kterpstra on wed 22 feb 06
Hi all,
I just want to let everyone know how pleased my students, and art department
were with the digital photography workshop Tony Ferguson did for my
undergrad Professional Practice class here at UW-L. This is my first
semester teaching this course and along with all the how to write artist
statements, bios, resumes, grant apps. cover letters etc. the photo thing
is critical for these students. This is a required class here for Junior Art
majors in all media. Tony shot both 2 and 3-D student work with
explanations of what he was doing and why. Then we had a digital
presentation of what a good image looks like, what doesn't and how to fix
things. Many of the students at this stage in come in with no idea what an
image needs to look like or how to achieve it. I'm still trying to learn
this digital stuff myself so Tony was a lifesaver for me in this class.
Tony won't be at NCECA this year; I'm sure if he were he would be glad to
help out in the clayart room with much of this useful information...maybe
next year. I don't see anything on the NCECA program regarding this topic
(am I missing it?) The closest thing I see is Richard Burkett's lecture on
"Demystifying Electronic Presentations and Publications."
We had cold an snowy blizzard here last week when Tony was here so we kept
him another day, scrounged up a few extra bucks for him and he gave us a
clay workshop as well...very well received also I might add.
We do need to learn as much as we can in any way we can about digital
photography. We are currently in the muck right now of still needing slides
for some of the grad school applications and we need digitals for grant
apps. Some venues will take either at the moment but it will soon all be
digital and they will have to be GOOD digital. We know how much good work
is thrown out of a juried competition because of a bad slide. The best
student loses out on an assistantship because of bad slides. The same is
happening with digital images and how they are presented. I would recommend
these digital workshops, read the how to books, start a file of clayart
posts regarding digital. I'm glad we have so much digital help on this list.
I wouldn't be getting through this part of my class without help from fellow
clayarters. Thanks to all of you!
see you at nceca,
Karen Terpstra
University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
La Crosse, WI
John Hesselberth on wed 22 feb 06
On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:36 AM, kterpstra wrote:
> We do need to learn as much as we can in any way we can about digital
> photography. We are currently in the muck right now of still
> needing slides
> for some of the grad school applications and we need digitals for
> grant
> apps. Some venues will take either at the moment but it will soon
> all be
> digital and they will have to be GOOD digital.
Hi Karen, Tony,
Indeed we do and it is not totally straight forward. Perhaps one of
you or someone else on the list can answer one thing I am unclear
about. It is my understanding that if one wants to make a film slide
from a digital file one needs about all the resolution (file size)
one can get up to the resolution of the machine that exposes the
film--and they are usually pretty high.
But if one wants to project files directly from a computer using a
digital projector there is no need to go above the resolution of the
projector -- older, less expensive ones--still about $1000--cost is
relative-- are usually 800 x 600 (SVGA). The inexpensive market now
seems to be moving to 1024 x 768 (XGA?). I have also seen some
expensive ones ($3000-8000) that advertise 1366 x 768. But all of
these resolutions are within the capability of most any digital
camera on the market. And I would have to say that images sized to
1024 x 768 look pretty darn good when projected onto a 5 or 6 foot
screen. To get to the size of NCECA screens might be a different
story, but would it really? We have already seen some presentations
made that way and I doubt the files/projectors had resolutions much
higher, if any higher, than I have shown above. Am I on the right
track here or am I missing something?
Regards,
John
Tony Ferguson on wed 22 feb 06
John,
A 3.3 mega pixle camera is the minimum you want to shoot a digital image with. You can make high quality slides from this megapixel size no problem. The amount of digital noise, the color filtration system, the ccd etc on the camera will also dictate the quality of the image. I use a 6.3 canon digital rebel now and its great. From this size I can make pretty much anything I would ever need: 30x40 posters, slides, images for brochures, etc.
The issue with digitalling projecting images is no different than a monitor. The higher the size just means you can project more pixels within the viewing space. You also want to make sure any images you resize (and who know unless you bring your own digital slide projector what type, size, resolution, etc the place you are visiting's projector may be) that you are always larger than the size. This way you can be sure you can maximize the full use of the projector if you want to be able to fill the entire frame with your window. I had some smaller images which project on a projector are still small--just like on my monitor. Now I could adjust the projector settings, but even so, the image (smaller pixel dimensions) is the equivalent of blowing it up so it will be pixelated, again, just like on a monitor. So, if you resize your images for a presentation to 1366 x 768 (until the increase the size) be covered.
As far as NCECA screens go or any others for that matter, always have a set of originals with you on your HD in a folder and then your resized ones which really isn't necessary. If you have a descent computer, the loading time between a smaller mega pixel image and a larger one for slides shows in neglible. If you want to beable to zoom in on something to show folks something, then use your original image and you don't have to worry about anything. When I give workshops, its all done from my laptop which I highly recommend. This way I also demonstrate in the photoworkshop techniques that people can in real time, what I am selecting, how I am using things, etc. I actually use images of work shot earlier in the day and then I demonstrate post editing techniques to put the finishing touches on the image, resizing, optimizing for different applications, etc. The days of powerpoint are over. Slide show functions are built into OS now for mac, pc, linux and its easy as putting
images into a folder in the order you want and selecting slideshow. Plug here: I have an online digital photography workshop for artists in the works for those folks who do no wish to travel to a location for a workshop. Anway, I hope this answered your questions. You are on the right track.
Tony Ferguson
John Hesselberth wrote:
On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:36 AM, kterpstra wrote:
> We do need to learn as much as we can in any way we can about digital
> photography. We are currently in the muck right now of still
> needing slides
> for some of the grad school applications and we need digitals for
> grant
> apps. Some venues will take either at the moment but it will soon
> all be
> digital and they will have to be GOOD digital.
Hi Karen, Tony,
Indeed we do and it is not totally straight forward. Perhaps one of
you or someone else on the list can answer one thing I am unclear
about. It is my understanding that if one wants to make a film slide
from a digital file one needs about all the resolution (file size)
one can get up to the resolution of the machine that exposes the
film--and they are usually pretty high.
But if one wants to project files directly from a computer using a
digital projector there is no need to go above the resolution of the
projector -- older, less expensive ones--still about $1000--cost is
relative-- are usually 800 x 600 (SVGA). The inexpensive market now
seems to be moving to 1024 x 768 (XGA?). I have also seen some
expensive ones ($3000-8000) that advertise 1366 x 768. But all of
these resolutions are within the capability of most any digital
camera on the market. And I would have to say that images sized to
1024 x 768 look pretty darn good when projected onto a 5 or 6 foot
screen. To get to the size of NCECA screens might be a different
story, but would it really? We have already seen some presentations
made that way and I doubt the files/projectors had resolutions much
higher, if any higher, than I have shown above. Am I on the right
track here or am I missing something?
Regards,
John
______________________________________________________________________________
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.
Tony Ferguson
...where the sky meets the lake...
Duluth, Minnesota
Artist, Educator, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
fergy@cpinternet.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.aquariusartgallery.com
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.
| |
|
