Comments on: Doctor Foxglove's Polaroid Tryptich Project

Doctor Foxglove's Polaroid Tryptich Project

hama7 — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:12:30 -0800

Doctor Foxglove's Polaroid Tryptich Project.

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:16:07 -0800

[via 1.2s]

By: dobbs

dobbs — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:40:27 -0800

great project. nice site. i just wish it were bigger. thanks!

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:43:28 -0800

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.

By: btwillig

btwillig — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:02:19 -0800

Great find. Love the layout and photos.

By: ssukotto

ssukotto — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:49:18 -0800

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.

By: taz

taz — Sat, 01 Nov 2003 03:16:50 -0800

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.

By: taz

taz — Sat, 01 Nov 2003 03:30:01 -0800

btw, I think the second group/second row/second square image is the artist's triptychal self portrait...

By: LouReedsSon

LouReedsSon — Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:57:46 -0800

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.

By: taz

taz — Sat, 01 Nov 2003 23:32:40 -0800

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?