• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / PhotoLucida 2003

PhotoLucida 2003

April 2, 2009 JimK Leave a Comment

It was December of 2002. I was at an opening (a Roman Loranc show, I think) at the Ansel Adams Gallery on Cannery Row (sadly, gone now). Jeanne Adams came up to me and said that she thought I’d enjoy going to PhotoLucida.

“Photo what?” was the best I could do.  I had no idea what she was talking about.

Jeanne explained that it was a portfolio review. I could get lots of people to look at my work without trotting around to galleries and museums. I said I’d check it out.

I asked Dennis High about it. Coincidentally, he had already agreed to be a reviewer. He said he thought it would be good for me. I had a body of work that I thought was far enough along to hold together, and I had until April to collect it all. I went to the PhotoLucida website and signed up.

A month or so before the event, a list of reviewers appeared in my email box together with a form to fill out indicating who I’d like to see my work. There were some short bios, but not enough for me to make much of an informed choice. I had the sense that I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into, but figured that there wasn’t much of a downside, so I might as well jump in and pretend like I knew what I was doing. I more or less randomly picked some names, and sent the form to the PhotoLucida people.

I printed up work in my usual size (22×30 on 340 gsm paper) for the series I was interested in presenting (I now call it “This Green Growing Land”; check it out at www.kasson.org). It made a pretty cumbersome bundle to cart around during the review sessions.

I packed my car with portfolio cases and drove to Portland. When I got there, I was impressed by how well organized things were. Over four days, I had more than twenty people see my work, and got some good advice along with some platitudes. Some less-than-positive experiences were my fault for not researching my reviewers very well. For example, the reviewer from George Eastman House said that as far as his institution was concerned, I had three strikes against me. “How so?” I asked. The answer: 1) it’s color, 2) it’s blurry, and 3) it’s inkjet. With a little research, I probably could have figured that out earlier.

The failings in my discussions with reviewers mostly resulted from my not having a clear idea of what I wanted out of the experience. Yes, I kind of wanted an exhibition or two, but I already had one lined up for this work and wasn’t very hungry. Yes, I kind of wanted to sell work, but not very badly. What I most wanted was feedback on the images, but I didn’t get much of that. Maybe the reviewers were trying to spare my feelings. I didn’t press them. There were encouraging words, a few vague references to upcoming exhibits, and only one definitive action. One person with a gallery said she wanted to hang three pieces and see what her customers thought. I sent her the work, and never heard from her again.

As I drove home, I decided that the trip had been productive. I didn’t achieve much, but I hadn’t had any expectations. I’d learned a lot about the photographic art biz. I’d learned a few things about my images. I’d met some interesting people. I was in no hurry to do it again.

The Last Word

← A new web site PhotoLucida 2009: why go? →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.