Reading Response #3

I chose Stephen Joel Trachtenberg's article "The Art of Instant Gratification" initially because the title intrigued me. What got me interested in film was photography, so I was interested in an article about photography. I really like how Trachtenberg structured his article. It's almost like a time line-- he talks about film and darkroom work, moves on to photo labs developing the images and the development of cameras, then he speaks about when Polaroid came out in the 1940s, and ends with a description of today's photographic technique: digital imagery. Because of today's advanced digital technology, many people do not even have material photographs any more; most are on their computers and often, on the internet. Another thing I liked about this article were the descriptions that Trachtenberg used. The way he writes about the darkroom process illustrates for the reader how the darkroom process works. I noticed that he used much more beautiful descriptions when writing about photography in the darkroom than photography as it evolved and became more and more instant. This appealed to me because, although I do enjoy digital photography, I love working the darkroom and the satisfaction that comes with actually creating the image.

I think the main point of Trachtenberg's article is that the "art" of photography has been lost because of the "public's thirst" for instant gratification. The "almost biblical [...] early process of creating an image" clearly was not quick enough to satisfy people's desire for an image here and now. Trachtenberg writes much more highly about photography with negatives and in the darkroom, stating that now, with digital photography, the "intimacy of the touch is gone." No longer is photography a "mystery," something to be pondered-- now it is simply a "wonder," and requires little thought. Trachtenberg brings his point to a close on a rather rhetorical question. Essentially, he is asking readers how they think the photographs themselves feel about being reduced to digital technology. This closing furthers his main argument, that photography with film and images created in the darkroom have a much more "sacred" and "loved" quality to them than a simple digital image.

Trachtenberg's ideas are relevant to my own practice as a media artist because they encourage me to keep shooting film while I can. This article reminded me of how much fun the darkroom process is, and it encouraged me to create images in the darkroom while it is still possible. Even though I love shooting digital, this article reminded me of the simplicity and the "instant gratification" that it is, and that makes me want to shoot film more, so I have more control over the image itself, creating a deeper "intimacy of touch," as Trachtenberg might say.

Video Hardware/Software Response

My experience with the Olympus digital camera was good. In my experience, Olympus makes good point and shoot digital cameras. I own a newer version of the same camera, in fact, and while it has a bigger megapixel capacity, it's features were quite similar to the camera used for class. The camera was comparable to my camera, but obviously incomparable to my DSLR Canon 40D camera. Nevertheless, I liked the camera we used for class. I was easily able to successfully implement my Image Capturing Strategies with the features of this camera because it was compact and easy to carry around to take some quick shots or takes. In an ideal world, my camera would be really nice quality and be a video camera that is capable of taking nice DSLR still shots as well. I don't know how that would be possible... but it would be in my ideal world!

For video editing, I used Quicktime because it was recommended and because I bought it at the beginning of the semester for this class. I despised it. I have never used it before, but I think I was expecting something more like Final Cut Pro, which I have used very briefly. I hate how on Quicktime you can't see the line-up of cuts and sound cuts like on Final Cut. It was really hard to re-edit (like take out a short clip, like a still image) after the video was done, because you can't really select it easily. I will not use Quicktime again for future projects. I would rather use Windows Movie Maker, the video software that came free with my computer, than use Quicktime again.