?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Sauntering Vaguely Downward [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Mad Scientess Jane Expat

Serious Business | Flickr
Bounty Information | Wanted Dead or Alive: Mad Scientess Nanila
Deeds of Derring-Do | Full of Wild Inaccuracies and Exaggerations

Pieces of Home [20070808|22:13]
Mad Scientess Jane Expat
[Tags|, , ]






You know what's great?

Putting aside a set of paintings that you've reached an impasse with and then digging them out three months later to discover that actually, you were finished.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: swerve
2007-08-08 21:24 (UTC)
I LOVE these. How big are they?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 21:57 (UTC)
Thank you. They're 6"x6"x1.5", so not very big.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: typwrtr
2007-08-08 21:46 (UTC)
awww, lil hawaii pictures! They're brill!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 21:58 (UTC)
Yay, thank you!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ironed_orchid
2007-08-08 23:37 (UTC)
That is great. And THAT is great.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 22:01 (UTC)
I got super-bouncy when I hit on the right arrangement of the canvases while talking to omniana. It was a most excellent feeling. And thank you.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lesyeuxouverts
2007-08-09 00:09 (UTC)
It's good to take another look at them from a spectator's point of view. I think they look even better now, oddly.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 22:04 (UTC)
I remember having this conversation with someone about film vs. digital images. She worked exclusively in film and one of her rationales behind it was the lack of immediate gratification. She would put her negatives away, sometimes for weeks on end, before developing them. She said her judgment was always much better for it. Although I don't think you have to work in film to achieve those results - you could achieve the same effect by turning off the screen on a digital camera and downloading the RAWs without looking at them - I'm starting to see her point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seismic
2007-08-09 01:39 (UTC)
Yeah. That is great. Very pleased for you.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 22:05 (UTC)
Thank you. Also, see above response to lesyeuxouverts. I'm wondering what your take on that might be.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seismic
2007-08-10 04:44 (UTC)
I think it's a great argument for film. One of the things I love best about using film is the surprises. (Especially lomo shots but I don't need to tell you that.)

I do think there's a way to find a balance between the two. I love the surprises and the objective viewpoint film gives me but I LOVE the immediate digital feedback for, "Hey, Dumbass! You didn't set your [setting] for these conditions!" (Let's just nevermind that that's backfired on me once, very completely.) Not so much by design but rather by circumstance, I usually let images sit a day or two often more before I go through them. Deathmarches end late; travel requires sitting back from it for a while; very rarely do I shoot and process on the same day. If there are a ton of them I will purposefully give a few days to weed and then re-weed. I find, especially using a dSLR, I'm less reliant on the display capture and rarely refer to it unless I want to go back and check framing (which is probably how I managed to shoot an entire day at the aquarium at completely the wrong settings, see above.) That said, I keep almost everything. 'Almost' because the obvious losers go but the 'eh' ones get archived at full size and I'm actually just obsessive enough to go back and look at them again later. Sometimes I find gems I didn't realize were gems.

Regardless, I don't see myself giving up either film or digital any time soon. I still love them both but for different reasons. Digital just fits my life better right now but I'm prepared for the time when film will be more of a part of it than it is now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 22:07 (UTC)
Wow, I wasn't expecting that. That was actually one of the most difficult ones to declare done. It wasn't until I hit on the idea of putting the light finish along the top shoreline of the island that it felt done. Thanks!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: taische
2007-08-09 05:56 (UTC)

wonderful

I am particularly fond of how the fourth generates its illusion of scale, pulling the eye in to look for the fractal details. I found myself lost in the "organic" layers of the middle two, and the third in particular (like other works of yours, the textures compel a desire to touch). If you plan on selling any or all of these at some point, might I line up for first right-of-refusal (assuming no one else has)?

Thanks once again for sharing.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 22:18 (UTC)
It's funny that you should mention scale. Originally I planned for six canvases, each of which would be a magnification of the preceding one. Two of them didn't turn out the way I wanted and split off to become independent pieces. The last two in the work above mirror each other - the third was meant to be a magnification of the fourth. I was fretting a lot since the first two don't mirror any more, but after I'd put them aside and then got them arranged I realized it didn't matter.

I've given these as a gift already so I can't sell them now. However, I'm nearly finished with another set (which is entirely different) and you've definitely been in mind while I've been working, which sounds a bit awkward, but it's kind of a distinction between doing something for someone else as opposed to being inspired by them. I'll let you know when I'm done with it and you can tell me if you'd like it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jinnyisms2
2007-08-09 15:02 (UTC)
oooh, pretty.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2007-08-09 22:09 (UTC)
Thank you!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)