Why I don't teach with slides : comments [S. Worthen

computer slideshow programs seem to be replacing the outdated slide projector more and more these days. I've noticed that K'zoo no longer offers slide projectors to lecturers. Everything is computerized these days.

[parent entry] [link] [reply]

Which, from the art historian's point of view, isn't so great--I *still* don't think that digital images projected manage to equal the projection quality of a slide projector. Also, while in other fields powerpoint and other digital presentations may be effective, I have yet to see a really good, effectively done art history presentation that is digital, except by a Pre-Columbian prof who was able to use two digital projectors. Otherwise I find that objects end up *so* small and just not in good quality. I've been to far too many seminar presentations where the people who use powerpoint have endless problems and the people who use slide projectors face, at the worst, a bad bulb (which in a dedicated slide projector room isn't so bad, because there are generally good bulbs to replace them with).

Personal preference, I suppose!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Digital imagery has reached the point where it's possible to present slide-quality images. But most people don't, given the expense. A friend of mine locally is involved in a digitization project for her professor's slide collection. The requisite resolution is something like 3 million pixels - mayeb 4 images per CD.

It's possible to do a good powerpoint presentation, but most aren't.

C. spent much of last evening drooling over digital SLR cameras - for the first time, one's finally under $1000, including the lens. Still pricy, but at least heading in the right direction.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The capability is out there, but as you say, most people don't bother--and if the university won't invest in a decent digital projector, no matter how hard the scholar tries, their presentation won't be up to snuff visually. I have found a few museum sites (I think the National Gallery is one, but I'm blanking--maybe it was the Rijksmuseum) who present a few of their works in absolutely incredible resolution, to the point that you can focus in on individual brushstrokes in certain images. Still, the cost and space for those images really is prohibitive for most collections--not that all collections produce good slides of their work either.

I would sincerely love for powerpoint presentations to be as effective as mundane slide projector ones, because the flexibility and relative ease are so great, but at this point I refuse to sacrifice image quality for that ease of use (and at UT it wasn't so easy--I won't tell you the number of times a fellow student and I had to show the same students in our class how to use the computer for presentations. Two weeks before class ended one finally figured it out on her own...). Once art historians are ready to learn how to use the technology properly AND the technology is up to snuff, then I'll completely back digital presentations!

And I drool after digital SLRs too...

[link] [parent] [reply]

K'zoo does offer slide projectors. In past years, a good quarter of the talks I've been to there involved them, and they're still listed on the AV request sheet for this year's conference. Fortunately.

juniperus? Any sign of flagging demand for slide projectors?

[link] [parent] [reply]

well excuse me. I was wrong. Go ahead and shoot me.

I thought the sheet said that slide projectors were no longer available.

Obviously, I read incorrectly.

[link] [parent] [reply]

*patpat*

Maybe you'll have a better day tomorrow?

The question of whether or not there was flagging demand for slide projectors was worth asking.

[link] [parent] [reply]

waugh

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10 1	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

S. Worthen | Weblog

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

October