one deep beast...

[waveshop]

This is the latest under construction. Its called "Boardestoric". Its around five and a half feet long, 8-9 inches deep.

The teeth are aluminum and will be recesed into the gum and there will be a back row also (there just laying on the board for effect at present).

It is hard to see in the pic but the eye ball is a black hand blown glass sphere sort of hidden in its own shadow.

The fins are all hand foiled out of 3/4 ply and except for the tail, from real surfboard fin templetes.

This piece really challenged me in the assembly process before all the pigment resin layers started and due to the extreme color changes because of the penetration and refraction properties of the semi-transparent resin layers I posted a bright direct sun pic (left) and a indirect shaded pic (right).

[fritchie]

This is the latest under construction. Its called "Boardestoric". Its around five and a half feet long, 8-9 inches deep.

This piece really challenged me in the assembly process before all the pigment resin layers started and due to the extreme color changes because of the penetration and refraction properties of the semi-transparent resin layers I posted a bright direct sun pic (left) and a indirect shaded pic (right).

I’m glad to see you post these two pictures, because it reminds me of some flower photography about 12 - 15 years go. I know this is a side issue for you, but it is significant for presentation of art. On the real issue, it is clear that you are becoming much more free with your work, and that always is a good move. Congratulations! This really is imaginative.

Back on the color issue: I have grown “Louisiana Irises” among other flowers for many years, and have photographed them for nearly as long. In most cases, full sun with the typical slide films has given basically what the eye sees, but I remember one slide where half the flowers were in full sun and half in shade. The flowers in full sun were the correct blue color, but the ones nearby which were shaded had turned a strange purple color.

In all our photography and in our web presentations, we need to keep accuracy of color in mind, as much as it is possible to do so. The problem is especially hard with computer monitors, because there typically is no standard for tuning the monitors. Fortunately, colors on monitors generally don’t vary a great deal, but if you’re concerned, it’s something to watch.

[waveshop]

In all our photography and in our web presentations, we need to keep accuracy of color in mind, as much as it is possible to do so. .


Fritchie, I wish you could tell my Sony CD Mavica that. It seems it will interpret the color diff. as I move from one angle to another in the SAME light also. The Sunny shot is the closest to what the piece looks like. My digi camera refuses to acknowledge the real depth layers in my work. Also I am sure when I save as a jpg in Photo Draw it flattens the interpretation more.

Is it possible to get better presentation and better rendition from having a 35 mm slide scanned on to a CD? Can I get a unit to do this directly into my computer?

Rob

[jwebb]

Waveshop,
I'm far from knowledgeable about digital photography, but I tried the alternate route of having 35mm slides digitized. The results were terrible. And I sent them to a professional in Colorado who'd advertised on the web, to have them done, using Kodak software, to produce a Kodak photo CD. It seemed quite spiffy, but the results were poor and got worse the more I tried to edit them in my photo program. There are scanners that say they can do slides, and special attachments for it, but my understanding is that the bit of space that the slide mount creates influences the focus and/or depth of field. I think there are others which can digitize directly from negatives. But in my limited experience, the digital camera results are far better.

[Araich]

Colour rendition is a nightmare. I've jumped through every hoop over the years in an effort to get decent photo's, and have now resorted to flash photography. It is the only way I can get a good 'natural' colour temperature. Plus it is a controlled enviroment ie shadows and intensity. But it did not come cheap.
For those who are not aware, colour temperature is a method of describing the colour cast of the light in a particular setting. It runs against common logic, with a hot colour being blue, and cold red.
Now when we look at a white piece of paper at 12pm on a sunny day, it looks white, and also at 12pm on an overcast day. But in reality the light is nearly twice the temperature on an ovecast day, shifting the paper from a yellow tint to a blue. But our brain cleverly adjusts our perception for us.
Cold (yellow) include incandescent bulbs (2500k) inside, whilst really hot (blue) would be a clear blue sky with the sun hidden(11000k).
Film can be colour adjusted in manufacture, thus a normal daylight film sees white as 5500k, whereas a tungsten light film will be down around 3000k.
Modern digital camera's make an effort to correct this automatically, with 'white balance'. But if it is poorly set up, it can alter the colour when you shift the image center even slightly.
It is possible to correct most colour problems in a program like Photoshop, for a scanned image, but it has taken me years to get it right - and I'd much rather the original was right - hence, I bit the bullet, and now shoot under 90% flash.

[JAZ]

hence, I bit the bullet, and now shoot under 90% flash.
Araich, Did you take the images that appear on your website?

[Araich]

Araich, Did you take the images that appear on your website?Yes, every single one. Some are terrible, but I think I have gotten better over time. They've all been shot on film, and scanned in a cheap flatbed scanner. The earlier works have had the background clipped out (to white) in Photoshop, and where shot in full sun.
Also, I have a scanner that scans negs/slides. It does an OK job at 2400 dpi. But I would not try and use the image for an A4 magazine print. The scanner 'eye' compensates for the distance to neg frame, and has a holder that holds a slide. It is backlit instead of reflected light.

[Araich]

PS Rob, your work confuses the heck out of me. :D

[sculptorsam]

Yes, every single one. Some are terrible, but I think I have gotten better over time. They've all been shot on film, and scanned in a cheap flatbed scanner. The earlier works have had the background clipped out (to white) in Photoshop, and where shot in full sun.
Also, I have a scanner that scans negs/slides. It does an OK job at 2400 dpi. But I would not try and use the image for an A4 magazine print. The scanner 'eye' compensates for the distance to neg frame, and has a holder that holds a slide. It is backlit instead of reflected light.

Maybe we need a new thread for you to educate us on how to set up your own photo studio... It's on my mind lately because of the smaller works I've been doing which will need to be photographed indoors. Could you take a photo of your set-up next time you're taking photos, Araich? I need to get an idea of what a good setup looks like.

And nice work Rob. I wish I could see the depth of all those layers in person. There are indeed some things (most things) photography can't capture.

Sam