Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2003

« Great golf story | Main | Trouble finishing defragging because of constant restarts »


Lisa W.

I had to write a paper including the interview; I'll cut out the interview part (I'm sure you don't want to read my "history of photography" ha ha) and post it when I'm on my other computer (on the laptop at the moment) and add a few comments/etc that I didn't put in the paper.

Light & Dark

Welcome Lisa!

I'm fascinated (and a little jealous) to hear that you had the chance to interview Freeman Patterson at his home. What an extraordinary opportunity.

I met him briefly many years ago when I was helping coordinate a lecture he gave to our professional association. A really nice, approachable guy who truly puts the "art" in art photography. Do you have notes from the interview you could post?


Lisa W.

Thanks Paul - I'm saving these instructions for future usage. I think this is the first time I've been here (or at least for quite a while).

I just completed an art education course for my ED degree - we had to choose an art form to explore, do an interview with someone already working in the form and then do a project. I chose photography and had the awesome pleasure of being invited to Freeman Patterson's home to interview him when I emailed him - it was surreal!
Anyway, I just wanted to say something I learned from Freeman that caught my eye right away when I was looking at the Acrobat photos was when you said "these photographs were made" - I never thought about it before this project I did but it's so true, you don't take them, you make them.

I'll be back...:)
Cheers from Eastern Canada!

Light & Dark

Hey Phil:

Thanks for volunteering to be the poster boy for "the people answering [who] actually don't have a firm grasp on the situation either".

Just so you know, you're contradicting someone who has been a professional commercial photographer for over 20 years, has been doing digital imaging since 1996, has run a scanning and printing service bureau, teaches Photoshop and digital imaging, has been photo editor for a magazine, a web designer and Director of IT/systems administrator for four years, and a graphic designer for five.

Oh yea, something else you should know: I don't make a statement of fact unless I can fucking well back it up.

Tune back in tomorrow when I make mincemeat out of your "argument".

Here's a little sample question to get you started: I have an image file that is set to 250 DPI. What's the largest size I can reproduce it on a colour press at max. quality? (i.e. without resizing the file.)



Wrong, the size of the paper width is not only determined by the pixels it is also determined by the DPI Dots Per Inch.
If I have an image that is 200DPI and is 800x1000 in pixels and want to print the full size image, the DPI would have to be changed because it will not print out on the full page it will only take up part of the page and not the full page. How ever if that image was only 120DPI then it would print on the full page.

There are 3 main things that make up a Photo and just the 0000x0000 factor is not enough to go by.

The comments to this entry are closed.