Monday, February 5, 2018

Giffy Pop

I read several articles on the history of Gifs. Gif is an acronym for graphic interchange format. Essentially, they are image files compressed that permit quick transfer, or for those image files to be played in sequence. I find that Gifs are an excellent way to convey enthusiasms in my interpersonal relationship. Gifs allow for abbreviated expression, though you get your point across in a fashionable manner. I'm a romantic that excels, I think, at active listening. I employ the application because of it's ability to produce on the surface comedic sequences, that engages its viewer, and causes a reciprocal response. They're great segues into foreplay. Just one favorable benefit, I know.  I do pay particular attention to the content. Socially, I consider whether what I post will be appreciated by the receiver. For instance, if I used images of comedian Bernie Mac, would the receiver understand the Gif, or would the message get lost in translation due to non familiarity with Bernie.

Currently, I am utilizing the format for marketing a brow threading business. As a part of push and pull strategies, Gifs play on a L.e.d kiosk to attract the targeted audience via promotional footage. I found Gifs that had overgrowths of eyebrow and facial hair. When people walk by, they stop. So, there is a social benefit to the application of such files. Beyond this usage, social networking has seen an explosion of the format due to it being built into sites like Tumblr. It's site allows for up to 2 megabytes for Gif files. Couple that with it's streamlined method of sharing files with the common interests of people who like utilization of Gifs, and you generate an amazing democratic response as to what topics are viewed. 3D renderings help to push the technology further.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Beauty & Beast   |   Fruits


Reading the article, A Fact, Fiction and Metaphor by Philip Gefter, leaves me with mixed feelings for what amount of truth is contained in the images that we view.  I believe that we are investors in the moments we allow a photo to resonate with our sensibilities.  And the truth is merely an amalgamation of things composited in away to reveal what isn’t true about what we see.  Does the format for exposure matter much?

I’ve spent a tad bit amount of time in a darkroom, meticulously working on prints.  While I have a clear and profound like for darkrooms, I nonetheless am more inclined to appreciate the immediacy of the digital processes. An implied change that I gleaned from Gefter was that digital photography opened the floodgate for photographic degradation.  But do we always want our truths to represent exactly what the viewfinder sees?  What’s the magic in that?  Life is staged to a large degree.  Take for instance, the famed picture of civil rights activist Rosa Parks canvasses a the moment of decision to embrace idealistic photography to illicit a certain response from the public and policy makers.  But what did we not see?

We did not see the catalyst for Rosa Parks’ and the NAACP staging the picture.  What photos reveal often is the architectural prettiness of art.  Every person raising a camera and snapping a photo is at the time expressing their artistic commitment to nature, a sacrifice under the auspice of acknowledging the creation of things.  The catalyst was Claudette Colvin, who was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a public transportation in segregated southern city Montgomery Alabama.  Though we like to think that the camera is the mechanism by which we validate a perceived notion or symbolic moment via film recordation, the privilege is still in the eyes of the beholders.  Rosa Parks and those who colluded with her understood that what the majority of Caucasians’ sentimentalized for Africans was at that time a consensus of non-favor for darker pigmentation.  Thus, the fairer skinned Rosa Parks became the communicator for an ethnicity that she didn’t fully represent because of her light complexion, though she shared experiences with those who were grossly marginalized.  Was there truth within the frame?  Would it be more appreciated if that moment involved digital processing?  I think in this instance, I would prefer to view the surrealistic vibe and value of the photo that lengthy exposure times resulted.  The attention giving to capturing that historic event evidenced a painstaking craftsman showing great care and effort for the shot.  Attainable with digital photography, but there is a difference to me.  The biggest implied change/difference from wet/darkroom photography to digital processes is that preservation of the sanctity of the “shot” is more vital.