay
artists going this route are going to add substantially to their cost of
doing business.
The problem is resolution, expressed in pixels (picture elements, the
smallest image dot available to the camera). No juror would be able to
zoom in very far on a shot taken with my $140 2.1 megapixel Fuji digital
camera, and there are $40 play-toy cameras that have 1/4 to 1/2 the
resolution of my entry-level camera. For those, even the overall shot
would be blocky and severely lacking in detail.
If I want really good digital photos at the highest current resolution,
I've got to cough up the cost of something like a professional Nikon D1X at
roughly 5.5 megapixels -- close to $5,000. Or I could shell out $1,000 to
$1,500 for a 5 megapixel "prosumer" model. Or I have to pay a pro to take
the photos, figuring at least $1,000 a day.
Granted, you could get workable images with a $500-750 camera. But now
let's take a look at conventional film, for which you can get a really good
camera for $200-350. Ektachrome slide film provides resolution equivalent
to some 28 megapixels or more at 35mm -- at 4 x 5, you get the equivalent
of some 50 GIGapixels. Conventional film also offers a much better ability
to handle both highlights AND shadows in the same shot.
Digital does NOT offer better images or easier zooming. Digital offers
ease in exposure balance, (interestingly) an ability to alter photos
without detection (just remove those blemishes...), the ability to re-shoot
instantly if you screw up, and especially, ease in handling / storing /
viewing.
Digital photography is still basically for amateur home snapshots, photos
for TV and computer monitors, or images for printed ads. Grampa Bob or
aunt Betsy don't much care about the image quality of shots of baby Emily,
any more than they really care about the image on their TV. Human eyes
make up all sorts of details that aren't really there, smoothing over and
filling in what in reality are lousy images. But I'm hoping that the eyes
being used for jurying are better.
(If you've ever discussed a good photograph with a good photographer,
you'll know that the photog sees things you just aren't seeing -- image
details, color hues and values, graininess or lack thereof, exposure
details, and on and on. Good, trained eyes need good images, and digital
just doesn't provide truly good images yet.)
Dave
At 04:17 PM 6/26/2002 -0400, Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
>I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. ...
>
>I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on [digital photo
>submission].
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Orchard Valley Ceramics Arts Guild on thu 27 jun 02
It's inevitable that shows begin jurying from digital photos
rather than slides. but I have some reservations about it.
First, the resolution of today's digital photos is very poor.
Even the high-end digital cameras (3-5 megapixels) do not
equal the resolution of a slide, and the common consumer
camera are nowhere close. But I guess this is a short-term
problem, because the resolution of cameras will get better.
My bigger concern is the extreme ease of manipulating
digital photos. It's easy to lighten or darken, adjust the
contrast, change the color balance. It's also easy to remove
blemishes and flaws, change colors, and radically alter the
character of the work. (My wife is a professional graphic
artist, and I sometimes can't believe the things she can do
in Photoshop).
This is also a "slippery slope" situation. I may start out
just "fixing the contrast in the photo" but gradually slip
into making changes that really misrepresent my work.
Cindi Anderson on thu 27 jun 02
I am not that familiar with juried shows. Are you required to still have
the piece? If so, maybe the winners could be required to present a copy of
the actual piece, to verify that the photo wasn't altered. If it was found
they cheated they could be banned from competition in the future.
Of course it could be that your piece still looks like the photo, but that
you have just adjusted the photo to be more "flattering". But how is this
different than having a good or not good photograph in the first place.
This is the whole amazing part about jurying pots by photos... the
photographer is almost more important than the pot. Sometimes I feel that
the awards should be given to the photographers as much or more than to the
potter.
Maybe digital photos would really force competitions to be judged with the
actual piece, not photos at all. Which really to me is more indicitive of
the true piece... the way it looks as you turn the piece, the weight of the
piece, the details that you can only see with your eye.
Cindi
Fremont, CA
----- Original Message -----
> My bigger concern is the extreme ease of manipulating
> digital photos. It's easy to lighten or darken, adjust the
> contrast, change the color balance. It's also easy to remove
> blemishes and flaws, change colors, and radically alter the
> character of the work.
Susan on thu 27 jun 02
>
> My bigger concern is the extreme ease of manipulating
> digital photos. It's easy to lighten or darken, adjust the
> contrast, change the color balance. It's also easy to remove
> blemishes and flaws, change colors, and radically alter the
> character of the work. (My wife is a professional graphic
> artist, and I sometimes can't believe the things she can do
> in Photoshop).
>
speaking from a former graphic artist, one can always use traditional
slides, scan them into Photoshop, make the above changes, and then send out
the disk and have a new slide made from your Photoshop file. I never did it
but used to get advertisement from photo labs that converted Photoshop files
to slides. The cost wasn't that high either.
susan
Anita Rickenberg on thu 27 jun 02
"As part of the application process for their Craft show (which is quite =
prestigious), one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via =
computer"
As someone who is limited to a 26.5 (top transmission speed) phone =
modem, the thought of transmitting high res images makes me cringe. =
High speed access is not an option where I live, and I'm sure there's =
many others in the same situation. The one time I needed to send an =
image (one) to a web site designer, it took over an hour. For one =
image. It's great to enter the electronic age, and if I lived in an =
urban area with high speed internet access I'd think internet =
applications were a step in the right direction, but here in rural =
America they're not an option.
Anita
Earl Brunner on thu 27 jun 02
Here we go again..............................
And lest you take offense Dave, I'm talking about the thread, not your comments.
Dave Gayman wrote:
> There are digital photos and there are digital photos.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Ilene Mahler on thu 27 jun 02
I think its' wonderful as I'm on the 2nd photographer to take crystalline
pots....It seems easier to take digital pictures..ilene in Conn
----- Original Message -----
From: Lois Ruben Aronow
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: Jurying by digital photos - your thoughts? (Smithsonian)
I was talking to the Smithsonian people the other day. As part of the
application process for their Craft show (which is quite prestigious),
one must submit their slides/appliucation digitally, via computer.
While the snail mail option is still available, they are really
encouraging people to apply via the internet, and charging a slightly
higher jury fee in order to convert slides to scans.
They want the jurors to be able to zoom in on the images, should they
desire.
This throws a curve into a jurying process I know many people have
thought long and hard about. We've had many discussions here about
what order to send your slides in, etc etc ad nauseum. Now, jurors
can look at their leisure, and not at a big blurry image for half a
second.
I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I'm nowhere
near ready for this particular show, but I imagine other shows will be
doing this method of application in the future.
--------------------------------------------
Lois Ruben Aronow
gilois@bellatlantic.net
Fine Craft Porcelain
http://www.loisaronow.com - Newly updated! New Work and Tattoo pictures!
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Snail Scott on sun 30 jun 02
At 09:13 AM 6/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Why would you cover blemishes and change the shape of your work?
Not the work, but the photo! Smudging out that
bit of cat hair that drifted onto the backdrop,
or the unfortunate crease in the paper, or the
shadow of an errant something-or-other, would
salvage quite a few otherwise-decent pictures.
Altering the appearance of the art is certainly
unethical, but altering the appearance of the
photo? No.
-Snail
claybair on mon 1 jul 02
I read about the Smithsonian digital jury process in a recent Crafts Report
magazine and was very excited about it. Each juror had their own computer
and could spend more or less time on viewing the pieces. I recall that they
felt it was much more efficient and took less time than the old slide way. I
would love to see more digital jurying.
To discourage any "enhancement" they could easily add a condition that if a
piece proves to be digitally enhanced it will be disqualified and the person
barred from the show in the future. However a slide shot on the good side of
a pot also can be deceptive as it conceals the flaws by not showing them.
Recently I saw a photo of pots in a magazine. I saw the pots in person. They
looked better in the mag than in actuality. They were very poorly
executed... sure made me realize how deceiving a slide can be!
Gayle Bair- back from a fantastic trip.... more later!
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
Snail Scott
At 09:13 AM 6/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Why would you cover blemishes and change the shape of your work?
Not the work, but the photo! Smudging out that
bit of cat hair that drifted onto the backdrop,
or the unfortunate crease in the paper, or the
shadow of an errant something-or-other, would
salvage quite a few otherwise-decent pictures.
Altering the appearance of the art is certainly
unethical, but altering the appearance of the
photo? No.
-Snail
| |
|
