Red Skies at Night

January 25, 2012

Rise and Fall of the media empires (or, the great democratization of art)

Filed under: business, music, noted, photography, reviews, video, web — Eric Jeschke @ 10:30 pm

I’ll give a shot at embedding a video that I ran across in my wanderings online. It’s a feature film–one hour and 21 minutes, to be precise–that is a highly enjoyable exploration of the new digital realm that we find ourselves in. It broaches the interesting questions that arise when all the old media edifices are tumbling down because of the technological advances of our time. When everyone can make a film, a record, or “fine art” photography for a few hundreds of dollars at most and distribute it online, what is the outcome? A great democratization of media or a drowning in a deluge of mediocre works?

Personally I think it is somewhere in between. I tend to fall on the side that says this is a great thing, because I love being creative and seeing these barriers to entry fall away. And lord knows that even before the internet arrived to everyman, the media companies were already starting to crumble under their own ineptitude, avarice and greed. I’m not sorry to see most of them go and get replaced by something hopefully with a more even playing field. But I also worry about a society that has only a few regional newspapers–a bulwark of democracy, and where (like my town) the only bookstores left are used bookstores.

Interesting times we are in, and only with hindsight will it become clearer.

January 24, 2012

When Digital is like Film, but not really

Filed under: noted, photography, photos, products, scanning — Tags: , — Eric Jeschke @ 11:19 pm

Cliff Walk

Key: R20111225-161731

Nokia N8 phone cam–a digital image.

I am so sick of hearing the film vs. digital debate.  I’m sure painters don’t argue whether oils or acrylics are better, so why do photographers need to endlessly debate which medium is better? Just pick one, or better both, and get out there and do some photography, dammit!

Ok, rant off. I’m just tired of reading about it still in 2012.

In a similar vein, I don’t know if you have seen this new product? Go ahead, check out the link and then come back….hm, hm, hm….

If you want the film look, then for God’s sake, why not shoot film?

Personally, I don’t get it. I like the look of digital. I never was a big fan of film grain, which always mucked up my scans, and I never much liked the limited dynamic range of transparency film or the color all that much. (Ok, Kodachrome 64 was a little special, I admit). I never shot much negative film, so I don’t have a reference there. But after 20-some years of shooting slides, and being a computer guy, I was so ready for digital to arrive. I just don’t understand products that are trying to emulate a particular film look, or to add fake grain, etc.  Why not embrace the medium for what it is?

Anyway, this should not be construed in any way as a rant against film. If you love it–God bless you–have at it. And I guess if you want the convenience of digital with the look of film, this kind of product is for you–go for it.

Just remember folks, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck–but it isn’t a duck–at some point the ruse is going to show through.

[As an aside: I can remember clearly several jurors from past Hawaii Photo Expos, who, upon examining a framed print up close during a photo critique, turn to the photographer and ask "Is that film?"--and then look disappointed when the answer is in the negative.  As if suddenly the image that they liked and picked for the show has proven to be a cheap fake.  I cannot for the life of me understand that state of mind.  The image should stand on its own.  As others have said elsewhere: "No one cares how hard you worked on it".]

 

January 21, 2012

Opening the Door

Filed under: articles, inspiration, noted, photography, photos, web — Eric Jeschke @ 8:16 pm

Door

Key: R20120102-085212

I’ve been wrestling with the idea of making vs. taking photographs. Of course many photographers would say that even when they discover a “found” image they are making a photograph, due to all the creative things they are doing with the light, composition, etc. and on afterward into post processing. But I am talking about something much different–the difference between being inspired by a found image vs. coming up with an image in your head and then going out and realizing that–making it happen.

I really struggled with trying to figure out why it was so hard for me to make the latter kind of images. It’s something that I want to work on and develop, and I know that part of that is just putting in the time working that way until it is as comfortable as the other. But part of me was just not satisfied with not understanding the source of the difficulty.

Today I read a post by Brooks Jensen that neatly summarized probably the most important aspect of the problem. It is essentially the difference between photography and painting: in (found) photography you find an image and then you pare it down, element by element, subtracting things until you have the image close to what you “saw” in your head when it caught your eye. In painting you are doing the opposite: adding elements, until the scene is built up into something interesting. In short, it is a fundamentally different way of working. In the end you are exercising the same sorts of decisions and skills at the time of pressing the shutter, but the beginning part is so different that I am just not familiar with starting from that end.

I hope that I have articulated this well enough to get the point across. I know Brook’s post helped me understand at least one of the barriers standing in front of me that I could not see, and now seeing and understanding it, I might be able to make some more progress in getting over that barrier. It’s fair to say that painting lessons or other creative forms of art would probably be a huge help here, but my “art time” is limited. At least I can practice my “brush strokes” photographically.

December 29, 2011

On Putting Yer Money Where Yer Mouth Is

Filed under: life, noted, web — Eric Jeschke @ 1:30 am

Hair Light

Key: X20111120-132646-levels

Today I yanked my DNS registrations from GoDaddy and gave my business to another registrar who doesn’t help craft such evil laws as SOPA.

GoDaddy probably doesn’t care about my small time business anyway. The CEO has more important things to worry about, like hunting down those pesky elephants

December 2, 2011

More Folio Activity and Musings on Prints

Filed under: archiving, noted, photography, photos, POD, printing, web — Tags: , , , — Eric Jeschke @ 10:46 pm

The Clothes Pin Solution

Key: R20111130-085248

My box of Hahnemuhle Ultra Smooth Photo Rag showed up a couple of weeks ago and I made a couple of test prints from the Occupy Seattle folio.  I was not overly impressed.  The dmax of the blacks was no where near where I was expecting it.   I was rather surprised, given how much I had liked the look of the prints on the regular Photo Rag.  Then I realized that it was my friend Robbyn who had printed the sample on Photo Rag, not me (she had printed about 3 of the dozen+ or so samples that I had).  I began to suspect a printer profile issue.  As these things can take a while to sort out, I decided to spring for a box of my other current fave paper, which I know that I have printed on, Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk. That box came in a couple of days ago and I ran off a couple of test prints from the folio.  Wow, they looked great!  Seeing this I went ahead and started printing the whole thing…

…and the aggravation of home fine art inkjet printing came home to roost again. This time I discovered that some of the prints would, at the very tail end of the paper, twist a little on their way out of the printer, and this would cause the bottom bit of text to smear a little.  All the images were fine, because they finished above the point where the paper left the security of the rear rollers.  It was only some papers, possibly ones that were a little more curled, when the print was being pulled by the front rollers only and printing the image key and page number in the last inch or so of the paper.

For a while I thought that maybe I could fix it by simply guiding the paper in a straight path.  I tried using a clothespin clamped on to the manual feed shelf, as shown in the photo here.  It worked for a little while, but then the problem just exhibited itself in a different way as the paper simply slipped under the wheels and got printed on multiple times.  Googling a bit, I discovered that this is a known issue with this printer and certain papers (or under certain conditions–curled?) fed through the manual feed path.  I’d never seen it before because I was used to feeding much larger sheets of paper (A3+) through that path, or using the tray feed for slimmer papers.  The possible solutions I’ve seen online do not look good.  This is the kind of thing that leads to a love/hate relationship with home inkjet printing.  When it works, it’s glorious, and when it doesn’t, it’s frustration in spades.  I’m mulling over a couple of more things to try of my own design–wish me luck.

A Fine Print is a Beautiful Thing to Behold

Key: R20111202-222227

Before I got frustrated, I was positively glowing looking at the prints.  It’s always rewarding to see one of your images on a new paper. The photography world is collectively pondering if the end of the print as a destination is near, and we are all going to be looking at prints on our iPads or Kindles or what not.  Those certainly are attractive devices for browsing photography.  And I would not have to deal with the expense and hassles of an inkjet printer.  But I have to say that for this photographer at least, the print still reigns supreme.  The richness of the blacks, the subtle gradations in tonality, the resolution…my god, the detail!  Nothing quite like it.  And to think that with proper care it might last 200 years or more–archival as well.

November 15, 2011

Arm Wrestling

Filed under: noted, photography, photos, process, web — Eric Jeschke @ 11:11 pm

Arm Wrestling

Key: R20111105-104538

This post on the Lenswork blog accurately describes the gap I am trying to bridge with my new experiments in photography: the found image (such as above) vs. the constructed image. I’m very comfortable working in found imagery, whereas constructed imagery is something new and unfamiliar and definitely a little bit uncomfortable.  I guess I am going to have to wrestle with it until I get comfortable with it!

Older Posts »

Theme: Shocking Blue Green. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.