 |
 |
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 22:14 -0400, Ken Wolman wrote: > the book reproduction process seems to destroy depth: the > platinum prints looked like they were a mile deep. Same with silver prints, a sort of depth that you can fall into like alice in wonderland. That's when the penny dropped, that in the strict sense, b&w film is not itself analog. While digital is obviously digital, in the strict sense it is not so, either. How little we seem to know about a human eye; digital teaches. it is the flatness of electronic images which attracts me and because my little Canon digital is so obviously digital/electronic. The other thing is then how depth works in a different way with digital. (Peter C's work I spend a lot of time looking at, in that internet back and forward way.) I have about 15 minutes formal instruction in film, but Aust degree level art college's are notorious for next to no formal/technical instruction with a seamless mix of theory and practice (and a reading list so long...) I nearly fell over when I read the course outline at Albany, with an entire 2nd year semester devoted to doing silver gelatin fine art prints. Here, you get pointed in the direction of the library. (Which makes teaching more difficult I am told and can believe since you need to then read what all your students are reading and doing) > -- have chronic fatigue syndrome so may be delayed in reply or brain fog weird just to let you know that's all, Chris Jones. Blog: http://abdevpoetics.blogspot.com/