Doctor Foxglove's Polaroid Tryptich Project
October 31, 2003 7:12 PM Subscribe
great project. nice site. i just wish it were bigger. thanks!
posted by dobbs at 7:40 PM on October 31, 2003
posted by dobbs at 7:40 PM on October 31, 2003
Beautiful - I love that "8mm film" colouring. But can I just voice a complaint about so many otherwise cool, artistic photo galleries online? These prints appear at about 4cm by 4cm on my screen, something common to so many other exhibitions that have been posted here and elsewhere. I don't know how one is supposed to get a good sense of the depth and detail of these images at that kind of resolution.
posted by Jimbob at 7:43 PM on October 31, 2003
posted by Jimbob at 7:43 PM on October 31, 2003
Reminds me of Lawrence Weschler's "Convergences" series for McSweeney's; I think the connections in a number of these series would be simultaneously obvious and very difficult to put into words. Which might account for the precious titles.
posted by ssukotto at 10:49 PM on October 31, 2003
posted by ssukotto at 10:49 PM on October 31, 2003
dobbs, Jimbob, I agree... for certain images, especially, it just seems pointless to bother putting them up if they can only be seen at what is essentially "thumbnail size". This site is not that bad, but I have seen so many galleries featuring what appear to be marvelous images that I would have posted here or on my own site, but I don't, precisely because of this problem.
If the purpose is to discourage stealing, well, it also discourages viewing, and sort of throws the baby out with the bathwater. In this case, I think the point was to work in even the lowest screen resolution, but that means that most people are seeing it at a disadvantage. At any rate, I did view several of these sets with my screen resolution set to 640 x 480, which was enough to see that yes, we would like to see them bigger. Nevertheless, it's a really nice site, and I enjoyed it.
posted by taz at 3:16 AM on November 1, 2003
If the purpose is to discourage stealing, well, it also discourages viewing, and sort of throws the baby out with the bathwater. In this case, I think the point was to work in even the lowest screen resolution, but that means that most people are seeing it at a disadvantage. At any rate, I did view several of these sets with my screen resolution set to 640 x 480, which was enough to see that yes, we would like to see them bigger. Nevertheless, it's a really nice site, and I enjoyed it.
posted by taz at 3:16 AM on November 1, 2003
btw, I think the second group/second row/second square image is the artist's triptychal self portrait...
posted by taz at 3:30 AM on November 1, 2003
posted by taz at 3:30 AM on November 1, 2003
This is very good. Thanks. As for the sizes, I would defend them in interest of download time. Not everyone has a lightning speed connection, so more can enjoy it as it is. Maybe a choice of speeds at the start would be nice, but this is good too.
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:57 AM on November 1, 2003
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:57 AM on November 1, 2003
I thought about download time, too, but this is Flash, and I assumed that perhaps somewhat larger photos wouldn't make much of difference in download time. Flash people?
posted by taz at 11:32 PM on November 1, 2003
posted by taz at 11:32 PM on November 1, 2003
« Older Snail into Comparison | world domination Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hama7 at 7:16 PM on October 31, 2003