Digital photography taken to its logical conclusion

[Ben Crane]

Today I went to a show at the Los Angeles Center for Land Use Interpretation (www.clui.org). The subject of the show as antennas and debris basins in the San Gabriel Mountains. I was a bit surprised when I walked into the exhibition space and didn't see any photographs. I naively asked where the show was and was pointed to a flat screen monitor that would just show the images sequentially. The screen would go blank with the title of the image then the image would appear on the screen for a minute or two then the next image would come. A sign below the monitor listed all the images.

[Ken Lee]

This phase of technology is just beginning. The logical conclusion, we have yet to see.

[paulr]

I think the logical conclusion involves robots with point 'n shoots, taking pictures of other robots.

[Doug Howk]

I believe Bill Gates home has flat panel screens on walls for displayng of digital art. Mood changes, guest preferences, etc. can be programmed in to change the views. Digital display for digital images is logical, trying to print digital images onto paper is illogical (maybe Spock said that ;-)

[Leonard Evens]

Done correctly, digital displays can do better than conventional prints. A greater range of tonal values can be displayed with the right kind of system. Of course, it is doubtful that any digital system can achieve the resolution possible with prints, but they can easily match what any practical photographic system can actually deliver. And displayed images generally shouldn't be designed to satisfy people who insist on putting their noses right up agains the image. Today. a high quality digital display system with adequate resolution is beyond my means, but I hope to live long enough for such things to be affordable, say in the price range of plasma TVs. Then I will be happy to display my images on a display filling one of my walls.

Even now, I sometimes have images being displayed on a 24 inch LCD TV which only provides HDTV quality at best. The images don't bear looking at too closely, but they can be nice to look at from a distance.

[Brian Ellis]

Sounds a lot like the viewing of stereographs in the 19th century - load the stereoscope up with a bunch of stereographs and then click through them sequentially. They even had huge stereoscopes called "floor viewers" that could hold hundreds of stereographs at once. Funny how the more things change the more they stay the same.

[robc]

well we will all be able to sit on our arses at home and see exhibitions on our plasma displays and make screen captures of them so we can see them any time and not have to pay for them. No need for the great outdoors cos we can see it all at home.

Anyone see that film soylent green where those who volunteer for euthansia get to see images of what the world was like before humans destroyed it. Perhaps thats how all your cliche National Park images will finally become appreciated.

[Gordon Moat]

Too much like Bill Viola work. I guess there is an audience for that sort of thing. If it was the free day at the museum, I would probably view such images, though if I paid for it I would not be happy.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Dirk Rösler]

Not much different from a slide projector cycling through the pics. Not much "digital photography" about that, if you ask me. Just a method of presentation, that's all.

[PhotographicBlack]

Not much different from a slide projector cycling through the pics. Not much "digital photography" about that, if you ask me. Just a method of presentation, that's all.

oH... How I love to 'sniff' a photograph. Call me bad, but it's true. I'm known for going to galleries and wipping out my loupe.

It would deeply upset me to have a screen as a poor excuse for a quality print. Granted, Dirk is right, it's just a method of presentation, but still not my prefered.

-R