Will film replace paint brushes?
Don Stauffer
obsolete. True art will disappear. No one will carry brushes and oil
paints in the art stores any more. Film will ruin true art.
I am not making this up -- such concerns were voiced in nineteenth
century when photography started to catch on. Seems to me that this may
help answer the questions about whether digital will completely replace
film.
BTW, I use both, and still keep all of my film cameras. They still work
just as well as before I bought my digital caemra.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Bob Hatch
news:3CF38A47...@usfamily.net...
Not even close to the same thing. An apples and elephants comparison. Try
again.
--
http://home.attbi.com/~bigtent
Our web site about RVs, and a work in progress.
Bernard Hill
<stau...@usfamily.net> writes
>I'm concerned about this new fad of photography. It may make painting
>obsolete. True art will disappear. No one will carry brushes and oil
>paints in the art stores any more. Film will ruin true art.
>
>I am not making this up -- such concerns were voiced in nineteenth
>century when photography started to catch on. Seems to me that this may
>help answer the questions about whether digital will completely replace
>film.
>
>BTW, I use both, and still keep all of my film cameras. They still work
>just as well as before I bought my digital caemra.
Great post, Don!
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Jet Wood
Yes, but you've got to admit that canvas and paper have gone a long
way to making cave walls obsolete.
mark_digitalŠ
"Jet Wood"
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:3cf3b23f$0$2870$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
Other reasons why writing on cave walls became obsolete-
Bats and other varmin occupied the same living space making it difficult to
concentrate.
Spray paint was invented and then ANYONE could do it.
Too difficult to grade penmanship.
mark_digitalŠ
"mark_digitalŠ" <spam...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ad0e56$dt7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Knocking down a wall meant losing the family library.
Mike Russell
> obsolete. True art will disappear. No one will carry brushes and oil
> paints in the art stores any more. Film will ruin true art.
>
> I am not making this up -- such concerns were voiced in nineteenth
> century when photography started to catch on. Seems to me that this may
> help answer the questions about whether digital will completely replace
> film.
>
> BTW, I use both, and still keep all of my film cameras. They still work
> just as well as before I bought my digital caemra.
Don,
An interesting new take on a rather well-worn subject.
There was indeed a controversy at the turn of the century over whether
Photography would take over painting's economic turf by mimicking
photographs. Now electronic media is reviving this controversy.
Imagine that photographs had started by producing oil paintings instead of
gelatin prints, and you can see the situation today, with Painter and
Photoshop both creating pixel-based images.
Stieglitz started the Photo-Secessionist movement to break away from the
painterly trend, personified by the great photographer and painter Steichen,
of mainstream photography. The desire to make photographs that looked like
paintings emerged naturally as photographers tried to cash in on painting's
turf.
Photography finally won, economically, in portraiture, and mural paintings
died a natural death as the public turned to other media to commemorate
great events and spectacles.
In the end, though, our society has so enshrined painting as a high art that
it will never die, even as most of our artistic talent flees painting for
more lucrative pursuits. The end result of this that more money is made
teaching painting, and selling art supplies to students, than is made from
selling the paintings. Remember too that brushes and paints may be made, as
they were long ago, from raw materials in small quantities by the individual
artist.
If black and white gelatin and silver based photography has achieved the
stature wished for it by its greatest artists, then film photography will be
practiced 100 years from now by those who make their own plates and
emulsions.
Meantime, we are faced with a possible merging of photography and painting,
with the skills of both media easily combined into the same image. Our
greatest artists may have a new means of expressing themselves, and digital
photography may turn from the purist path established by Stieglitz, and
followed by Adams, Weston, and others, back to the painterly mode advocated
by Steichen.
--
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net
Bb6970
>again.
The ignorant speak with such great authority. I believe it is a fair
comparison. You try again.
Bob Hatch
news:20020528142249...@mb-ct.aol.com...
I cannot produce with film that which is done with a brush. I can photograph
it, but not produce it.
I can produce with digital anything that can be done with film, and the
process is getting easier all the time.
As you said the ignorant speak with great authority, and then you proved it.
bla...@starband.net
don't think paint brushes are used today for much of anything beyond fine
art. At the time photography was nacent, they were used for all kinds of
things that were eventually replaced by photography. Good shooting.
Fred
Photo Forums
http://www.photoforums.net
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:3CF38A47...@usfamily.net...
Bb6970
>it, but not produce it.
Huh? What specious bulls**t. I might be ignorant, but not about one thing: You
are a moron. Make me laugh! By the way, RV's should be illegal. Road hogging,
gas wasting dinosaurs.
Bob Hatch
Idiot. Go back to your counter job at McDonalds.
Andrew D
+I'm concerned about this new fad of photography. It may make painting
+obsolete. True art will disappear. No one will carry brushes and oil
+paints in the art stores any more. Film will ruin true art.
+
+I am not making this up -- such concerns were voiced in nineteenth
+century when photography started to catch on. Seems to me that this may
+help answer the questions about whether digital will completely replace
+film.
+BTW, I use both, and still keep all of my film cameras. They still work
+just as well as before I bought my digital caemra.
There is a world of difference between photography and painting (texture
being just one small difference. Creative freedom another.). There is less
difference between film and digital and the gap is closing. Digital
photography offers greater flexibility than film and the end product can
be quickly adapted for print or on-screen viewing. Painting is an entirely
different kettle of fish though the two arts will always cross paths (I
want a digital camera as a tool to assist in my painting).
Just as there are still some wind-up gramaphones around, there will
probably "always" be some film cameras. However, like LP records, they
will become essentially obsolete and the cost of film will probably start
to skyrocket as fewer places stock it - same for processing.
I heard that the latest Star Wars was shot entirely on video. Anyone able
to confirm this?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Bob Hatch
>
> I heard that the latest Star Wars was shot entirely on video. Anyone able
> to confirm this?
>
> Andy D.
>
digital. Also according to the news reports on the release date Lucas
restricted the film to only theaters with digital projectors. Don't know how
true that is, but that's what was reported.
Ted Edwards
> I'm concerned about this new fad of photography. It may make painting
> obsolete. True art will disappear. No one will carry brushes and oil
> paints in the art stores any more. Film will ruin true art.
Judging from the response to your post, there are far to many people
with way too much time on their hands. Too bad they can't find anything
constructive to do.
Maybe they could start news:JNavasandfriends and leave us to discus
recreational digital photography. Do I misunderstand the implication
behind the name rec.photo.digital?
Ted
Andrew D
<bla...@starband.net> wrote:
+Well, it did replace paint brushes for many things like illustration. I
+don't think paint brushes are used today for much of anything beyond fine
+art. At the time photography was nacent, they were used for all kinds of
+things that were eventually replaced by photography. Good shooting.
Actually, I'd say computer rendering technology had a greater impact on
illustration than photography did. I used to make a good living out of
illustrating huge catamarans from initial plan drawings (a balsa model
would have cost tens of thousands and 3D CAD was still cumbersome, slow
and expensive). These days a fully rotatable model can be built in next
to no time on a computer and changes can be made in minutes. I haven't
picked up my airbrush for almost five years as a result.
RDKirk
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>
> Actually, I'd say computer rendering technology had a greater impact on
> illustration than photography did. I used to make a good living out of
> illustrating huge catamarans from initial plan drawings (a balsa model
> would have cost tens of thousands and 3D CAD was still cumbersome, slow
> and expensive). These days a fully rotatable model can be built in next
> to no time on a computer and changes can be made in minutes. I haven't
> picked up my airbrush for almost five years as a result.
>
>
Not that great a percentage of people ever bought hand-painted
catamarans. But virtually everyone bought a newspaper or magazine.
By the early 60s--before computers were being used for commercial
illustration--cameras had largely driven illustraters out of publishing.
--
RDKirk
"It's always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." -- RAH
mark_digitalŠ
"Ted Edwards" <Te...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:3CF40D...@telus.net...
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> Judging from the response to your post, there are far to many people
> with way too much time on their hands. Too bad they can't find anything
> constructive to do.
Does constructive mean to be efficiently productive?
I spent the morning ordering a Neptune front loader washing machine. Later
in the afternoon I visited a company to work out an erroneous double charge
on my VISA. Tonight I spent 3 hours evaluating digital photos for a montage,
searching compatible background music, and creating a storyboard. If it
rains tomorrow like it has for the past three days, I will continue
digitizing and designing. But if it's sunny and warm, I will be doing
outside staining until 12 noon. During the course of the day I'll be making
and answering phone calls, preparing meals, and relax in rec. photo. digital
to see what others are up to. Soon I won't be coming to this newsgroup
because my needs will go beyond what is usually available here. I know I
will be back sometime in the Fall.
I've got it all worked out :)
Bob Hatch
.
>
> Does constructive mean to be efficiently productive?
> I spent the morning ordering a Neptune front loader washing machine.
Later
> in the afternoon I visited a company to work out an erroneous double
charge
> on my VISA. Tonight I spent 3 hours evaluating digital photos for a
montage,
> searching compatible background music, and creating a storyboard. If it
> rains tomorrow like it has for the past three days, I will continue
> digitizing and designing. But if it's sunny and warm, I will be doing
> outside staining until 12 noon. During the course of the day I'll be
making
> and answering phone calls, preparing meals, and relax in rec. photo.
digital
> to see what others are up to. Soon I won't be coming to this newsgroup
> because my needs will go beyond what is usually available here. I know I
> will be back sometime in the Fall.
> I've got it all worked out :)
>
Mark, I seem to have the same problem you do. I started the day by finishing
up printing the labels for a 3500 piece bulk mail out. Then completed the
sales tax forms for last month, scanned them into Acrobat and saved them to
disk. Wrote the check and took them to the PO and mailed them. Went to the
main PO and picked up 16 mailing boxes for the mail out. Then to a camera
shop to buy a 16% grey card. Back to the homestead and into the studio to do
some test shots with the D60 using white card and grey card to compare skin
tones with each custom setting. Divided the mailing labels into the
appropriate boxes. Up to the puter again and finished the letter for the
next mail out, proof read and make corrections. Oops, wife calls me from
downstairs, one of the computers is not doing what it's supposed to, fixed
it. Online to Symantec to find out why I'm getting error messages, get
answer and fix the Registry on this computer. Correct index page in one of 3
web pages I maintain. Go to the bank for my wife. Order comes in from lab
for local business, deliver same.
Darn, wish I had something to do all day. (Had to avoid yard work cuz it's
rainin like the devil.)
John Navas
In <right-29050...@i161-165.nv.iinet.net.au> on Wed, 29 May 2002
09:51:15 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>I heard that the latest Star Wars was shot entirely on video. Anyone able
>to confirm this?
True:
<http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/news/2000/04/news20000409.html>
Unfortunately, there are many people (me included) who feel that the
quality of the projected movie suffered as a result. See Roger Ebert's
feelings at
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-ebert10.html>.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong only in rec.photo.marketplace.digital,
not rec.photo discussion groups, as per <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
Eric Simandl
impressionism, cubism, et al: the creative imaginative stuff that
confuses people and doesn't sell until the artist is long dead.
Pre-emulsion painters paid their bills by doing portraits of folks who
could afford them; and spent their spare time and money creating their
artsy stuff. Which is why museums are full of paintings of old rich ugly
people (who were probably even more ugly in real life, but the artist
wanted to get paid, right?).
Once photography took over the portrait business, painters became
artists. Of course they couldn't make a living anymore; but hey, that's
art. Suffer, dude!
So we don't have museums full of photographs of rich ugly people,
because photography is more honest (if you exclude centerfolds and
airbrushes), and it's easier.
--
Negaunee, Michigan
Founded: 1873
Elevation: 1375
Population: 4041
TOTAL: 7289
Dave Martindale
>I heard that the latest Star Wars was shot entirely on video. Anyone able
>to confirm this?
For a suitable definition of "video". It was shot with HDTV cameras
at a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, at 24 frames per second. This is
greatly different from home video, and from most broadcast video.
Dave
Chris Brown
Mike Russell <ge...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Imagine that photographs had started by producing oil paintings instead of
>gelatin prints,
No need to imagine - that's precisely what did happen! That's why we call
our devices "cameras". The word "camera" actually means an enclosed space,
or room. At some point (I believe it was the late renaissance), artists
stared using devices called "camera obscuras" to produce some of their
works. A camera obscura is simply a room with light sources covered, and an
opening in which a large lens could be placed. The whole thing was arranged
so that the subject was sat outside the camera obscura, and the lens was
focused on the canvas. The artist would then make preliminary marks on the
canvas based on the (upside-down) projected image from the lens, allowing
much greater accuracy in their work than traditional methods.
This was quite literally "photo-graphy", i.e. light painting.
There's also the suggestion that prior to lenses, a similar arrangement was
used, but with concave mirrors instead. This goes some way towards
explaining the fact that many portraits known to be produced before decent
lens technology was developed show a disproportionate number of their
subjects as being left-handed (due to the artist painting a mirror-image).
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
ajacobs2
--
(B>)# I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
Teaching site: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
D) wrote:
>I heard that the latest Star Wars was shot entirely on video. Anyone able
>to confirm this?
>
>Andy D.
The live action parts were shot digitally.
IMO, 'video' is too loose a term.
The site,
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/news/2000/04/news20000409.html
uses 'digital' instead of 'video'.
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
wrote:
I notice that all this has pushed painting out of your life, too. :-)
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
<sim...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>What photography did was enable painting to move from realism on to
>impressionism, cubism, et al: the creative imaginative stuff that
>confuses people and doesn't sell until the artist is long dead.
Painting had gone in directions apart from realism long before
photography came into being.
Bob Hatch
> I notice that all this has pushed painting out of your life, too. :-)
Not really, I still have to finish painting the kitchen. I'll use brushes,
not film.
John Navas
In <ad22c7$k0j$1...@trappist.cs.ubc.ca> on 29 May 2002 01:09:43 -0700,
da...@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:
But still poor as compared to even 35mm, much less 70mm movie film, and
it shows in the exhibition prints.
David Goerndt
<> Well, it did replace paint brushes for many things like illustration. I
> don't think paint brushes are used today for much of anything beyond fine
> art. At the time photography was nacent, they were used for all kinds of
> things that were eventually replaced by photography. Good shooting.
>
Traditional illustration is still alive and well. Just check out the recent
Communcation Arts Illustration Annuals. Still plenty of traditional artists
using brushes, airbrushes etc., more than digital really. Of course, this
could be a personal preference on the judges part, but I doubt it.
David Goerndt
David Goerndt
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote in message
news:ad1cm2$tjuhp$1...@ID-85448.news.dfncis.de...
> "Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in
> >
> > I heard that the latest Star Wars was shot entirely on video. Anyone
able
> > to confirm this?
> >
> > Andy D.
> >
> According to everything I've heard on the news about Star Wars, yes, all
> digital. Also according to the news reports on the release date Lucas
> restricted the film to only theaters with digital projectors. Don't know
how
> true that is, but that's what was reported.
There are only about 60 theaters in the country with digital projectors. It
was transfered to film for the rest of the theaters.
David Goerndt
RDKirk
dav...@iag.net says...
> Traditional illustration is still alive and well. Just check out the recent
> Communcation Arts Illustration Annuals. Still plenty of traditional artists
> using brushes, airbrushes etc., more than digital really. Of course, this
> could be a personal preference on the judges part, but I doubt it.
>
Apples and oranges on two levels.
You're looking at the proportion of illustrators who are using digital
cameras when the original comparison was the proportion of *all
illustration* that's now being done with *all cameras* compared to the
amount done by hand illustration.
The vast majority is now done with cameras. For instance, in the mid
60s it was still possible to contemplate a career as a fashion artist
for Vogue and the NYT. How often do you see hand illustrated fashion in
Vogue and NYT these days?
John Sheehy
da...@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:
Is that interlaced? 24 fps is only going half-way on quality, IMO, if
it is 24 full 1080-line fields per second. Motion should be much
smoother with 48 540-line fields per second, if the playback device can
do it.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Lisa Horton
too stiff for good control of the paint:)
Lisa
Dave Martindale
>>For a suitable definition of "video". It was shot with HDTV cameras
>>at a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, at 24 frames per second. This is
>>greatly different from home video, and from most broadcast video.
>Is that interlaced? 24 fps is only going half-way on quality, IMO, if
>it is 24 full 1080-line fields per second. Motion should be much
>smoother with 48 540-line fields per second, if the playback device can
>do it.
I believe it's 24 FPS progressive scan. I.e. as close to film as possible
with an electronic camera.
24 FPS interlaced would indeed have smoother motion, but:
- That would be a nightmare for the people adding all the special effects.
The even-numbered scanlines are all from a different point in time than
the odd-numbered ones in the live images, so the computer graphics
would also have to be done this way. Yet imagine a case where the
one has to be frame-by-frame registered to the other due to camera
motion - you'd have to render at full vertical resolution at 48 Hz,
then align the images, then throw away half the scanlines during
compositing.
- 24 FPS interlaced would look more like video, not film. That's not
the desired effect - just the opposite.
Dave
Don Stauffer
believe the non-interlaced vs interlaced arguments are a lot like tubes
vs transistors or gold-plated high fi cabling.
If the motion is fast enough to be that much affected, it is not a good
shot for video anyway, if you are after a high res image.
--
Marvin Margoshes
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:3CF38A47...@usfamily.net...
> I'm concerned about this new fad of photography. It may make painting
> obsolete. True art will disappear. No one will carry brushes and oil
> paints in the art stores any more. Film will ruin true art.
>
That isn't likely. But digital images offer a new medium for artists, with
its own capabilities and limitations. I'm not a good enough draftsman to
make either paintings or drawings to my satisfaction, but digital imaging
has offered me a way to be creative.
I was in the StedelijkMuseum in Amsterdam on Friday, and one of the graphics
I saw was a very large ink jet print. If it wasn't so labelled, I wouldn't
have guessed. The medium was NOT the message.
John Navas
In <3CFA3B9E...@usfamily.net> on Sun, 02 Jun 2002 10:37:02 -0500,
Don Stauffer <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>I guess, like in so many areas, I am the odd man out. I personally
>believe the non-interlaced vs interlaced arguments are a lot like tubes
>vs transistors or gold-plated high fi cabling.
>
>If the motion is fast enough to be that much affected, it is not a good
>shot for video anyway, if you are after a high res image.
What the heck of they thinking of, these MOVIE people? ;-)
Bryan Olson
> I believe it's 24 FPS progressive scan. I.e. as close to film as
possible
> with an electronic camera.
>
> 24 FPS interlaced would indeed have smoother motion, but:
>
> - That would be a nightmare for the people adding all the special
effects.
[...]
>
> - 24 FPS interlaced would look more like video, not film. That's not
> the desired effect - just the opposite.
Also, most theaters do not yet have digital projectors, and all they're
equipped to show is a 24-frame-per-second film transfer. One can make a
much better transfer from progressive source.
Furthermore, interlaced display only makes sense on raster-scan devices.
The movie projection technologies, TI's DLP and JVC's D-ILA, show full
frames. To show interlaced source, one would have to de-interlace.
--Bryan
John Sheehy
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <3CFA3B9E...@usfamily.net> on Sun, 02 Jun 2002 10:37:02 -0500,
>Don Stauffer <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>>I guess, like in so many areas, I am the odd man out. I personally
>>believe the non-interlaced vs interlaced arguments are a lot like tubes
>>vs transistors or gold-plated high fi cabling.
>>
>>If the motion is fast enough to be that much affected, it is not a good
>>shot for video anyway, if you are after a high res image.
>
>What the heck of they thinking of, these MOVIE people? ;-)
Well, they might consider catering to MOVement. The current 24fps is
poor for showing movement. The industry has successfully duped the
public into thinking that current media rates show everything that can
be seen as far as motion is concerned. All it does is make it seem like
things are moving. They don't move very well. Situations that show up
the weakness of the media are avoided.
Have you ever rendered the same animation at 30 fps and 160 fps? I
have.