Hiding one�s light under a bushel.

Poor scanners, lost details etc. of electronic images. We all know that. Do you guys refuse publishing your photographs in press and magazines as well? Normal printing techniques do not match original prints, yet illustrated press exist.

Jim - your print above looks interesting to me, but I assure you that, once you exhibit it in MOMA, I am not going to use a magifying glass to look at your branches. But if you like us to see a detail just scan a small fragment, enlarge it and display along.

<p><center><img

src="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/leed_048.jpg"

width=400 height=400>

</center></p>

<p>Most of my LF images look like this - they are records of

electron diffraction patterns on Polaroid film. Some of them have

an aesthetic appeal, but most are simply dull geometrical

patterns. How many do you want? I've got lots.</p>

<p>The main reason I don't post more images is that I don't (yet)

have a decent enough scanner to do them justice. That in itself

wouldn't be a problem if people were prepared to give poor

scans the benefit of the doubt. They don't, even on a forum like

this where everybody agrees you can't display the true quality of a

piece of 4x5 film. People get hung up on the low qualtiy of the

scan and are unable to see through it to the photograph. It's as if

conductors needed to hear a live performance of a work before

they could make sense of the score. Depressing, but that's the

reality.</p>

Jim, what about that picture DOESN'T scream WINTER? That picture is GOOD!! Mind you, I wouldn't blow the jpg up to 20x24 and post it on my wall. But it does give me the exact sense of what the picture is about. Cold. Forlorn. Barren. Dead.

See? And here you are carping about how you can't communicate the image to little me.

J.O.: If you photograph and make a print and then NEVER show it to anyone, then what's the point of the original action of making the photograph?? (personal psychoses aside, that is)

Artwork is all about communication. It is the most primitive form of communication, from cave painting to MTV. Its all about the conveyance of ideas. Before writing there were pictures, and pictures will be there after writing.

hi david and win -

i would rather post photographs within a thread, not in "galleries"

not sure why ... not really into the photo.net gallery thing ... i guess

i figure if someone wants to see my work, they can click on my name, see the

link to my website, and then be transported there to see it in context ..

- john

<i>J.O.: If you photograph and make a print and then NEVER show it to anyone, then what's the point of the original action of making the photograph?? (personal psychoses aside, that is)

<P>

Artwork is all about communication. It is the most primitive form of communication, from cave painting to MTV. Its all about the conveyance of ideas. Before writing there were pictures, and pictures will be there after writing.</i>

<P>

Simply because one chooses not to "share" their photographs at PN doesn't mean that they're for private use only. Believe it or not, other venues exist for displaying one's photographs.

<P>

The assumptions you make about the "nature" of art are also a little odd and simplistic. Art needn't be about the "conveyance of ideas." And not all ideas are so easily conveyed as to be posted in a photo.net gallery.

<P>

These assumptions are similar to the comment above which assumed that "resolution" is the reason that people don't like their work crammed into 5"x7" JPEGs with no visible texture. Is resolution a good reason for making a platinum print? A polaroid? A tricolor gum?

But J.O., the jpeg isn't the <i>reason</i> for printing the photograph in platinum, is it?<br>

<br>

And if you want "full detail and tonal range" then why not go all out and uproot the entire scene, put it in a group of flatbed trailers, frame it, and display that? It'd be worth more than a measley print, right? :-)<br>

<br>

Everything is a compromise, one way or another. People don't buy 640x480 jpeg images, but the image <i>is</i> informative.

Straun:

Love the image, but could you include captions with Miller indices in the future.

Sorry Glenn, it's Mo(110)-c(5x3)Sm. The orientation should be

obvious.