Tales of the Rat Fink To Make DVD Debut:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116840
I used to put Rat Fink plastic models together when I was a kid, and collected a number of those little plastic Rat Fink charms -- you know, the ones with the hole in the back so you could wear them on a plastic Rat Fink ring?
I still have my collection of those little guys, including some "rare" ones with moustaches, etc...
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Scanner Jones
At long last, I finally sprung for a decent scanner, an Epson 4990 Photo. It seems that I almost waited too long, as it appears that Epson is discontinuing these scanners, in favor of the 700 series they announced a few months ago. Of course, Epson hasn't announced this on their site, but their own on line store is out of these models, and it appears that the retail big-box chains are clearing their channels.
The local CompUSAs were stocking the 4990, but had always wanted MSRP ($450) for them. Not wanting to mail order a mechanically shock-sensitive instrument like this, I had resisted buying one on line, hoping that CompuUSA would finally put them on sale. A few months ago, I missed one opportunity, when they put a clip-out coupon in the Sunday paper sale flyer to get 10% off any one item (not otherwise discounted) in their store for that Sunday only. In spite of the fact that I get all their email flyers, this one was only put in the paper ad, and I ended up missing out on the chance to get a 4990 for about the same price local that I could mail order one.
So, several months later, I notice that in the latest CompUSA email flyer, the price had dropped on the 4990, along with a note, saying they were already sold out on line, suggesting that I check with local stores for availability. Oh boy. Talk about a where-is, as-is sale. Out of the half-dozen stores in the SE Mich area, I finally found one that had one in stock, and it was the display unit. The folks on the phone assured me that they had all the pieces/parts and had never been so much as plugged in, so I buzzed over to pick it up. 40+ minutes later, and finding one partial kit of stuff, and finally one entire kit, I ended up with what appears to be one of the few remaining units in the area. The store actually had two display units, but the other is missing all but the 2 1/4 film frames (and you need the frames, because the critical focus is a millimeter or so *above* the surface of the glass, accounting for the thickness of the supplied film frames).
It will take me a couple of days to get around to getting this thing hooked up, and try out a couple of scans, but I'm pumped about getting proper access to my approximately 1000 negs/slides that I've accumulated over the last several pre-digital decades of on-again/off-again shooting.
Now I really need to get cracking on Peter's DAM book, so I can get a handle on my burgeoning supply of digital image files.
At long last, I finally sprung for a decent scanner, an Epson 4990 Photo. It seems that I almost waited too long, as it appears that Epson is discontinuing these scanners, in favor of the 700 series they announced a few months ago. Of course, Epson hasn't announced this on their site, but their own on line store is out of these models, and it appears that the retail big-box chains are clearing their channels.
The local CompUSAs were stocking the 4990, but had always wanted MSRP ($450) for them. Not wanting to mail order a mechanically shock-sensitive instrument like this, I had resisted buying one on line, hoping that CompuUSA would finally put them on sale. A few months ago, I missed one opportunity, when they put a clip-out coupon in the Sunday paper sale flyer to get 10% off any one item (not otherwise discounted) in their store for that Sunday only. In spite of the fact that I get all their email flyers, this one was only put in the paper ad, and I ended up missing out on the chance to get a 4990 for about the same price local that I could mail order one.
So, several months later, I notice that in the latest CompUSA email flyer, the price had dropped on the 4990, along with a note, saying they were already sold out on line, suggesting that I check with local stores for availability. Oh boy. Talk about a where-is, as-is sale. Out of the half-dozen stores in the SE Mich area, I finally found one that had one in stock, and it was the display unit. The folks on the phone assured me that they had all the pieces/parts and had never been so much as plugged in, so I buzzed over to pick it up. 40+ minutes later, and finding one partial kit of stuff, and finally one entire kit, I ended up with what appears to be one of the few remaining units in the area. The store actually had two display units, but the other is missing all but the 2 1/4 film frames (and you need the frames, because the critical focus is a millimeter or so *above* the surface of the glass, accounting for the thickness of the supplied film frames).
It will take me a couple of days to get around to getting this thing hooked up, and try out a couple of scans, but I'm pumped about getting proper access to my approximately 1000 negs/slides that I've accumulated over the last several pre-digital decades of on-again/off-again shooting.
Now I really need to get cracking on Peter's DAM book, so I can get a handle on my burgeoning supply of digital image files.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Art Fair Jerks (the artists, I mean)
The Online Photographer: Researchers Claim Progress in Device to Disable Digital Cameras
There was a fellow at the Ann Arbor Art Fairs that could have used a device like this. At least it would have been less obnoxious than filling his booth with signs that read, "No video. No cameras. No cellphones with cameras. No recording." Or something to that effect -- I wanted to take a picture of his signs, but the 'minder' at the front of the booth spied my camera hanging on my shoulder, and made a point of standing next to me, ready to shove it down my throat, I suspect, if I had made a move to raise it.
So what was it that this particular artist was so concerned about? Some sort of photography, or multi-media work in frames. I'm not sure, because I made a point of immediately moving on, telling the minder that I found it distressing that someone would display their work in a public venue and then attempt to indimidate anyone from taking pictures of it.
I know that some art fair artists are concerned about copyright infringement, but this just strikes me as misguided. If they have something that is truly unique, you can bet that one way or another there will be copycats by next selling season. The trick is to stay ahead of your competition, not act like the boy with his finger in the dam, believing that you can control who views your artwork, and for what purpose.
And ultimately, if you register your works with the copyright office, then you have recourse if someone blatantly steals your work and passes it off as their own.
Ideas? Well, good luck stopping someone from stealing your ideas. If you put them on public display, then anyone that views your work may certainly come away with ideas.
There is a wonderful story in the Zen of Computing, where a master thief declares that he is stealing things of great importance from a computer trade show. Try as he might, the security guard can find nothing of importance on the thief as he exits the show each day. Exasperated, he finally asks the thief if he will declare himself. "Ideas", replies the thief, tapping his head.
Rather than pursuing copyright infringement for theft of ideas, an artist has other avenues available -- trade secrets, patents, and trademarks. Each of these can make sense in various ways, and they each have their strong and weak points.
Sometimes, though, just staying one step ahead of your competition is the best protection. If they are just now taking pictures of your work, then they are already behind, playing catch-up.
The Online Photographer: Researchers Claim Progress in Device to Disable Digital Cameras
There was a fellow at the Ann Arbor Art Fairs that could have used a device like this. At least it would have been less obnoxious than filling his booth with signs that read, "No video. No cameras. No cellphones with cameras. No recording." Or something to that effect -- I wanted to take a picture of his signs, but the 'minder' at the front of the booth spied my camera hanging on my shoulder, and made a point of standing next to me, ready to shove it down my throat, I suspect, if I had made a move to raise it.
So what was it that this particular artist was so concerned about? Some sort of photography, or multi-media work in frames. I'm not sure, because I made a point of immediately moving on, telling the minder that I found it distressing that someone would display their work in a public venue and then attempt to indimidate anyone from taking pictures of it.
I know that some art fair artists are concerned about copyright infringement, but this just strikes me as misguided. If they have something that is truly unique, you can bet that one way or another there will be copycats by next selling season. The trick is to stay ahead of your competition, not act like the boy with his finger in the dam, believing that you can control who views your artwork, and for what purpose.
And ultimately, if you register your works with the copyright office, then you have recourse if someone blatantly steals your work and passes it off as their own.
Ideas? Well, good luck stopping someone from stealing your ideas. If you put them on public display, then anyone that views your work may certainly come away with ideas.
There is a wonderful story in the Zen of Computing, where a master thief declares that he is stealing things of great importance from a computer trade show. Try as he might, the security guard can find nothing of importance on the thief as he exits the show each day. Exasperated, he finally asks the thief if he will declare himself. "Ideas", replies the thief, tapping his head.
Rather than pursuing copyright infringement for theft of ideas, an artist has other avenues available -- trade secrets, patents, and trademarks. Each of these can make sense in various ways, and they each have their strong and weak points.
Sometimes, though, just staying one step ahead of your competition is the best protection. If they are just now taking pictures of your work, then they are already behind, playing catch-up.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Photos vs. Images
Recent conversations on various blogs and photography web sites have centered around the concept of speaking of 'Photos' vs. 'Images', and this seems to have suddenly made a connection for me in the somewhat-related debate of 'Pure' vs. 'Manipulated' photos.
After thinking about this for a bit, I've decided to adopt the following (at least for my use, and I invite comments pro and con):
1) Photos are the raw stuff of photography. That is, most folks' expectations when someone speaks of a 'photo' is that manipulations, if any, are slight, and do not change in any real way the content of the image. This, of course, is subject to interpretation, but I like the guidelines for manipulated photos posted at photo.net (although I'm not certain I agree with the particular one concerning perspective correction, since one can achieve this in the field with a shift lens, it seems incongruous to ban this in the 'dimroom').
2) Images are what you intend to show, at the end of the day. This might include photos that have had mild color correction, and sharpening applied, or ones that have had wholesale cutting and pasting applied. The latter have been referred to in print publications as 'photo illustrations'.
Given the above definitions, I reject the notion that speaking about images is somehow snobbish, or pushing the idea that one person's 'images' are somehow better than another's 'photos'. Instead, I find using 'image' to refer to a photo that I've spent some time on, and considered polished enough to be shared with others, less contrived than 'manipulated photo' or 'photo illustration'.
Finally, what do we do with the term 'photography?' I'd say leave it alone, and let it be stand for what it has always stood for -- the act of making images. This encompasses the whole process, from the original composition, capture, selection, post-processing, and printing and/or posting.
Recent conversations on various blogs and photography web sites have centered around the concept of speaking of 'Photos' vs. 'Images', and this seems to have suddenly made a connection for me in the somewhat-related debate of 'Pure' vs. 'Manipulated' photos.
After thinking about this for a bit, I've decided to adopt the following (at least for my use, and I invite comments pro and con):
1) Photos are the raw stuff of photography. That is, most folks' expectations when someone speaks of a 'photo' is that manipulations, if any, are slight, and do not change in any real way the content of the image. This, of course, is subject to interpretation, but I like the guidelines for manipulated photos posted at photo.net (although I'm not certain I agree with the particular one concerning perspective correction, since one can achieve this in the field with a shift lens, it seems incongruous to ban this in the 'dimroom').
2) Images are what you intend to show, at the end of the day. This might include photos that have had mild color correction, and sharpening applied, or ones that have had wholesale cutting and pasting applied. The latter have been referred to in print publications as 'photo illustrations'.
Given the above definitions, I reject the notion that speaking about images is somehow snobbish, or pushing the idea that one person's 'images' are somehow better than another's 'photos'. Instead, I find using 'image' to refer to a photo that I've spent some time on, and considered polished enough to be shared with others, less contrived than 'manipulated photo' or 'photo illustration'.
Finally, what do we do with the term 'photography?' I'd say leave it alone, and let it be stand for what it has always stood for -- the act of making images. This encompasses the whole process, from the original composition, capture, selection, post-processing, and printing and/or posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)