A precursor of things to come?

[Donald Miller]

Some of the comments on the recent threads got me to thinking. I think that while some may not openly embrace digital capture there is a greater acceptance, on the whole, than there has been at any time since it's inception.

I would like to open this discussion of advances in photography a bit further if I may. Taking things a little farther, I think that we as still photographers take a very limited view of photography from our own little corner of the world. The reason that I say this is that with todays technology we can take things far beyond where they are now.

I personally believe that movies (film based) and video (digital) are both photographic processes and that in some ways they relegate still photography to a very limited place. The reason that I say this is, borrowing from a straight photographers litany, that straight photography is more realistic than any other type of photography, when one examines the "realistic premise" on face value it is not really as realistic as is it would appear.

Let's compare what is and what could be...

Still photography whether it is film or digital captures one slice of time/space and nothing more. All of the expertise in the taking or printing of a still image is never going to do more than capture a single portion of time/space as it relates to the object/subject being photographed. It can never become more than that and the same conditions at the time of exposure as it relates to that time/space may never reoccur again. Furthermore, all that is capable of being portrayed in a still photographic image are the visual aspects of form...nothing more. If we were to take a photograph of a tree, a stream, a waterfall, or some architectural aspect it will be able to contain only the visual aspects of form as it relates to that subject/object.

Now with todays technology one could alternately capture an entire day of time/space on film or video. Let me assume that this would be daylight portrayal since the limitations of available light applies to both "still" and "unstill" photography. We could with todays technology place digital picture frames throughout a display space in lieu of framed still photographic prints. Now with this approach with computer control we could depict a more life like and hence more realistic aspect of the object/subject that we are photographing because we have the ability to depict virtually unlimited multiples of single portions of time/space.

Instead of a silent unmoving still image, we would be able to observe movement, sound, and changing light conditions as well. Instead of an unchanging image we would present a continuously changing image. Additionally, since we would be viewing this by transmitted light in lieu of reflected light I would hazard that most viewers would choose this over a photographic print. One could, with available technology, alternate these ongoing images from place to place within the inhabited space and even change them from time to time if desired.

Expensive? to that I would ask what is expensive when you consider the prices that some prints command today?

In this scenario rather than buying still photographs one would buy or rent discs to depict the photographic scenes they wanted in their inhabited spaces. Obviously this will not initially appeal to some...certainly, one would expect existing still photographers to be highly resistant. Too strange?, perhaps?...I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Annie M.]

'Still photography whether it is film or digital captures one slice of time/space and nothing more'... untrue... there are many photographers who's work is just the opposite... mine included

'Furthermore, all that is capable of being portrayed in a still photographic image are the visual aspects of form...nothing more' untrue... the visual aspects of time and light are also portrayed...

Also... artists have been doing Tempographs for many years...

Cheers, Annie

ps... film (movies) .... just a glorified flipbook.... the limitations you see in still photography are in your limited paradigm not intrinsic to the medium...

[John Voss]

One role of the artist is to find the moment in the ongoing continuum that bears lingering over (as distinguished from being necessarily 'decisive'.) For those unaccustomed to taking the time to 'look', or knowing how to look, this is the service rendered by the artist. Because technology allows what you are describing, Donald, I'm sure it will be exploited both commercially, and artistically, but not to the exclusion of the artist's choice of how, where and when to confine the temporal to the concrete.

[Donald Miller]

'Still photography whether it is film or digital captures one slice of time/space and nothing more'... untrue... there are many photographers who's work is just the opposite... mine included

'Furthermore, all that is capable of being portrayed in a still photographic image are the visual aspects of form...nothing more' untrue... the visual aspects of time and light are also portrayed...

Also... artists have been doing Tempographs for many years...

Cheers, Annie

ps... film (movies) .... just a glorified flipbook.... the limitations you see in still photography are in your limited paradigm not intrinsic to the medium...

Hi Annie,

Hope that this finds you well. I am not following you on a couple of things that you said. I hope that you will amplify on them for me so that I can understand what you mean.

The first is that you seem to be saying, as I read you, that you have the ability with a still image to factually depict more than what existed before the camera lens during the time that the shutter was open. If this is true, are you representing that this is possible or merely an abstraction?

The second is that it appears that you and I don't speak the same language when I address the visual aspects of form. Certainly, as I understand it light/shadow (tone, hue, and saturation) are among the other aspects of form. I think that obviously these, in fact all photography, requires the existence of light...so it goes without saying that the existence of light would be involved. So light existence is necessary for the observance and capture of the visual aspects of form. However, I will go on to say, we only see the aspects of form in a photographic image...light is not present within the image since one can not factually measure light as emanating from within the image. Any light is simply the reflection from an outside source falling upon the photographic image. That is what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. That brings me back to your second mention of the portrayal of time. How do you factually represent a greater measure of time (beyond the time the film is exposed) unless it is a pure abstraction?

I look forward to hearing from you. I imagine that I will learn something here.

Good luck and good light,
Donald Miller

[Donald Miller]

One role of the artist is to find the moment in the ongoing continuum that bears lingering over (as distinguished from being necessarily 'decisive'.) For those unaccustomed to taking the time to 'look', or knowing how to look, this is the service rendered by the artist. Because technology allows what you are describing, Donald, I'm sure it will be exploited both commercially, and artistically, but not to the exclusion of the artist's choice of how, where and when to confine the temporal to the concrete.

John, I fully agree with what you have said. I hope that I didn't lead you to believe that I meant that still photography would be supplanted. That certainly is not what I intended.

[Annie M.]

Hey Donald... my cameras and I have drifted far since that winter day in the coffee shop when I showed you my timid little photographs...

'you have the ability with a still image to factually depict more than what existed before the camera lens during the time that the shutter was open' ...yes ...

It is on the 'factual' that you are tripping up... of course I am teathered to a visual reality because I am using a machine ... but I really stretch the obvious aspects of visual reality and to me it is a different aspect of a true visual/time/light reality not the traditional aspect of abstract form...

simple analogy... in early filmmaking... the camera was still and everything was played out in front of it... it was a hangover from the theater paradigm... then someone picked the camera up and started moving it through the scene...voila...revolution... new paradigm.

I have my own little umwelt going on and I do not use cameras in the traditional way.

'greater aspect of time unless it is a pure abstraction'... not a greater aspect of time... a different rendering of time on the negative... it is not any more an abstraction that 1/125sec... which is in fact an arbitrary unit of time that is indeed an abstraction as well... but through lens culture we have become trained to see it as non-abstract.

soooooo... probably I am just messing with the semantics of images and how they relate to our notions of reality and experience of place.

Cheers and thanks again for the coffee!

[billschwab]

Donald,

I guess I don't see where any of what you have proposed is new. We've had webcams depicting people's lives’, trips, fish tanks, pets, volcanoes, cities ... you name it. 24/7. Complete with sight and sound. Hasn't Bill Gates some sort of artwork panels that randomly display images to enhance the room's environment? What is it you propose that is any different and what does it have to do with "straight photographers" and their chosen form of expression?




Some of the comments on the recent threads got me to thinking. I think that while some may not openly embrace digital capture...

... borrowing from a straight photographers litany, that straight photography is more realistic than any other type of photography...

Obviously this will not initially appeal to some...certainly, one would expect existing still photographers to be highly resistant.
I don't really see where these comments have anything to do with what you are discussing? I'm left feeling from this and other posts that you have made that you have some underlying problem with straight, tradiional or film photographers. What's up?

Bill

[Turner Reich]

So you got a new digital camera and every thing looks digital to you, that has changed for you but not necessarily for others.

[David_Senesac]

Odd you are not mentioning this holiday season's new image sensation the LCD digital picture frame that has taken a few years to rise to the public's awareness. A product that will undoubtedly sell well with holiday shoppers though one in which I have not yet been personally impressed with. Marketing for digital picture frames has consistently targeted the low end consumer with puny pixel sizes at VGA (640x480) or less. Any larger displays cost more than one will pay for similiar pixel size computer monitors that have way more functionality when connected to a computer. Some of these same products have been stupidly marketed at serious D-SLR photographers in the field who have not surprisingly tended to ignore them for the greater functionality of last year's functionally dated laptops with vastly more functionality at hardly more cost.

The same issue of small pixel dimension is likely to plague what I would coin digital video frames that you mention. The idea is not new at all because people have been looking at these things for years in our consumer electronic store television isles. All the HiDef big screen TVs in wide format going through sequences of canned scenic pics off some DVD with the sound often muted. Some DVD devices can be put in auto repeating sequence so one only requires media. I'd speculate to the consumer, such an idea will more often than not rise no further than the memory of watching some nature DVD on their TV. The newer HiDef experience at 1080 pixel size is a huge improvement over NTSC and still novel enough that digital video frame products has some credibility. However the significant cost of the current displays mean that such functions could not be supported alone, so any such feature is likely to be incorporated within a pricy HiDef televsion set.

What does tend to impress people is when they see a cutting edge IMAX 70mm film image on a big theater screen. Now that is impressive and different enough from TV to be novel. Due to obvious lack of memory and display limitations we won't be seeing any such products to display huge images any time in the next decade or two. However there will be a time in the not too distant future when one will be able to combine LCD panels in a modular fashion to free us from size contraints at typical living room distances and eventually memory issues will allow gigabytes of stored transfer to allow such. Thus in the future one might have several feet of display against a wall that will allow a more lifelike experience. In the mean time people will have to be content standing next to our static large format 35 inch plus sized fine art prints to experience a sense of being in a picture.

...David

[Struan Gray]

www.theircircularlife.it

[Asher Kelman]

I use both digital cameras and film.

What's important in still photogrphy is the intense focus on choice and discarding the rest of the time space options. We go for the peak decisive moment in a dancers moves or the tackle in soccer or "the" kiss in a wedding.

The discipline in photography is about choosing perspective, position, light and timing, all of which are sub-samples of a movie. Done well, the still photograph has the potential to transcend the limitations of giving attention to what is not powerful to leave only that which is moving, powerful and compelling!

The best photography can trump a long movie as it summarizes and focuses possibilities from which we ourselves can make our own fascinating stories and fantasies.

Asher

[Donald Miller]

Donald,

I guess I don't see where any of what you have proposed is new. We've had webcams depicting people's lives’, trips, fish tanks, pets, volcanoes, cities ... you name it. 24/7. Complete with sight and sound. Hasn't Bill Gates some sort of artwork panels that randomly display images to enhance the room's environment? What is it you propose that is any different and what does it have to do with "straight photographers" and their chosen form of expression?


I don't really see where these comments have anything to do with what you are discussing? I'm left feeling from this and other posts that you have made that you have some underlying problem with straight, tradiional or film photographers. What's up?

Bill

Bill,

This methodolgy is not widespread, to my knowledge. Yes Gates has this in his home according to what I have heard (random scenes as you mentioned). What I think may be different is that one could have a real time experience of a given subject...an example would be one of your Iceland scenes in which one could experience a continuum of everything from darkness to dawns light and back to dusks darkness again.

I don't have a problem with traditional photographers. I still do a lot of film photography. I do have a problem with elitism no matter who evidences it.

Hope that this explains more fully.

[Gordon Moat]

First off, in my opinion, there is nothing that could be accomplished in the latest version of PhotoShop that could not have been accomplished with PhotoShop 3.0. Perhaps it is easier, more accessible, or more intuitive for some, but these professional tools have been around for well over twelve years. The only difference is that ten years ago not many people outside the design and photography community knew what PhotoShop could allow you to accomplish, and now many enthusiasts have it on their computers. It is just another tool, despite numerous workshops trying to make it out as something more; and especially despite Adobe trying to convince people that every version really is very different, or allows one to accomplish things not possible in prior versions; the only real difference is in productivity or different ways of accomplishing what was possible in earlier versions.

Even prior to PhotoShop, there were retouching experts, and a few computer applications that allowed one to accomplish more with images. The difference from today were the time needed to accomplish something, and the much greater expense required. However, what this has always been, in my opinion, is photo-illustration. A truly skilled illustrator could likely accomplish many of todays images without a computer, but the effort would be greater.

Movies . . . at least memorable movies . . . have been planned on story boards, with specific scenes framed as individual moments. This is very much like still images, just that there is some motion and action between those moments. The memorable scenes become those that the mind's eye of the viewer logs into their memory. We are tuned to think and remember in still scenes, and less often in motion. So movies are not really that different from still photography. Anyone could watch a movie, take note of when each scene changes, and record which scenes become the hit points, those parts in the story board that stick with the viewer. There is more of a difference in sound and audio, than there is in the visual aspects.

The only real technology change I can see in the recent history of photography that makes an impact on the final images is the changes in lighting choices now available. I have yet to see any digitally captured image, which was not photo-illustration or some composite, that could not have been done on film . . . and that has nothing to do with grain, lack of grain, or some aspects of colour. In fact, the majority of photo-illustration I have seen could have originated with film images; and unless done poorly the viewer would have never known the difference. Even the sometimes current trend of adding grain or noise to digital captures to make them seem more film like just adds another layer of doubt upon viewers.

Trends are something that are in constant motion. Working in a creative profession involves following some trends, and every once in a while taking a greater risk of going against current trends; and for a handful of individuals: defining future trends. There can be a nostalgia of emulating the past, but sustaining interest might be tougher over a longer time period. These are all creative choices, and whether professionals or just exhibiting photographers, we decide what directions we take.

The appeal to viewers of still images is that their mind's eye can visualize and imagine their own interpretation. There is less guidance than in some movies. Movies can allow an escape, or just that feeling of being along for the ride; so in some ways more disconnected. However, those memorable scene stop points can be retained in the mind of the viewer, who can later draw their own interpretation.

Bill Viola, and a few others, have displayed very slow motion video panels that at first glance seemed to be portraits. Wait in front of one long enough, and that sense of motion is there, though the memorable aspect will often become just one frame. there have been similar experiments in video and film, notably the band U2 with their Zooropa tour; images and words quickly cycled across many screens; some viewers remembered certain words or images, while others completely missed the images that someone next to them did view . . . the end result was that each viewer was able to later develop their own interpretation of what they saw.

So if there is anything really new, it is that more of the general public now discusses these things. Anyone who has been at this more than ten years has quite likely seen it all before . . . like a train wreck, or crime scene . . . "move along, nothing to see here . . . . . . .

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Scott Davis]

I think what you're proposing here has some interesting potential, and people are already playing with it, particularly the compression of that captured space/time/sound/light experience from real-time to some abbreviated time-space. While it involves photography as an element of its creation, it is a radically different object than a photograph. I think it could best be described as a multi-media "experience". My concerns about such an artistic construct are its absolute dependence on an extremely fragile interconnection of multiple technologies to make it work; if the power goes out, or if the hard-drive fails, or the LCD screen burns out pixels, or the phosphors shift, or the speaker cone is damaged, at best the final product is NOT the experience the artist intended, and at worst, there is no experience to be had. Executing such a project holds little appeal to me because it lacks portability, it is technologically bound, and it also puts intentionality at risk; when recording an entire day, there will always be events that occur that do not fit within the artists desired experience (contrails wrecking a sunset, off-camera car accidents, etc) that to edit out destroys the flow of the experience. For my own personal taste, I would rather use "traditional" photographic media to record either individual moments, or distillations of groups of moments, to capture exactly what I want and display it the way I want.

Just because shutter speeds are marked on the dial from 1/500th to 1 second does not mean that we are hidebound to think of a photograph as representing ONE moment in time. If you go back and play with antique materials like wet-plate collodion or Daguerrotypes, you are absolutely capturing a period of time, not a single moment. You are totally in control, but at the same time forced to contend with controlling time, not being controlled by it.

[billschwab]

This methodolgy is not widespread, to my knowledge.I don't know Donald, I just don't think you're looking hard enough. What about time lapse photography? Have you ever seen Koyaanisqatsi?


...an example would be one of your Iceland scenes in which one could experience a continuum of everything from darkness to dawns light and back to dusks darkness again.I can do this with any number of webcams now in operation on the Web.

Sorry... I still see nothing new about this.

Bill

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, All my photography is heavily reliant on digital. I use all my digits in loading 8x10 film holders, setting up the tripod, setting an f/stop, and loading the Unicolor drum.

So whats the problem? :D

[Donald Miller]

I don't know Donald, I just don't think you're looking hard enough. What about time lapse photography? Have you ever seen Koyaanisqatsi?

I can do this with any number of webcams now in operation on the Web.

Sorry... I still see nothing new about this.

Bill

Bill, I agree that there is nothing new about the technology. It is the use of the technology to capture and depict something different than a still photography. Of course one could make the same statement about virtually everything...even automobiles as an example...but I would rather drive my SUV than the Model A that I had at one time. If you know of someone who is doing this photographic presentation in an artistic way, I would appreciate it if you would direct me towards them. Good luck to you.

[Donald Miller]

I think what you're proposing here has some interesting potential, and people are already playing with it, particularly the compression of that captured space/time/sound/light experience from real-time to some abbreviated time-space. While it involves photography as an element of its creation, it is a radically different object than a photograph. I think it could best be described as a multi-media "experience". My concerns about such an artistic construct are its absolute dependence on an extremely fragile interconnection of multiple technologies to make it work; if the power goes out, or if the hard-drive fails, or the LCD screen burns out pixels, or the phosphors shift, or the speaker cone is damaged, at best the final product is NOT the experience the artist intended, and at worst, there is no experience to be had. Executing such a project holds little appeal to me because it lacks portability, it is technologically bound, and it also puts intentionality at risk; when recording an entire day, there will always be events that occur that do not fit within the artists desired experience (contrails wrecking a sunset, off-camera car accidents, etc) that to edit out destroys the flow of the experience. For my own personal taste, I would rather use "traditional" photographic media to record either individual moments, or distillations of groups of moments, to capture exactly what I want and display it the way I want.

Just because shutter speeds are marked on the dial from 1/500th to 1 second does not mean that we are hidebound to think of a photograph as representing ONE moment in time. If you go back and play with antique materials like wet-plate collodion or Daguerrotypes, you are absolutely capturing a period of time, not a single moment. You are totally in control, but at the same time forced to contend with controlling time, not being controlled by it.

Scott, All of what you have said is true...sometimes one must stretch the bounds of what has been in order to arrive at what can be. On the negative side of things, one could also say that a film back may develop a glitch and fail to advance the film, the batteries may go dead, the film holder or bellows may develop a pinhole this time when we use the camera, the shutter may hang up this time, a flood of mega proportions may come and wash the earth clean once again, or any number of "worst case scenarios".

Regardless of how one chooses to think about this matter of time represented by a photograph, the factual basis is that the photograph and the depiction contained therein or on is only representative of the length of time that the film or light sensitive substrate is exposed... that is true irrespective of the process or methodology employed...it can not be anything more or less...Every other interpertive departure of the time representation from that is an abstraction.

As an example of this, I would like to think that I have ten times as much money in the bank as I actually have...but my banker tells me that reality is different than what I would like to think.

[Donald Miller]

www.theircircularlife.itd

Thanks for providing this link. This is one approach and quite nice because of the provision for interaction. I find the transitions to be a bit abrupt but that can be adjusted by merging still with video. Thanks again.

[Doug Howk]

A B&W still photograph is to a continuous view of a scene as a well-written poem is to a long-winded novel. Many prefer the novel for it relieves the reader from thinking just as many viewers prefer less abstraction from reality. Is this recognition of differences a sign of elitism, as you suggest?

As far as technical advances in photography & movies, the decisive moment has for decades been able to be culled from a digital stream of images. What is new is the ease with which the selection process can be performed. Combined with it's just good enough aesthetics and you have consumers as creators of their favorites images. Nothing new here since a 100 yrs ago we had the invention of the Kodak moment which put professional photographers on the defensive. We even have a new generation of pictorialists creating thru software artistic rendering of photographs. Where all this is heading I don't think even Bill Gates knows ;-)

[roteague]

First off, in my opinion, there is nothing that could be accomplished in the latest version of PhotoShop that could not have been accomplished with PhotoShop 3.0.

Except that it took relative expertise with older versions of PS than the current ones. It is almost trivial now to manipulate an image, and make that manipulation imperceptible to most people. Hence, the lack of trust. It is for that reason that almost every photo is now considered to have been manipulated - that was not true even 10 years ago.

[billschwab]

Bill, I agree that there is nothing new about the technology. It is the use of the technology to capture and depict something different than a still photography.Donald, Struan has given you an excellent example of this. I hope you will forgive me for not citing others as I cannot recall names at this time, but it is safe to say I have seen examples of this. In relation, even I have made audio recordings in the some of the environments in which I have made photographs (they were digital.. does that help?) and collected bio samples in an effort to bring the smell of the environment into the gallery space. No... I have not captured dawn to dusk with my HD video cam or any other spans of time other than those in my long exposures, but this has been going on in video "art" installations for years.

I am sorry Donald, I am not trying to dissuade you from a potentially good idea, but calling it something new is a little much IMO - a variation perhaps, but nothing new. I do wish you the best with your project and look forward to seeing what it is you come up with. For my part, I will refrain from beating this horse any further.


If you know of someone who is doing this photographic presentation in an artistic way...Careful Donald... straying into "elitist" territory with that one. :)

Bill

[Donald Miller]

Donald, Struan has given you an excellent example of this. I hope you will forgive me for not citing others as I cannot recall names at this time, but it is safe to say I have seen examples of this. In relation, even I have made audio recordings in the some of the environments in which I have made photographs (they were digital.. does that help?) and collected bio samples in an effort to bring the smell of the environment into the gallery space. No... I have not captured dawn to dusk with my HD video cam or any other spans of time other than those in my long exposures, but this has been going on in video "art" installations for years.

I am sorry Donald, I am not trying to dissuade you from a potentially good idea, but calling it something new is a little much IMO - a variation perhaps, but nothing new. I do wish you the best with your project and look forward to seeing what it is you come up with. For my part, I will refrain from beating this horse any further.

Careful Donald... straying into "elitist" territory with that one. :)

Bill

Bill, I think that what I meant was a variation...but the variation is not widely used apparently.

[billschwab]

...but the variation is not widely used apparently.Even if it was, I am sure with your excitement about the subject and funds to make it happen that we can expect something truly exciting.

[Gordon Moat]

Except that it took relative expertise with older versions of PS than the current ones. It is almost trivial now to manipulate an image, and make that manipulation imperceptible to most people. Hence, the lack of trust. It is for that reason that almost every photo is now considered to have been manipulated - that was not true even 10 years ago.

Well, that is true. Those whom I know having been long time professional users of PhotoShop have noticed a dumbing down of the interface; probably so it could appeal to more users, thereby increased sales for Adobe. In fact, I find many aspects of CS2 and CS3 actually slow me down more than using PhotoShop 5.0. The other furstrating aspect is too much emphasis on RGB, like CMYK was some sort of voodoo black magic . . . the commercial printing world is not too pleased with this, but basically throw up their collective hands and do little to affect changes. PhotoShop is very much consumer software now, oriented more towards a closed loop in-home printing set-up.

It is all too easy, but more in the sense (I think) that it is all too easy to do things badly. Prior to manipulating images, one needs to start with good images, or good captures. Unfortunately I see too much of the opposite: people trying to PhotoShop a so-so image into a better one.

I still value doing things in camera, though I find myself needing to explain more often that something was not done in PhotoShop. At least I rarely find a need to show a transparency to someone to prove that point . . . but maybe that is the next phase.

When it is commercial work, and the client wants the image altered, then that is a different situation (i.e. lopping off heads on a band poster, etc.). In such situations, my traditional drawing skills and a WACOM tablet make the results appear seemless and without flaws. However, I consider this photo-illustration, and not photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[sanking]

I don't really see where these comments have anything to do with what you are discussing? I'm left feeling from this and other posts that you have made that you have some underlying problem with straight, tradiional or film photographers. What's up?

Bill

I don't know where Donald is going but from the work by him that I have seen on internet galleries and such he has a very good eye for traditional photography. It is probably not a bad thing to critically examine the direction of our work from time to time. Doing the same thing for a long period of time makes one very good at doing that thing, but the challenge of change may bring positive benefits to our vision.

Sandy King

[Struan Gray]

I am sorry Donald, I am not trying to dissuade you from a potentially good idea, but calling it something new is a little much IMO - a variation perhaps, but nothing new. I do wish you the best with your project and look forward to seeing what it is you come up with. For my part, I will refrain from beating this horse any further.

Bill, one change I think is more than simply a matter of degree is interaction possibilities opened up by the speed and flexibility of modern computers. I have always hated video art in galleries as too linear, too tied to an ugly box with cables coming out of it, and too artificial, given that the same material usually gains nothing from being seen in a gallery environment. Now, the possibility exists for non-linear viewing of visual material, presented on surfaces other than a bulgy small glass screen. Video games as art will, I'm sure, really get on the tits of the luddites, but it opens up some real new possibilities.

For LF photographers the relevance is that in the not too distant future it will be possible to present highly-detailed images in ways other than in a book or in big static prints. Sequencing and editing become more important than ever, and turn into a collaboration betwen the photographer and the viewer. If nothing else, Google Earth has accustomed people to a scan-and-zoom style of viewing high resolution images that with the right material could be highly effective as a work of art - chinese scroll painting for the ipod age.

[billschwab]

Bill, one change I think is more than simply a matter of degree is interaction possibilities opened up by the speed and flexibility of modern computers.This has not escaped me Struan. I agree that technological advances have made available more possibilities as far as interaction goes, but whether or not the ideas have advanced is another story. Being able to zoom and move my way through a high resolution LF image sounds like a novel idea, but where does it really get you as far as self expression? In fact, I can already do that pretty well by stitching together many high resolution images into one with CS3. I don't see where bigger, better and sharper has anything to do with "art". Would being able to see further into say, A Starry Night make it an any more incredible painting? Virtual reality was fun for about 5 minutes... now what? I would agree that with the correct material it could be highly effective, I just don't see any new ideas... yet. It is ridiculous though to think that someone won't eventually come up with a bigger and better mousetrap and I very much look forward to that day.

Bill

[Struan Gray]

I just don't see any new ideas... yet.

I have seen almost too many ideas, but none that have gelled into a viewing experience that gives much more than reading a description, which is my personal definition of art that works. I'm thinking mostly in terms of immersive sound art and video installations, but also web-objects and what used to be called hyperspace novels.

I think you could make an interesting narrative structure with a Google earth interface. The google earth/maps database includes scattered high-res photographs among the satellite data for Africa. It's quite fun - to me - finding them and puzzling out why just that patch of trampled earth was singled out for high-res depiction. If you like the Wall/Crewdson style of work, it's a way to do something similar away from the white-walled galleries.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the inherent laziness of viewers. People mostly don't want to make their own story, but instead want to be led by a master storyteller. To me, that's the biggest issue facing non-linear projects: how to make them compelling enough that people take more than a few steps into the labyrinth.

[Scott Davis]

Scott, All of what you have said is true...sometimes one must stretch the bounds of what has been in order to arrive at what can be. On the negative side of things, one could also say that a film back may develop a glitch and fail to advance the film, the batteries may go dead, the film holder or bellows may develop a pinhole this time when we use the camera, the shutter may hang up this time, a flood of mega proportions may come and wash the earth clean once again, or any number of "worst case scenarios".

Regardless of how one chooses to think about this matter of time represented by a photograph, the factual basis is that the photograph and the depiction contained therein or on is only representative of the length of time that the film or light sensitive substrate is exposed... that is true irrespective of the process or methodology employed...it can not be anything more or less...Every other interpertive departure of the time representation from that is an abstraction.

As an example of this, I would like to think that I have ten times as much money in the bank as I actually have...but my banker tells me that reality is different than what I would like to think.

Donald- I don't think you really addressed my point at all. I stated that for my own personal preference that I preferred not to work in media which are technologically dependent for the artistic experience to be delivered. That has nothing to do with the camera breaking while making an exposure.

I also am not enthralled with multimedia because being a time-based medium, the artist is forcing a time constraint upon the viewer to experience the artwork. I like still photographs because they allow the viewer to develop their relationship to the artwork in their own terms, at their own pace.

You are right, regardless of the time being captured in a photograph, it is nothing more and never will be other than an abstract representation of the specific moments recorded on that piece of film/paper/otherwise while the shutter was open. It is an abstraction. But so is video/audio/multimedia. First off, it is a reduction from three dimensions to two (unless you include holography). Second, it is still an edited field of view, and it is a demarcated space of time. Granted, it is a much greater space of time than a still photograph can capture. The only way to make a non-abstract piece of artwork, then, in your terminology, would be for someone to walk out the door, put a sign in their lawn and declare the entire planet their own work of art - since it is a three-dimensional, non-finite, non-abstract experience that engages all the senses. Then the only problem would be how to charge the 5+ billion people walking the earth for the experience.

[Donald Miller]

Donald- I don't think you really addressed my point at all. I stated that for my own personal preference that I preferred not to work in media which are technologically dependent for the artistic experience to be delivered. That has nothing to do with the camera breaking while making an exposure.

You are certainly entitled to your preferences. No argument from me. I fail to recognize a question in this paragraph...your point being?

I also am not enthralled with multimedia because being a time-based medium, the artist is forcing a time constraint upon the viewer to experience the artwork. I like still photographs because they allow the viewer to develop their relationship to the artwork in their own terms, at their own pace.

Scott with all due respect, is not still photography even more restrictive sofar as the time interval being forced on the potential or actual viewer? How does still photography differ from a means not relegated to a single instant in that regard?

You are right, regardless of the time being captured in a photograph, it is nothing more and never will be other than an abstract representation of the specific moments recorded on that piece of film/paper/otherwise while the shutter was open. It is an abstraction. But so is video/audio/multimedia. First off, it is a reduction from three dimensions to two (unless you include holography). Second, it is still an edited field of view, and it is a demarcated space of time. Granted, it is a much greater space of time than a still photograph can capture. The only way to make a non-abstract piece of artwork, then, in your terminology, would be for someone to walk out the door, put a sign in their lawn and declare the entire planet their own work of art - since it is a three-dimensional, non-finite, non-abstract experience that engages all the senses. Then the only problem would be how to charge the 5+ billion people walking the earth for the experience.

Again with all due respect, there are a couple of matters that you seem to ignore. One being the ability to show changing light conditions. Another being the inclusion of sound. While it is true that all representation in photography is inherently abstract there are some abstractions that are less so than others. "Horses for courses", if you gather my meaning. So far as charging for an experience, why does everything need a monetary motive?



Scott,

Scott, I hope that I have finally answered your questions as you have posed them.

[Scott Davis]

The still photo experience is more restrictive in terms of the experience the photographer chooses to capture, but it is less restrictive in terms of the viewer's relationship with the image. As a viewer of a still photo, I can put it down after a few seconds, or stare at it for hours. I am free to create context, and free to invent the soundtrack. It's the difference to me between a book and a video game - the video game is more immersive from a direct sensory experience, but the book makes my brain do the work - makes me think, invent, imagine.

As to the horses-for-courses, well, that's why I started it off with the caveat of "this is just my personal preference". I'm not going to disparage it for others, and I'm not going to say it can't be a valid expression, or that it can't succeed. I'm just not enamored of the virtualization of reality.

[Donald Miller]

Scott, I appreciate your respect and I intend to give you mine.