Rae's documentary about Qiu Jin screened last night at the Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley.
Yesterday afternoon, I went to Meyer Library to scan the film I had developed the previous day. Meyer is more of a study-hall these days as opposed to a library. They moved most of the books a few years back to Green Library. The scanning computers were QuickSilver PowerMacs running Jaguar, with network login ability. The scanners were Epson Perfection 3200's, not the best scanners, but hey, I'm easy to please. The photos were shot using T-MAX 3200 black and white film. The pattern of the grain in high-speed film is random compared to the digital noise in high ISO photos. To me, the grain gives the images a look of reality that just can't be matched (see the comments below for a debate on this opinion).
Afterwards, I rode the bike over to Stanford Stadium, where Po'k and Randy were doing a shoot the LGBT's 30th anniversary documentary film. It's good to see my video camera equipment getting some use these days; it'd be a shame for it to gather dust in the closet!
Isabel Maxwell came to speak at the weekly Fellowship seminar. Her accomplishments speak for themselves, and it looks like the Israeli Venture Network she's involved with is a hit too. There are a number of similarities between what they have done in Tiberias and what Jordan is planning in the Jordan Education Initiative. I'm sure that Michelle and Isabel will be in touch as Michelle gets up to speed with assisting in the JEI.
In the evening, I drove up to Berkeley to attend Rae's screening of Jingwei Girls at the Pacific Film Archive. Unfortunately, I arrived too late to the PFA, thanks to the slow traffic on 880. Susan, Bryan, Petrice, Jeff, Vinita, and Ben were at the screening, and they told me that people seemed to enjoy the documentary. Randy's Submissive got the most laughs, of course.
Following the screening (they also played a documentary on DJ's and women comedians), the group went to Koryo BBQ for some Korean food. I called up Joon-Mo to get his culinary recommendations (the Kim Chee Stew was spicy!). We all gorged ourselves on way too much food before heading over to Petrice's place. While drinking tea and eating pastries, we watched last year's Victoria's Secret catwalk show, some quick episodes of the Simpsons, and even a little Empire Strikes Back. The Victoria's Secret show was televised on UPN, a public channel. Man, that stuff was way "worse" (or better, depending on your point of view) than anything Janet Jackson did at the Super Bowl!
Photos!
|
"The grain gives the images a look of reality that just can't be matched."
How does gran give the images a more "realistic" look? I disagree. They only look "real" because you grew up on traditional film-based media. Once a new generation grows up without grain, older, grainy media will just look what your dad used in the old days.--posted by echeng @ Saturday, March 6 2004, 16:52 pm EST
The grain is more randomly distributed, which gives the photo the appearance of being more natural, hence more real. Digital grain/noise is more patterned, giving the photo a more artificial appearance.
--posted by Adam @ Saturday, March 6 2004, 17:20 pm EST
I still disagree! Grain, random or not, is not a representation of reality. It's a representation of the reality that you grew up on through media.
I would also argue that noise as we see it in digital images is as random as grain is, although I have no proof of that off-hand.--posted by echeng @ Sunday, March 7 2004, 8:03 am EST
Perhaps what we are talking about here is the introduction of random fluctuations into a final product. I read a study where people subjectively preferred audio with a bit of random variation inserted into it than the original pristine recording (think of vibrato, as a high-level example of this).
The same may apply to images. We aren't use to seeing things that look artificial, and grain, as a by-product, happens to do to photographs what records did for audio.
HOWEVER, I still think that it's not accurate to say that it looks more like a "real." "More natural" is subjective, and can't be pegged to the word, "real."--posted by echeng @ Sunday, March 7 2004, 8:05 am EST
I understand your points, and I'll concede the point that the grainy film images are not more real than the digital ones.
Still, I think back on my memories of the events, people, and photos. Perhaps as a by-product of having grown up with film, my mind's eye doesn't conjure up razor-sharp images of these people; they are fuzzy and inexact. Those grainy photos might not be more real than the digital ones, but to me, they are.--posted by Adam @ Sunday, March 7 2004, 14:12 pm EST
Hah! Watch me split the difference! ;)
I agree with echeng that there's nothing "realistic" in a scientific sense about grain, film or otherwise. Digital grain tends to be more pattern based, and as such is generally more of a distraction than something that may add to the ambience of a photo.
That being said, I read "realistic" in Adam's context to be more of an emotional "real", rather than a scientific one. As you mentioned about some people preferring analog to digital from a sound perspective, lense-flares becoming en vogue as a way to convey bright objects, and non-realistic shallow DOF as some desirable. At the end of the day, I was reading Adam to say that grain conveys an emotional reality that a pure and pristine print wouldn't. Sort of analagous to searching for the perfect bokeh.
It's art. "reality" is subjective in this arena :)--posted by syndromes @ Tuesday, March 9 2004, 2:08 am EST
I agree with Echeng and I disagree with the film grain characteristic. Grain was a limitation of older film-based technology. In real life, we don't view the world or a scene with grain through our own eyes. How can adding more grain to a scene be more natural if our eyes don't do that?
--posted by ECEgeer @ Tuesday, March 9 2004, 14:46 pm EST
Here\'s my twist: The thing is, ECEgeer, -my- eyes -do- do that! All my life, or at least as far back as I can remember, I\'ve had a thin layer of snow or grain clouding my vision. It looks like TV snow turned down to maybe 10% opacity in Photoshop layer terms. (I also have a bit of tinnitus, so I have noise in my vision and noise in my hearing. :sniff:) I generally don\'t think about it and live my life normally, but occasionally I wonder how it would be if the veil was lifted. The snow is randomly distributed and film-like, so my reality backs up Adam!
--posted by Gordon @ Thursday, March 18 2004, 17:03 pm EST
Copyright © 1995-2008, tow.com. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use
Tomorrow begins today.
