# 7988-92 / landscape • common things • kitchen life ~ peepers

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

SIGNS OF THE IMPENDING ONSET OF THE AUTUMNAL BACCHANALIA of leaf-peeping frenzy are breaking out all over. It won’t be long before our little piece of heaven on earth will be overrun with camera wielding, pretty picture makers taking the 7 trillionth + cliche fall photograph(s).

That written, what is surging to the front of my picture making skull is my seemingly never-ending–I swear I can’t control it– annoyance and irritation with inane utterances re: the photo medium and its apparatus.

item #1: Micheal Johnston’s never-ending dissing of the smartphone as a picture making device. Today’s example:

“I actually kind of wish Smartphone cameras had never become "good enough." The good enough is the enemy of excellent.”

re: “good enough”, aka: Adequate - something acceptable, even if it is not perfect. I call bull shit cuz smartphone photo making capabilities surpassed “good enough” several iterations ago. A fact that any number of photographers toiling in the fine art world–or even snapshot amateurs just screwing around and having fun–realized long ago, my own self included. Most / many gallery directors, photo exhibition jurists, and the general photo viewing public all seem to believe that my photographs are “excellent”, which leads me directly to ….

item #2: re: “the enemy of excellent” - That written, I realize that Johnston, just like most “serious” amateurs, has an understanding that photographic excellence is significantly dependent upon “perfect” technical considerations; max sharpness / resolution, extreme fine detail, max dynamic range, and the like. As a result he/they spend a significant amount of time and energy festering and agonizing over gear. Cuz, ya know, ya can’t take excellent pictures without excellent gear, gear that has “excellent” technical specs, which leads directly to ….

item #3: a response to Johnston’s post from which the above quote was extracted:

“I can't go with the 4/3 sensor size. Not enough dynamic range and not enough detail.”

First, let me write that the idea of “not enough dynamic range / detail” is not a comment one is apt to hear at photo exhibition in a fine art gallery / art institution. Ordinarily, one must go to a camera club gathering in order to hear such inane utterances–as well as the ever popular and insightful query, “What camera do you use?”

That written, let me go out on a limb here and write that extreme dynamic range and lots of detail are, in so many cases, the enemy of excellent. iMo, and to my eye and sensitivities (and I am not alone in this regard), there is nothing more excellent-destroying in a photograph than ultra vibrancy and maximum granular detail–visual characteristics that do not simulate normal human vision. Most photographs that exhibit such characteristics appear to me to be caricatures of the real world–pictures of some thing that exaggerate or distort its prominent physical features or character traits. Proving over and over again that nothing exceeds like excess.

OK. So there you have it. I got that outa my system (for now). But, FYI, just for kicks, I included an Olympus µ4/3 made photograph in this entry. Bet ya can’t tell which one cuz, ya know, both picture making devices are quite “adequate”.

# 7025 / adirondack guide ~ a slap upside the head

(embiggenable) ~ all,photos made along the side of the road

OVER THE COURSE OF ORGANIZING, EDITING, AND selecting photographs for inclusion in the final edit for the An Adirondack Guide book, there have a number of decisions that to be made. Most of those issues have been resolved with the exception of the final photo edit with which I am still tinkering around the edges.

That written, the biggest change made since the inception of the project has been about my initial decision to have no scenic landscape photos in the collection. That idea was instigated by the fact that scenic landscape photos of the Adirondacks are a dime a dozen. Walk into any Adirondack gift shop and there are more landscape photo books on the shelves than you shake a birch stick at, and, they all look alike.

I had no desire to add to that clutter and, to be sure, my project intent was to illustrate everyday Adirondack life “on the street”, so to speak. To a certain extent I was following Edward Weston’s adage that “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.”; i.e., my project modus operandi was basically to make photos during my everyday driving around the Park––ya know, see something, stop the car, get out and make a picture. However ….

…. as I was rooting around in my photo library culling out photos for inclusion in the collection, I keep coming across landscape photos that were made with exactly the same M.O. as my “on the street” photos. It took a while but eventually it hit me––duh, I live in a ginormuos 9,375 sq miles Park (technically it’s a forest preserve, not a park) that is known worldwide for its natural beauty. A place where it is nearly impossible to move about without encountering and being immersed in the Forever wild natural world (protected by the NYS Constitution) of the Park.

Simply put, the natural world is part and parcel of daily life in the Adirondacks and to ignore that, picture wise, in my project would be, well, kinda dumb.

And, lo and behold, I have quite a number of photographs that were made while driving around, seeing something, stopping the car, getting out and making a landscape picture. Most of which, BTW, were made within only 10 yards of the car. So …..

# 6946-52 / travel • landscape ~ picture window perfect

FOR REASONS I CAN NOT FULLY EXPLAIN MOST OF my Ireland landscape photographs were made through windows of one sort or another. The pictures do, sorta, fit into my picture windows body of work but not exactly so inasmuch as the framing of these photographs is rather different than that of most of my earlier picture windows work.

The primary difference, as I see it, is that in these pictures the window frames function, conceptually, as a frame-within-a-frame. Ya know, for those who like to see such things in a photograph, subtly emphasizing that the act of making photographs is, in effect, an act of framing select slices of the real world. On the other hand, there are those who might wonder why I did not just go outside and photograph the view without all of that “distracting crap” in the way.

Truth be told, I did not have a single thought in my picture making head, re: the concept of frame-within-a-frame, while I was making the photographs. I just liked the way all the visual elements within my imposed framing came together. iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, it all made for a more complex / ambiguous visual presentation than that which would result, picture making vise, by just going outside and pointing a picture making device at the landscape and visually declaring it to be “beautiful”–aka: making simple pictures for simple minds.

# 6934-38 / kitchen sink • around the house • common things ~ both the blue and the sky

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

“Most color photography, in short, has been either formless or petty. In the first case the meaning of color has been ignored; in the second they have been considered at the expense of allusive meaning. While editing directly from life, photographers have found it too difficult to see simultaneously both the blue and the sky.” ~ John Szarkowski

SZARKOWSKI WROTE THIS COMMENT IN 1976 IN HIS essay in the William Eggleston Guide. He was referring to color photography as it had been practiced prior to that date. Further on in his essay, referring to Eggleston’s color photography, he wrote that:

“…. they are perceived in color, where the wedge of a purple tie, or the red disk of a stoplight against the sky, has a different compositional torque than its equivalent panchromatic grey….”

I have always been bothered by critiques of a photographer’s work wherein the author expresses the idea of photographer’s “use of color”; that’s cuz I do not believe that most gifted photographers “use” color–ya know, like I might use a hammer to drive a nail. Rather, I believe that gifted picture makers see color, as in, a) they intuitively see / feel, simultaneously, the blue of the sky for both its existential and descriptive possibilities, and, b) intuitively know / feel how to organize it within the structure they impose with the camera. In effect, imbuing a photograph with a compositional torque that elevates it above and beyond its utilitarian value as a merely descriptive document.

Or, to put it another way, a gifted photographer sees/ feels the existential form + literally depicted elements extracted from the real world as all of a inseparable, singular piece. And, to take a step further, I believe that a viewer of a photograph must possess the same a+b ability in order to truly appreciate a really good photograph.

That written, I am uncertain as to whether this ability to see / feel, re: a+b, can be taught. My gut says “no”. That’s cuz, to use an analogy, consider music; there are many people who are able to read a sheet of music but, given access to a musical instrument, only a very few can make that instrument “sing”.

# 6934-46 / common places-things • adirondack vernacular ~ a private view

cover ~ a pastiche

sample images ~ (embiggenable)

I AM CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN A “FINAL” EDIT OF my photographs for my Adirondack Survey project / book, now known as in situ ~ an ADIRONDACK GUIDE. The process involves selecting 80 photos for the book, culled from the approximately 300+ project photos. Those 300+ were, in turn, culled from 3-4,000+ (est.) photos made during the past 26 years of my residency in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, AKA: the Adirondack Park.

It is worth pointing put that this project, in fact, was not a project, per se, or, at least, not one with a conscious intent to create a body of work; rather, it was, quite simply, just me going about my life carrying a picture making device and making pictures of those things which pricked my eye and sensibilities. My picture making was very much in the manner of Saul Leiter’s idea of, “I don’t have a philosophy, I have a camera.”

Consequently, it was only until quite recently that I realized the work’s potential as a possibly significant body of work cuz the fact is that nothing has ever been undertaken, photography wise, on this scale. That is to write, nothing, re: having to do with everyday life as lived in the Adirondacks. Sure, sure, a significant host of photographers have spent a lot of time and effort–over the past 100+ years–picturing the scenic / natural “wonders” of the region. Ya know, like, say…. Eliot Porter and his Forever Wild: The Adirondacks published in 1966.

That written, I have never, in all the time I have spent in the Adirondacks–starting in the early 1950s but only since the mid 70s with a serious picture making intent–pursued the making of pictures in the pretty–calendar–art picture making genre.

In any event, what really caused me to start thinking about my work–in the last few months–as a serious body of work was re-reading John Szarkowski’s essay in William Eggleston’s Guide wherein he expressed this idea about Eggleston’s pictures:

“[a pictures is after all just a picture] …. perfect irreducible surrogates for the experiences they pretend to record, visual analogues for the quality of one life, collectively a paradigm of a private view….”

That idea expresses exactly–or close to exact–what I feel about my pictures; visual analogues for the quality of one my life and collectively a paradigm of a my private view. CAVEAT re: quality of my life / paradigm of my private view; most certainly not my entire life nor the entirety of my private view, re: my complete picture making M.O., just that of the last 26 years END CAVEAT

I am not comparing my work to that of Eggleston. My concept of extracting pictures from the everyday fabric of life–which is nothing new nor unique to Eggleston–is indeed akin to Eggleston’s M.O.. However, the manner of how I see, aka: my vision, is not very similar to Eggleston’s manner of seeing. Neverthless, that written, I do believe that both of our bodies of work are similar in the fact that the photographs “work” best when viewed together in a series / book. And, when viewed as a whole, I believe that both bodies of work convey a a very engaging, private view of a sense of place.

Addendum: re: the new cover. I hope it is perceived in the spirit in which it is intended–that of a pastiche (that which imitates the style of another artist as a form of homage). Now if I can sell a print of it for $578,000USD I’ll a happy guy.

6921-27 / travel • shallow DOF • common places-things • art reflects ~ every thing is just ducky

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

HAD TO DROP THE WIFE AT THE AIRPORT EARLY YESTERDAY morning. She was traveling to a location in the US of A and I thought I should travel too. So I went to a city in another country where everyone speaks French and spent the day making pictures.

I took only a single camera along with a moderate length tele prime lens. It was sort of a picture making practice event for my upcoming–in 3 weeks– trip to Ireland. Although, truth be told, the excursion was motivated by a desire to add a few more photos to my art reflects body of work.

That mission was accomplished but I was surprised by the fact that a number of art galleries on Rue Saint-Paul Ouest have been replaced by tacky touristy souvenir shops. One such shop was filled entirely with rubber duckies–must have been over 400+ different varieties of them. There is even a Photographer Rubber Duck which, unfortunately, was out of stock in the store but available in their online store.

FYI, weird coincidence; shooting for the first time in a long time with a “real” camera, I made exactly 36 exposures, essentially 1 roll of 35mm film. Another semi-weird occurrence–12 of those images contain evidence of a human presence; something not usually associated with my (so called) “fine art” picture making. I have also come to the conclusion that big city environs are target rich for the making of Saul Leiter-like photographs–quite possibly the only suitable environment.

# 6916-20 / common places-things • around the house ~ one of these things is not like the other

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

STILL MESSING AROUND WITH THE NARROW DEPTH OF FIELD / selective focus thing, both in my head and with my actual picture making.

The in-my-head thing is the question, “what is my picture making intent?” Or, in other words, the why of it; is it just a picture making technique exercise or is there some kind of implied statement, re: the medium and its apparatus, aka: what is a photograph?

The actual-picture-making thing is a question about, not why, but rather about how? In other words, use a “real camera” or the iPhone PORTRAIT mode? I am (currently) leaning toward the “real” camera approach for the simple reason that, with a “real” camera, I can focus manually and that locks in my selected focus plane. Whereas, with the iPhone, the auto focus tends to want to search for a focus plane even after I select an area on the screen.

All of that written, I do like the pictures I have been making while walking around my neighborhood.–fyi, all made with a “real” camera–I especially those pictures like the 2 in this entry with lots of stuff going on, most of which is rendered out of focus. If I were to give this emerging body of work title, it would probably be the Circle of Confusion; a play on the photographic term used in determining depth of field which also plays well with Saul Leiter’s idea ….

“I like it when one is not certain of what one sees. When we do not know why a photographer has taken a picture, and when we do not know why we are looking at it, we discover something that we start seeing. I like that confusion.”

Confusion has always been a definitive part of my photo making especially so from the viewer’s point of view; I can not count the number of times I have heard, confusion-wise, “Why did you take a picture of that?” very often followed by, “I don’t know why I like it, but I do.” Just like Saul Leiter, I do like that confusion and I do believe that my shallow DOF pictures will create some confusion along the lines of what exactly is this a picture of together with why is everything out of focus?

In any event, confusion-wise, it would seem that my picture making, DOF aside, M.O. is the same as it ever was.

#6909-15 / common places-things • kitchen sink • leiterscape ~ two of these things are just like the other things

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST WEEK A LEITER-ESQUE PICTURE MAKING M.O. has thoroughly permeated my picture making activity. So much so that I am carrying around and actually using a “real” camera to make some pictures – something I haven’t done for the better part of 2 years.

Seems kinda weird; ya know, actions like getting the proper exposure by manually adjusting f-stops and shutter speeds or pinpointing a precise plane of focus by rotating a focus ring instead of touching a screen. It sorta makes me wanna go out and buy a stick-shift (a 3 on the steering column) 1965 Ford Falcon with an AM radio with dials for volume and station selection and cranks for rolling down the windows. Ya know what I mean; reengage with a tactile life of actually touching tangible things. That written, I am also surprised at how easily I have adapted my seeing to different picture making paradigm.

Re: using a “real” camera – I have discovered that there are some, although quite rare, picture making situations where the PORTRAIT mode gets, aah …. let’s write, “confused”. The first time that happened I immediately fetched one of my “real” cameras and made the photo with it. Then, just for the hell of it, I pictured a subject I knew would work well with the PORTRAIT mode and then for comparison, made the same picture with my “real” camera. The result was that the two images were remarkably similar.

To wit; the proof is in the puddin’ – two of the Leiter-esque photos in this entry were made with a “real” camera. Wanna venture a guess?

FYI, I have not abandoned full-on DOF picture making ….