# 6541-46 / common places-things • around the house • kitchen sink ~ an alternate reality

November 19, 2024

FOR THE BETTER PART OF 2 DECADES I HAVE been making square format photographs. With either a real camera or the iPhone, my picture making procedure has been the same; set the picture making screen view to square and make the picture, open full frame RAW file in PS and crop to square in exactly the center of the image which yields an image exactly as I saw it on the screen of my picture making device. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Somewhere along the way-about 18 months or so ago-the monkey wrench gang sneaked into the room and, as is the wont, threw a wrench into the works; i.e. I began to notice that the full frame image suited my eye and sensibilities as much as the square version. In a perplexing manner, both aspect ratios seemed to “work”-differently but, oddly, the same.

The oddness steams from the fact that, in almost every case, the additional image information-top and bottom or left and right (depending on camera orientation)-”fits” perfectly, to my eye and sensibilities, into the picture. I find that very disconcerting inasmuch as that information was not visible on the viewing screen in situ. A fact that throws the traditional picture making adage-”compose”, aka: what to include/ exclude in the frame, carefully-right out the window. Or, at least, right out of my window.

A part of what I am enjoying(?) about this revelation is that the additional visual information creates an image that comes as a bit of a surprise. A pleasant surprise to be exact. That said, it leads to an interesting question; would I have achieved the same result if I had been viewing the in situ scene with the viewing screen set to a full frame view? …. answer: don’t know and probably never will cuz sure as hell I ain’t gonna changes horses in midstream.

Might be time for a photo book titled alternate realities - square format on one page, full frame on the adjoining page.

# 6537-40 / common places-things • landscape ~ it's like an itch, when ya feel it ya gotta scratch it

November 13, 2024

THE NY TIMES HAS AN ONGOING SERIES CALLED The 10 Minute Challenge which challenges the reader to look, uninterrupted, at a single piece of art-to date, no photographs-for 10 minutes. During that time the viewer has the ability to zoom in/out in order to explore details. The viewer can stop at any time and a timer will let him/her know how long was spent viewing the picture. There is no penalty for not completing 10 minutes. Upon the termination of viewing, an art “expert” steps in and writes about/comments on the picture.

The commentary does yield up a few interesting bits and pieces, put they invariably veer off into art-school “lectures” which break down / disassemble the art piece into individual visual components in order to “explain” to the viewer how the art piece “works”. For the mechanically inclined, I guess this makes sense. For those who prefer the experience and sensations of viewing art, not so much.

An example of “experience and sensations” v. “mechanically inclined”: I would suggest that the difference can be explained by my approach to automobiles; the wife and I have 3 “drivers” cars; cars with exceptionally good handling-one has a track-tuned suspension-which means they handle the twisty bits at speed with composure and precision, aka: no fuss, no muss. They just drive and feel-the synchronous connection between car, driver, and the road-right. That written, I have very little interest in how, mechanically, it all comes together cuz I primarily care about the experience and sensations of driving those cars.

FYI, I especially enjoy, when driving the track-tuned car with my best friend as passenger, I can drive (literally) him through the twisty bits right up to edge of where the uninitiated tend to soil themselves.

Moving on, I accepted the 10 minute challenge for Edward Hopper’s painting, Manhattan Bridge Loop. and made it through to the 10 minute mark. While I did zoom in 2-3x to view a few details, I primarily viewed the piece in its entirety letting my eyes wander around the piece exploring various points of interest that caught my attention. I enjoyed my time with the painting. Time well spent, although, having spent time viewing a number of Hopper’s paintings-most notably Nighthawks-I can write that, staring at it on a screen is a far cry from seeing it on a wall.

Next up, I read the commentary which was complete with multiple images of the picture with the perfunctory lines and shapes drawn across/on its surface to…I don’t know…make sure that stupid people “understand” the picture and that painters use lines and shapes in constructing their work? I guess this annoys me so much cuz it‘s a kissing cousin to the advice you get from photo “experts” on the subject of how to “master” composition.

On the positive side, re: the commentary, it included these words from Mr. Hopper, himself:

Mr. Hopper wrote that he was primarily interested in the “vast field of experience and sensation. Form and color and structure were the tools he used to express those ideas….Why I select certain subjects rather than others, I do not exactly know, unless it is that I believe them to be the best mediums for a synthesis of my inner experience,….So much of every art is an expression of the subconscious, that it seems to me most all of the important qualities are put there unconsciously, and little of importance by the conscious intellect.…But these are things for the psychologist to untangle.

The highlighted part of Hopper’s words support, iMo, my belief that most of great art is created, not by thoughts, but by feelings. Think too much about it and yer gonna fuck it up. Ya gotta feel it when yer makin’ it. Loosen up and let it all hang out. If ya wanna think about it, think about it later.

It was Joel Meyerowitz who wrote:

“I connect to things in a visceral way…The camera is a reflex for me, it rises to my eye and opens up to take in that thing out there-sensation, feeling, cohesive elements that appear in front of me. It is a way of matching and absorbing the response I have to the world. It captures my consciousness and, later, this allows me to read my consciousness back like a text and understand my relationship to things or moments.”

In any event, if you have a subscription to the NY Times, I recommend the challenge. If not, why not click on one of my pictures and spend 10 minutes with it?

# 6534-36 / commpn places-things • folliage ~ some men follow their junk

November 10, 2024

RECENTLY, OVER ON T.O.P. , THE TOPIC OF “the most interesting photographer in history” was raised. To define that phrase M. Johnston went on to write, “Interesting meaning fascinating or thought provoking, in any aspect—personal lives, significance, ideas and attitudes, accomplishments, whatever.” Stated that way, I had very little interest inasmuch as I have no curiosity, re:what someone who makes pictures has for breakfast or if that someone picks his/her nose or who might literally, run around in little circles from dawn to dusk. The only saving grace in that descriptor was the inclusion of “significance” and “ideas.”

Having written all that, I can state that the primary interest I have with any photographer is the pictures he/she make or have made. The only interest I might otherwise have, is bit of background on what drove him/her, if applicable, to pick up photography and, minus any art-speak, what he/she believes he/she is trying to accomplish with their work. However, that would only interest me if I found his/her photographs interesting.

So, in any event, I thought, just for giggles and grins, that I would enlighten my readers with my list of photographers who. iMo / to my eye and sensibilities, make interesting photographs…

THE SIGNIFICANT: In a class by themselves, Shore, Eggleston, Meyerowitz, Adams (Robert), Frank. These guys radically changed the idea of what can be photographed and what constitutes a good photograph like no other photographer before them.
THE QUIRKY: Joel-Peter Witkin, Diane Arbus, Martin Parr, Weegee, Paula Klaw.
THE VENERATED: Evans, Stieglitz, Weston, Margaret Bourke White, Porter, Bresson.
THE ONE AND ONLY: Maier

In my personal photobook library, re: Photographer Monographs, I have at least one-in some cases 2 or more-book of each of the above named “interesting photographers”. That written, I have many other monographs by photographers whose work I admire. However, they tend to fall in one or another of the 1-3 categories listed above and I felt that those listed are more than enough for anyone to figure out the kinds of photographs I find interesting.

***Burtynsky is one of my favorites*** (embiggenable)

FYI, a photobook I would emphatically recommend is Photo-wisdom ~ Master Photographers on Their Art;

Through the extraordinary images and insights of 50 of the world's master photographers, Photo-wisdom explores the richness of contemporary photographic practice. Photo-wisdom features commentaries from original interviews with world-leading photographers alongside exquisite reproductions of key images chosen by the artists themselves.The result is an unprecedented collection of 200 images showcasing each master photographer's work and their unique voice. ~ from publisher’s description

Then there’s this review-written by a woman-a customer on a used book site:

“It's big, it's beautiful, it's full of photos... but is it really full of wisdom? And if not, do we care? ….there's a lot to learn and a lot to love even if you never read a word of the accompanying first-person essays (mostly taken from interviews). But I do love reading that some photographers rely on luck, some make elaborate plans, and some let their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks.”

Keep in mind that “contemporary photographic practice “ is c. 2010, when the book was published and also note that the 50 photographers presented range from award-winning photojournalists to celebrity shooters; from politicized environmentalists to elusive artists; from timeless veterans to new visionaries; and from great storytellers to the makers of lasting icons. iMo, the diversity of the practitioners is what makes the book especially interesting.

In any event, the book is highly recommended and it can be found on a variety of used book sites (including Amazon) for very reasonable prices. I purchased my copy in 2012 in an upscale, small storefront, used book store on 2nd Ave. in the East Village NYC. Over a couple decades I visited the store 2-3x a year. It had a photobook section of ever-changing titles in near like-new condition at quite reasonable prices. Not that I am counting, but it is possible that half or more of photobook collection came from this store. Unfortunately, it closed a bout 10 years ago.

FYI, it should be evident from my discursive promiscuity approach to picture making that I am a photographer who-according to the woman reviewer quoted above-falls into the picture-making group that lets their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks…guilty as charged.

# 6527-32 / common places • common things ~ I don't miss dust, scratches, or chemicals

November 1, 2024

SO, IT APPEARS THAT M. JOHNSTON WILL BE writing about “film photography”, over time with multiple installments. As far as my visits to TOP go, it will just be more stuff that I barely glance at-way too much O(ff)T(opic) as it already is.

But, then again, I never really considered TOP to be a site about photography. That is, about the medium itself and its and apparatus (practices, conventions, aka: the functional processes by means of which a systematized activity is carried out ). And FYI, to be clear, I do not consider entries about gear-cameras, lenses, computers, and other hardware-to be about photography. That’s cuz I’m sorta like Paul Strand, who, when asked about the importance / significance of his work, answered:

“My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.”

In other words, it is all about the photographs, aka: picture(s). It is not about how the picture was made or what gear was used to make it; that’s all just “serious” amateur hobbyist claptrap. And, to sound a bit snarky, photographs are in very short supply on TOP.

But I digress; if M. Johnston is serious about reaching the “youngsters” who are messing around with making images on film, he’s not gonna make it unless he stops writing and starts talking. Ya know, Vlogging, cuz the photo pipsqueaks out there, according to those in the know, do not read anymore.

That written, I also question the idea of how much-aside from nostalgia-is there out there to be written about the making of photographs with the use of film. I ask that question even though I come from over 40 years of making photographs (with the use of film) and making color and BW prints (in the wet darkroom). And, it’s also worth noting that, to this very day, I continue to believe that the pinnacle of color print making is a C print made from an 8x10 color negative; I made plenty of those and I can identify such a print from a mile away.

And while I’m at it, let me pick another nit; I do not believe that there is such a thing as “film photography”. That’s cuz, in my mind and to my way of thinking, there is only photography, aka: the act of making a photograph. Simply put for simple minds, one may make a photograph using any kind of equipment or light sensitive receptor but the end result is still, simply stated, a photograph….like, ya know, I do not make iPhone photographs; I do make photographs using an iPhone but, that written, the result is a photograph.

All of that written, I wish M. Johnston well in his “film photography” blogging endeavor.

BONUS PICTURE FROM LAST EVENING

My iPhone was turned off, sitting on the arm of my Westport Adirondack chair; I picked it up, hit the Camera Control button, which instantly turned on the camera app, and the I hit the button again-click (shutter release noise)…. and there you have it. Maybe 3 seconds from start to finish. Amazing. Apple got that control right.

FYI, no flash, just my porch light.

# 6523-26 / landscape • autumn ~ change is a-comin'

October 28, 2024

JUST SOME PICTURES FROM my neighborhood. Stick season is coming and some white stuff has been comin’ and goin’ at higher elevations. Gotta get my winter backpacking gear together cuz I promised myself that I would- while I still can-spend a few days and nights in the back country this winter.

# 6520-22 / common places/things • autumn ~ take some Extra Strength Tylenol and call me in the morning

October 22, 2024

A COMMENT FROM DENNIS ON my last entry:

“…what set you off this time? Just because it worked for you don't mean jack for anyone else. Falling Water is lovely but falling down…”

Cannot imagine what, in my last entry, caused Dennis to experience a “migraine inducing eyeroll”. That written, let me pass on my condolence. Hope you feel better. In any event, I thought I should respond to his “riptose” on 2 counts; re: Fallingwater (1 word, not 2), and, re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else”.

re: Fallingwater - fun fact, Fallingwater is not falling down. Nor was it in eminent danger of falling down. In 1995 it was determined that the concrete cantilevered balconies were insufficiently reinforced. What a surprise (sarcasm alert). Who could have guessed that a structure-an untested, never-before attempted, never-imagined construction technique, using materials available at that time-built 60 years prior might just need a bit of additional reinforcement? In any event, in 2002 additional reinforcement was installed leaving Fallingwater's interior and exterior appearance unchanged and the original construction engineering intact.

re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else” - I have no idea if the topics and/or ideas and opinions expressed on this blog have any meaning, applicability, or value to anyone else (other than M). And, I most emphatically make it known that, with my liberal and continued use of the acronym, “iMo”-note that M is both bold and italicized-I am not writing ex cathedra. So, Dennis, please accept my thanks for pointing out the obvious.

And, speaking of the obvious, I would never suggest that what works for me would necessarily work for anyone else cuz, ya know, statistically, half the population is below average.

# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

October 21, 2024

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.

# 6504-08 / common places • common things ~ in the eye of the beholder

October 6, 2024

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED A VERMONT based gallery-PhotoPlace [GALLERY] (link)-that conducts, per their website, “monthly, juried photographic exhibitions to photographers worldwide, each with a new topic and internationally recognized juror”. Their current juried exhibition’s theme is The Poetry of the Ordinary; a theme that is right up my alley.

Over the years I have submitted photos for many of their monthly exhibitions and am pleased to report that on 12-15 occasions (I have not kept count) my work has been accepted for the gallery exhibitions. Considering that there are usually 3-4K worldwide submissions per exhibtion, that is a reasonable accomplishment. In any event, I will be submitting work for the current call for entries which states:

As photographers, we have developed skill in seeing beneath the surface of our subjects, and often find in them the beauty, poignancy, and poetry that exist in ordinary moments. For this exhibition, we seek the simple poetic elegance of the ordinary.

As I wrote, that statement seems to be right up my alley. However….depending upon the juror, he/she might have a very different understanding on the word “ordinary”. For instance, in the 3 example photos on call for entries page, is the spreader in the mist/fog ordinary, or, is the runner with the broom in the smoke(?) ordinary? ….

…..to my and sensibilities, I think not. Inasmuch as the runner himself and the spreader itself are rather ordinary, the circumstances in which they are pictured is seems to be very much out of the ordinary. Of course, what I think doesn’t matter but someone-the juror? the gallery director?-thinks otherwise. And that situation- a differing definitions of what constitutes the ordinary-makes me think my pictures of the ordinary might not be what fits the bill.

Then there is, for me, the idea of “seeing beneath the surface”-an adage / concept that has been bandied about the medium seemingly forever. And, it is a concept about which I am very uncertain, re: what the hell does that mean? I am fairly certain it does not mean that one should elevate / pick up one’s subject to see what’s underneath it. Nor do I believe that it implies that one is making pictures with an x-ray device.

Wise comments aside, the phrase when used as a proposition means: aspects of it-one’s nominal photographic subject-which are hidden or not obvious. That is a meaning which I can embrace-with caveats-cuz in my photographs I try to capture and express something about what I picture that is not obvious to the casual observer-the “hidden”, aka: unseen in situ, but can be made “obvious” in a photograph, aka: form.

The primary caveat I have about making a photograph that is about something hidden or not obvious is that, in my case, I am not photographing something, the referent, which I or most anyone would consider to be, in and of itself, beautiful, poignant, or poetic. Rather, my intent to is to make a object, i.e. a photograph, that, in and of itself, may be considered to beautiful, poignant, or poetic.

Consider the referent in the photos in this entry. No one I can think of believes that, as an example, my kitchen trash can, stove, and floor are beautiful, poignant, or poetic in and of themselves. However, I do believe-please forgive my self-aggrandizing opinion of my work-that the photograph thereof and the form it presents is a beautiful photograph, in and of itself. Or, at the very least, visually interesting. Of course, I am also comfortable with the fact that other viewers may not agree.

All of that written, I can only hope that the juror of the exhibition will agree that one of pictures fits the bill.