|
|
Jun. 6th, 2005 @ 11:10 am
|
|---|
|
should I be worried my strawberry pop tart filling has as many ingredients as the rest of the tart?
...
and why is there crackermeal in the filling?
yea, I know I shouldn't eat these, but I can't get enough.. partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
mmmm.. partially hydrogenated soybean oil. |
|
|
Jun. 5th, 2005 @ 01:52 am
|
|---|
|
Ok, so I got tagged by ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) cheesewood to do this song thing, 6 favorite songs at the moment. I'm also supposed to pass this on to 6 people, but well, I don't seem to have a whole lotta friends, so whoever wants to do it, consider yourself tagged.
1. Feel Good, Inc - Gorillaz
2. Golden Touch - Razorlight
3. Sunday Morning - Maroon 5
4. Tyler - Toadies
5. 24 - Jem
6. Just about every song by - Citizen Cope... but if you're going to make a big deal about it, Mandy is a good one.
w00t! |
|
...
I just deodorized my eye. |
|
so far as sandwiches go, subway is a nice middle ground. I don't hate them, but given the option, I'd rather go to the Friendly's. (the local shop). But they have started this new ad campaign for their toasted subs. (sound familiar? they must be losing business to another toasting sub joint.) In this campaign, if you haven't seen it, they claim they are "doubling their menu. And you don't see McDonalds doing that"
But is toasting a sandwich really doubling your menu? seems to me that its more like a topping than an actual different sandwich. Its semantical, but it still bothers me.
and given the fact that they are comparing themselves to McDonalds, following their line of thought, how would McD's "double" their menu? serve the shit cold?
haha, or maybe serve it hot. |
|
I have to say, in general, digital photographs bother me. This is not because they are "digital" and I am a paper purist, but rather it stems from a love of quality prints.
I'll back up a little here, and say that I have been studying black and white photography for a little while now, and have come to expect a certain level of finesse from the medium, and from my peers. While this isn't to say that I expect everyone anywhere to be as good as mc17, that would rather elitist and ignorant on my part. However there is a certain amount knowledge about photography in general that seems to missing from digital photography.
Now then, it seems to me that a lot of digital photographers do not know how to properly compose a shot, take focal range into account, (this is almost a moot point right now due to the nature of digital lens, but it is coming to digital photography, and thats a good thing) regard lighting, or any of combination of these. I think that on some level many photographers realize this and then try to cover up these mistakes by digitally manipulating the image further. Interestingly, you see the same exact thing in beginner photography classes. Students try and make any and every negative work, even if the original photograph isn't any good. Students will cling to the idea of an image with a deathly passion. I'll admit I did that as a freshman. Thankfully I've grown out of it.
Now then, this isn't to say that manipulating an image is a bad thing. Far from it really, I say use your media to its fullest extent. Entering the digital realm gives you vast opportunities, and any artist would be wise to embrace this. But to do this successfully, you need to have a good image to start with. No amount of manipulation will make a picture better, and oft times it makes the picture far worse.
Back on topic, my problem with digital photographs specifically is that their photographers don't know their limits, and don't take these limits into consideration. So what we end up with is a print that is technically bad, and is hard to look at. Things like pixelation, because the image was enlarged, or printer streaks from a printer that wasn't designed for that purpose. I won't even go into the things that get added later, which make the image look silly, rather than demonstrating the extent of the medium.
What it boils down to is this: photography took awhile to be regarded as a fine art. In many respects it still isn't. Its a wonderfully diverse medium, and has the ability to be seen and produced by anyone. But if the realm of digital wants to be taken seriously (and I assume it does, I see more and more in the gallery every show) the digital photographers need to know how to make a good photo before they start tweaking them. Digital photography will gain respect by fooling people into thinking its traditional photography first. People are more ready to accept whats normal before they will the unnatural. Once people realize that digital can look as good as traditional, they will be more ready to accept the adjustments that will follow. There is nothing wrong with an abstracted computer piece in the gallery. We've seen this for years in the realms of painting and sculpture. There is no room, however, for poorly crafted artwork.
This is a lot to say from a mountaintop, and I hold myself accountable to what I've said here as much as anyone else. So what am I doing about it? I don't know yet, but I'm working on it. I too am moving into the digital realm, but if anything, I see myself as a transitional artists who will make it ok for the more bizarre in the galleries. I hope to get the naysayers of digital to at least consider the medium. Not that I plan to move completely to digital anytime soon, but I have come up with ways to mesh the two, and have had fun doing it. What I really want is for digital photographers to regard their work more, have a solid piece at every stage, and produce a genuinely good. product.
It is possible. Now go do it. |
|
