Are we completely missing the boat with digital technology?

Bob Michaels said:
We have a century old presentation mindset that ignores the opportunities from using new technology.
Click to expand...

One strong image is a strong image. I dont need sound fx or animation or smell to make it stronger.

Concerning journalism: I still prefer a series of photographs to movies. Photographs are concise, to the point and usually have better colors and contrast (not kidding).

There is a reason btw why even today people shoot black and white, "ignoring the opportunities" from using color.
 
shadowfox said:
Bob,

Multimedia presentations are fine and dandy.
I even enjoy some of them.
But I have no desire, let alone compulsion to produce one.

A single image.
A single image + a profound title.
A single image + a poem.
A set of images displayed side by side in a gallery.

That's about as "multimedia" as I care to do for my own photos.
And I can use digital or film to do it.

Come to think about it, I don't really care where "the boat" is, really.
Click to expand...

This is the boat I'm in too. There are certainly other boats, and there is nothing wrong with them, but this one suits me. Find the boat that suits you. Art comes in many forms.
 
FrankS said:
I can't tell you how much more I enjoy looking at prints on a gallery or museum wall than I do watching a slideshow or video. In the first instance I am in control of my experience, in the latter I'm at the mery of the show creator and all I can do is choose to watch or walk out. No chance of spending more or less time with individual images or going back to review an image when I feel like.
Click to expand...

Well said Frank.

Recently I went to the Van Gogh exhibit here in Philly. I spent a large fraction of my time looking at beautiful and amazing photographic prints from his era, some very large and with exquisite detail and handling of light.

(These were on display because Van Gogh HATED photography, and I guess they had a spare wall to fill.)

Few people seemed interested in them, and most of the time I had the whole section to myself. It is the freedom of the individual to take what they want from art that is ruined by packaged and programmed presentations.

I don't even use the canned audio tour that they provide for you at the entrance. ;-(

Randy
 
I suppose this would be an issue for those having to earn a living in the art/media/news business. I don't and I have the freedom to do whatever I want.
 
PKR said:
So, displaying images via some form of electronic media is "the real world"? And hanging prints in a gallery space isn't?

It would seem that the print option is a more difficult task - when combined with finding a space for display - or better, having professional representation. But this option isn't real? I wouldn't trade the ability to hang a show every now and then with some sort of single object (montor) presentation. To me, being able to handle a print - touch it, view a framed image - is a more real experience. Would you trade seeing a van Gogh painting in person for the same viewing time with the image on a monitor?
Click to expand...

I agree that seeing a print is a much more rewarding experience.

My point is that multimedia presentations are becoming more the norm, like it or not. And if you want your work seen, you may want to embrace the new media. Thats the new reality.
neglect to embrace it at your peril.
 
Painters continued to paint after photography was invented. Not everyone has to be riding the new wave.
 
I'm open to new ways to show photos, but there will always be a place for a photo on the wall... Unless we figure out how to live without walls. ;)
 
Bob Michaels said:
My summary: more photos are being seen today by electronic means (primarily internet) than prints hanging on walls. So let us not cling exclusively to the old "one at a time" methodology when we display our images electronically when there are new options available. Each has it's place.
Click to expand...


When the iPad came out way back in '10, I displayed my photos on it as an electronic portfolio. When passed around, it had the effect of "The Orb" in Woody Allen's Sleeper. My photos were still dull, but the medium had great positive effect on the viewers. That effect perished within a year.

This is a "medium vs content" question. Digital vs film is a (mostly, different) 'quality' topic.

Fine art often (not always) attempts to convey the 'timeless' and elemental; commercial photography often (not always) reflects the 'present' and accepts, perhaps even requires, new, fresh (and soon-to-be stale) presentation.

A big consideration in the medium vs content question is whether the medium is transparent, or will it become dated, fadish and stale -- a gimmick.

(Interestingly, the iPad was a gimmick medium I used to cheap advantage; today, it's transparent...)

- Charlie
 
Allow me to point out this is not an either / or situation. Some have replied while thinking it is a simplistic situation where everything is absolutely one way or the other. I would never suggest that the world totally abandon hanging prints on a gallery wall or showing one image at a time on the internet (as here at RFF) if they wanted to do a more involved presentation.

I have done 3 solo gallery exhibits, each with 26 to 33 prints on the wall, in the last 6 months. I have another scheduled in a few months and, a group invitational as well. Plus, I am doing an exhibit with just a digital frame in a history museum where there simply is not enough space to correctly hang prints on the wall.

Yet, more see my photos on my website than in person. One series on my website has the option of the viewer selecting individual photos or watching a slide show with related music I recorded from the subject. I am figuring out how I want to do some form of narrated slide show for another series. Of course the individual photos will remain. The viewer has a choice.

My next gallery exhibit will have 35 framed photographs hanging on the walls. And, there will be a 36th frame but it will be a digital frame. That digital frame will show another 30-40-50 different photos and have a 3 minute canned talk by yours truly about the people portrayed in the series. Those words are the real reason for the digital frame, not just to show more photos. The viewer has a choice to stop, listen, and see more photos or pass on by.

Now my ultimate objective differs from most RFF members. I don't want to just show pretty photos. I want to communicate information, to subtly influence opinion. Photography is just the communications medium that works best for me. Give me a new dimension to add to my photos to achieve that and I will make use of it.
 
The only problem with the "new" way of showing photos is that this usually involves slideshows with fading transitions and poor commentary and/or music.
It drives me crazy. It doesnt really add anything IMO. They just look like wedding video slideshows.
I taught video editing in a university and this is always the first thing that first year students go for. It cheapens the power of the image and adds nothing.
Not saying that just hanging single images is the answer but i think people need to try harder and be more innovative
 
Imagine a gallery in the form of a long narrow white hallway, well lit. Only one viewer is allowed in at a time. There are a dozen digital frames along each side of the hallway, 24 total monitors each showing what looks to be its own slideshow of still images. However, there are sophisticated motion detectors and eye trackers. Whenever the viewer faces a frame, it goes blank. If she turns away to go to another frame, it comes back on. Light reflections dance along the walls and in the monitors themselves, so she can get a sense of what might be going on in other monitors, but when she tries to look at one, any one, it is blank.

This might be the best way to display my photography.
 
As an aside, certain photographic images/projects are better suited for viewing by transmitted light, rather than reflected, because of their subject matter.

Lightboxes are one solution - but expensive. Screen based is another - which not only is cheaper but may suit the photographs better.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Now my ultimate objective differs from most RFF members. I don't want to just show pretty photos. I want to communicate information, to subtly influence opinion. Photography is just the communications medium that works best for me. Give me a new dimension to add to my photos to achieve that and I will make use of it.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I'm reacting to the "missing the boat" phrase. It implies a lack of awareness and understanding; a lack of forward thinking. That's not necessarily so. I consciously choose to do what I do the way I do it, because as an amateur, I can. Bob has a different purpose/goal for his photography so for him, it may be a case of missing the boat if he does not explore/exploit alternate means of presentation. It's just not for everyone, and those who don't, are not necessarily missing the boat and lacking forward thinking.

As you have so beautifully stated before, Bob: It depends.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Now my ultimate objective differs from most RFF members. I don't want to just show pretty photos. I want to communicate information, to subtly influence opinion. Photography is just the communications medium that works best for me. Give me a new dimension to add to my photos to achieve that and I will make use of it.
Click to expand...

So RFF is just about pretty photos and not communicating information?
A good photograph can do all of that.

I think that digital exhibitions need new ways of communicating. So much seems lost in translation due to poor presentation regardless of how good the photos are or how talented the photographer is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom