Well carrying on with my discussion of photography from the last blog post, I have been reading a magazine article about "Still + Motion" movement that is coming around in the digital photography world.
The concept is to utilize a DSLR or high grade video camera to extract quality, high resolution still images for photographs from the subjects being "filmed" or recorded. Tagging the phrase on the product page "THE GAME IS CHANGING", the article in some regards discusses the notion of the merger of still + motion photography, but mainly seems to be pushing a product, the camera the RED Epic.
The intriguing idea of the ability to pull ruffly 13.8-megapixel images from a 5k motion recording from the RED Epic is interesting, though it almost seems to me like continuous shutter movements, or frame rate. The technique is something I do find interesting, though with in the ideals of processes and skill, the subject must move since it is motion, yet at a rate that is slower than normal. This allows for sharp detailed still images to be pulled from the motion captured with out blur.
The technique interesting, and the idea or practice seems to have some definite creative outlets to be explored, though a game changer in the area of completely getting rid of DSRL cameras like digital supposedly did to film cameras, no. The possibility is not even close for a real reason really the cost of the equipment. Plus just as there are film photographers and photography still going on today in a big way, the game is not changing just getting new players.
The articles are linked bellow if you wish to learn and know more about still + motion photography:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/profiles/carlo-dalla-chiesa-the-beauty-within.html
and
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/gear/cameras/the-game-changing.html
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Photography Dead?
The thought that photography is dead due to the advent and takeoff of digital imagery, and computer technologies is a bit much. Shankans excerpt from Geoffrey Batchen starting on page 209 goes on to discuss the thoughts of photography and its roll through the rise of technologies, and concepts of photography within those constructs as compared with the culture of the time, and the understanding of perceived reality within the time is a discussion that has continued and will continue at the same pace of the technology that might or will affect the medium or ideology changes. It will never end.
The rise of photography did not kill painting, and though certain materials for analog photography or traditional photography, film are becoming harder to find, it is more of a shift to specialization rather than destruction. Digital imagery or digital photography will not "kill" photography, though part of the issue it seemed in the excerpt was the difference of replication and creation, the counter was given as well, to say that even though the film came from a negative and that is tangible the product or products produced from this labor are still a creation of the photographer, a constructed reality.
Photographs and images are all signs and sometimes symbols of something in reality, or a sign or symbol of a constructed reality, either way it is representation of a personal, cultural, rhetorical, and opinion, of individuals or groups, and even societies. The reality of the argument is the idea of truth or objective truth is lost with generated or constructed images, but this has always been the case, the images have always been constructed the tools are changing yes but the image has always been the construct of one or more of the above mentioned. People who are colorblind see reality in a different way, with the change or absence of color visually recognized by them, yet who is to say the people around them get to force their reality on the colorblind by saying they are wrong, since the world they see is their reality. The construction of visual reality or reality by man has always happened and will continue, and is seen in all forms and facets of daily human life, we augment reality to fit our own means and ideas of reality why would it be any different with imagery, and it hasn't since cave paintings are not to scale, and the figures are typically skewed or manipulated, displaying a viewed reality seems to be one main point of reality.
The rise of photography did not kill painting, and though certain materials for analog photography or traditional photography, film are becoming harder to find, it is more of a shift to specialization rather than destruction. Digital imagery or digital photography will not "kill" photography, though part of the issue it seemed in the excerpt was the difference of replication and creation, the counter was given as well, to say that even though the film came from a negative and that is tangible the product or products produced from this labor are still a creation of the photographer, a constructed reality.
Photographs and images are all signs and sometimes symbols of something in reality, or a sign or symbol of a constructed reality, either way it is representation of a personal, cultural, rhetorical, and opinion, of individuals or groups, and even societies. The reality of the argument is the idea of truth or objective truth is lost with generated or constructed images, but this has always been the case, the images have always been constructed the tools are changing yes but the image has always been the construct of one or more of the above mentioned. People who are colorblind see reality in a different way, with the change or absence of color visually recognized by them, yet who is to say the people around them get to force their reality on the colorblind by saying they are wrong, since the world they see is their reality. The construction of visual reality or reality by man has always happened and will continue, and is seen in all forms and facets of daily human life, we augment reality to fit our own means and ideas of reality why would it be any different with imagery, and it hasn't since cave paintings are not to scale, and the figures are typically skewed or manipulated, displaying a viewed reality seems to be one main point of reality.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
E.I.C.
Interdisciplinary cooperation in the Art world is very important, though I feel that this cooperation is also just as vital for other profession as well to work with artists. Science and Art, Art and Science go hand in hand, and in some cases seem almost one in the same, inseparable. Both disciplines strive to obtain the same things, or aspirations; Discover, Question, Answer, Create, Explain, Entertain, and Educate.
Showcasing these outcomes or pieces is just as important to this goal, as the saying goes "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?". All these things can be done by a person or people within the confines of exclusion, but for the sake of personal enjoyment what are the gains of the work itself? Were is the growth of understanding and personal skill? Without criticism and scrutiny of any sort beyond ones own mind, you keep the same course, society is affected by this action of exclusion, just as much as society is affected by the action of inclusion.
Todays reading pg. 182-193 in Sanken's Art and Electronic Media is a concept that I have been thinking about for some time, since it now pertains to me personally. Trying to gain access to showcases and exhibitions has never been a thought or a problem I had to experience until I started applying to Graduate school. The reasons for it being a "problem" or challenge is not that in the past everyone wanted to display my art, but rather I have never done it until now, and it had never be a thought of import until now. Though it does help to gain notoriety and credibility, the act in and of itself is not just to uplift or give fame or credit to an individual artist or group, but it also puts on display the experiement that the art in and of itself is. The outcome then becomes a hypothesis or finding open to not only critisim from other professional and peers, but also society as a whole the public in mass for all who wish to participate, that is why all art is a participatory concept.
Showcasing these outcomes or pieces is just as important to this goal, as the saying goes "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?". All these things can be done by a person or people within the confines of exclusion, but for the sake of personal enjoyment what are the gains of the work itself? Were is the growth of understanding and personal skill? Without criticism and scrutiny of any sort beyond ones own mind, you keep the same course, society is affected by this action of exclusion, just as much as society is affected by the action of inclusion.
Todays reading pg. 182-193 in Sanken's Art and Electronic Media is a concept that I have been thinking about for some time, since it now pertains to me personally. Trying to gain access to showcases and exhibitions has never been a thought or a problem I had to experience until I started applying to Graduate school. The reasons for it being a "problem" or challenge is not that in the past everyone wanted to display my art, but rather I have never done it until now, and it had never be a thought of import until now. Though it does help to gain notoriety and credibility, the act in and of itself is not just to uplift or give fame or credit to an individual artist or group, but it also puts on display the experiement that the art in and of itself is. The outcome then becomes a hypothesis or finding open to not only critisim from other professional and peers, but also society as a whole the public in mass for all who wish to participate, that is why all art is a participatory concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)