Posted: 1/19/2012 10:06:45 PM EDT
|
In a scene in the movie, "The Story of O", O, a glamour photographer, uses a slate with the magazine's name on it to visualize what the next issue's cover could look like. She projects her slides onto the wall and move the slate in and out, turning it, to see how the magazine cover might look.
Okay, slides and slide projectors are something in the past. Further, I imagine someone could come up with a program to do something similar to a picture displayed on a computer. Still, though, I wonder when we do something like that do we lose the art of photography or even the fun? I know there are projectors for computer systems but the last time I looked at them, they were atrociously expensive. So what other ways might one use? After the slides are transferred to the computer, might they be displayed on a great big flat screen TV? That won't achieve necessarily what O did, but it might communicate a "wonderful impression" be it slides from the Viet Nam War or The Latent Image.........assuming they haven't all turned red yet. As it is, it is not something I desire a quick answer for since I have DECADES of slides to go through. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ("Why do you wear the garters on your stockings? They're bad for the circulation, you know."––Therese "They're practical!"––O, avoiding the answer that they are a demand from her lover, (w,stte), "The Story of O") |
|
Kodak Carousel projectors can be found at dump prices.
Tabletop LCD projectors are down below $200. CRT projectors cannot be given away, they will pay you to haul a Sony 1272 away. We used to use these things called "Mavericks" to convert slides to VGA output, they are also obsolete. Slides are easily digitized on flatbed scanners or dedicated slide converters. Many OTS scanners have a frame that holds slides and/or negs and specific routines for scanning them. You don't need one of these: 
Just scan you slides and enjoy them on your computer display or a $179 projector. |
|
Quoted:
Kodak Carousel projectors can be found at dump prices. Tabletop LCD projectors are down below $200. CRT projectors cannot be given away, they will pay you to haul a Sony 1272 away. We used to use these things called "Mavericks" to convert slides to VGA output, they are also obsolete. Slides are easily digitized on flatbed scanners or dedicated slide converters. Many OTS scanners have a frame that holds slides and/or negs and specific routines for scanning them. You don't need one of these: http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x298/hurtzc/VegasDump092.jpg Just scan you slides and enjoy them on your computer display or a $179 projector. Thank you, I shall take a look. The problems I have with flatbed scanners is the time it takes to scan and keeping the glass clean enough so a great image is stored. Film wise, it takes me an hour to do 24 pics and I have a lot of film packs. Now, if I want to show the picture to someone like on the Net and I am not too concerned about quality, I just snap a shot with the DSLR. Somewhere around, I have a dedicated slide converter, bought it from an office store a year or two ago. So, what was that thing in the picture that looks like WOPR? ________________________________________________________________________________ ("Charlie Brown is trying to steal home! SLIDE, CHARLIE BROWN, SLIDE!"––the baseball team, (w,stte), "Peanuts") |
|
It's a big honkin' Christie DLP 15k lumen projector.
My buddy Karl (K2) runs a couple of them out of NYC. 
We did a show in Vegas about three years ago: 
He's the projectionist for the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and does other cool shit like projection on the sides of buildings. 
http://www.k2imaging.com/ |
|
I have not seen the movie you are talking about, but I have laid out several magazine covers as well as newspapers. We used InDesign, with a bit of Photoshop thrown in when necessary. So long as your monitor is calibrated correctly what you see is what you get. Another program you might like is Lightroom.
Scanning in negatives and slides is time, labor, and sanity intensive. I still have plenty of work to do in regards to that myself. You mention the slides turning red, you can correct a bit of that in the programs I mentioned. I have a black and white photo of my grandfather standing with my great grandfather that had seen better days. It was also the only photo I have of them. I spent a good deal of time in Photoshop massaging out the scratches, dust, and missing pieces. Then I started correcting the color. While I have not tried it yet I am told you can colorize the old B&W photos using P-shop as well. That might be interesting. As far as digital killing photography, I don't see that really happening. I was definitely a different photographer when I shot film thorough my SLR. I put more thought into each photo. Sometimes when I felt like I was shooting poorly again I would put a tiny memory card in my camera to limit how many shots were available. Definitely makes you think more when the space is finite. Digital also gives you instant feedback unlike film. You know right away if you got the shot, or if you need to get back in there and make it happen. One of my professors told me about presentations that were made years ago, running four slide projectors at a time and spending days trying to get everything perfect for that presentation. The new projectors and digital has made that job easier. There are even pico projectors that will fit in your pocket! Right now I can take my netbook, the pico projector, and give a presentation anywhere if required. No more milk crates filled with slide carousels to cart around! I call that a bonus. My one regret is the departure of Kodachrome. I have a great digital SLR, and have owned many great SLR's. Even having 22 megapixels at my disposal fails to reproduce those brilliant colors that Kodachrome brought to life. |
|
Quoted:
I have not seen the movie you are talking about, but I have laid out several magazine covers as well as newspapers. We used InDesign, with a bit of Photoshop thrown in when necessary. So long as your monitor is calibrated correctly what you see is what you get. Another program you might like is Lightroom. Scanning in negatives and slides is time, labor, and sanity intensive. I still have plenty of work to do in regards to that myself. You mention the slides turning red, you can correct a bit of that in the programs I mentioned. I have a black and white photo of my grandfather standing with my great grandfather that had seen better days. It was also the only photo I have of them. I spent a good deal of time in Photoshop massaging out the scratches, dust, and missing pieces. Then I started correcting the color. While I have not tried it yet I am told you can colorize the old B&W photos using P-shop as well. That might be interesting. As far as digital killing photography, I don't see that really happening. I was definitely a different photographer when I shot film thorough my SLR. I put more thought into each photo. Sometimes when I felt like I was shooting poorly again I would put a tiny memory card in my camera to limit how many shots were available. Definitely makes you think more when the space is finite. Digital also gives you instant feedback unlike film. You know right away if you got the shot, or if you need to get back in there and make it happen. One of my professors told me about presentations that were made years ago, running four slide projectors at a time and spending days trying to get everything perfect for that presentation. The new projectors and digital has made that job easier. There are even pico projectors that will fit in your pocket! Right now I can take my netbook, the pico projector, and give a presentation anywhere if required. No more milk crates filled with slide carousels to cart around! I call that a bonus. My one regret is the departure of Kodachrome. I have a great digital SLR, and have owned many great SLR's. Even having 22 megapixels at my disposal fails to reproduce those brilliant colors that Kodachrome brought to life. Managed to find a picture on the Net. This is what O was doing. (The picture is work safe but not the page it comes from). Call me a lesbian, but I am looking forward to see how TLI's set of Aja in a blue blazer turns up on a large screen.....but that is weeks, at best, down the line. (What it actually is is that Aja is a key element to my approach of acting). Took a look at Indesign, nice!, and Lightroom. Sigh. Seems the more one does, the more there is software out there that it seems one just must have. I picked up Photoshop last year because it seemed like the kind of thing someone like me should have. As far as my old photography with film, it was as I described two years ago in "Tiburon Living". On some points, DSLR is better. It really irked the heck ouf of me when the only shots I needed one hour photo for were recon shots where I paid more to have them and got two sets when I only needed one. But, on the other hand, the local film developing industry here has essentially disappeared, they took away the counter and replaced it with a self service kiosk. Generally, this is not bad except my apartment's walls are covered with my work and I haven't put up a new picture perhaps in 2 years, if not more. Me, I tend to shoot on the run, tend to go for mass where only a small percentage will be great. Even when I was doing film, I carried enough rolls on the basis of I could be shooting a picture a minute. Part of the problem with that was that my developing costs were large and I often could afford to make only one trip a season. Now with DSLR, I may be there two or three times a season. I tend not to use the instant feedback feature for action shots. Of course, if I'm shooting something like lab samples of "photocopying", then, of course. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ("Who says I can't? I'm only doing my job. Some people are bullfighters, some people are politicians. I'm a photographer."––Thomas, (w,stte), "Blow-Up") |