# 6612-15 / common things • street photography ~ touchy, touchy

June 20, 2023

PROCRASTINATION IS THE WORD OF THE WEEK. Since returning from Portugal, my mind, photography projects-wise, has been overloaded; processing, organizing and printing Portugal pictures, acquiring and messin’ around with the Instax printer and thinking about what I want to do with it, and what should be at the top o’ the heap - finalizing the work (and getting it out the door) on my Adirondack Survey Project.

The net result of all that mental muddle has been a bit of slacking off, blog entry-wise. However, over the past week there has been a bit of a preoccupation on a few sites, re: street photography. It seems like a bit of a contagion spreading from on site to another. So…

…the prime irritant which got me infected with the bug was a bit of a snit-ty entry from my annoyingly favorite Texas-based gearhead obsessive who is prone to getting a bit testy when his non-commercial, aka “personal”, photography bonafides are called into question. In this case, it seems that another blogger (unnamed) opined that the Texan’s pictures, those self-described as “street'“ photography, are not street photography at all. This poke at the hornet’s nest send the Texan into a snit that resulted in a throw spit-balls at the wall and see what sticks exercise. The spit-balls were a very large number of pictures, some of which had the “look” of street photography, others not so much.

That written, it is not my intention to get into the are-they-or-ain’t-they street photography fracas. My intent is to get off my chest, once and for all, my opinion that the work in question and, or for that matter, and / all of the non-commercial pictures posted by the Texan exhibit not single shred of a coherent picture making vision. And, when confronted with a similar assessment-which he has been-his defense is that his site is a gear review site, not an “art” site.

Well, iMo, he just blew that defense to smithereens. If his posting of his cluster-fuck / poorly edited street photography is not an attempt to bolster his non-commercial picture making creds, then-as his entry states-”we’re all delusional” and so is he.

All of the above written, what this street photography contagion has caused me to do is spend some time processing some of my Portugal street photography pictures to monochrome and present them in a new WORK page gallery. Have a look and let me know what you think of it.

PS more on street photography-specifically, Mike Johnston’s Tips For Photographing in Public-in my next entry. And, the bathroom picture in this entry is the bathroom in a our Porto, Portugal hotel room. I want to replicate it in our house.

# 6350-52 / common places • common things ~ I'm a shooter

December 6, 2022

I'm a shooter

he's a shooter she's a shooter we're all a shooter
aren’t you happy to be a shooter too?

I AM BEGGINING TO COBBLE TOGETHER A FEW words, re: the introduction essay, for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures project / book. The above words-tip o’ hat to the early Dr. Pepper I’m a Pepper tv commercial jingle-are the leading candidate for the essay title.

The use of the word shooter derives from the aforementioned mentioned-a previous entry-interaction with a young hipster-body jewelry, “cool” hair style + color, et al-bartender in an upscale restaurant bar who asked me if I was a “shooter”. I was confused-was she asking if I wanted a shot of bourbon? was I packing heat? Noting my confusion, she pointed out that she had noticed my cap with the KODAK logo. Thus informed of that, it gave me license to answer that, “Yes. I’m a shooter.”

Apparently the younger generation thinks it cool to be a shooter. That being the case, for purposes of the book, it’s good enough for me.

Re: we’re all a shooter - OK. I get it. Not everyone is a shooter inasmuch as not everyone has a picture making device, However, with the fact that 1.7 trillion pictures are made / taken (whatever) a year and that there are 8 billion humans on the planet, the average number of pictures per human is 125 per year. And, this might be a bit of a surprise, 92.5% of pictures are made with a picture making device which can also be used to make a phone call. Only 7% are made with a “real” camera.

FYI, while the book will have some facts, figures, history, re: picture making, the emphasis will be on how, as the result of the ease of making “good” pictures-i.e. sharp, correctly exposed, referent in focus and the like-the boundaries of what can be pictured and how it can be pictured has expanded like never before.

# 6282-84 / common places • common things ~ that is not what I mean

October 12, 2022

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy.” ~ Susan Sontag

“Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the eye traffics in feelings, not thoughts.” ~ Walker Evans.

THE IDEA OF MEANING, RE: AS AN INTRINSIC CONSTRUCT TO BE found in a photograph, has been kicking about the photo sphere of late. So I thought I would contribute my 4 cents (inflation) to the conversation.

Simply written, I do not believe that most photographs have any meaning(s). Hence, my use of the 2 quotes found on the top of this entry. To wit, “photographs…cannot themselves explain anything”, and, …”the eye traffics in feelings, not thoughts.”

Consider this from Susan Sontag:

“The fact is, all Western consciousness of and reflection upon art have remained within the confines staked out by the Greek theory of art as mimesis or representation. It is through this theory that art…becomes problematic, in need of defense. And it is the defense of art which gives birth to the odd vision by which something we have learned to call “form” is separated off from something we have learned to call “content,” and to the well-intentioned move which makes content essential and form accessory…it is still assumed that a work of art is its content. Or, as it's usually put today, that a work of art by definition says something.”

To be perfectly clear, I am a joyous sensualist and proud of it. My photographs are meant to display / celebrate the the joy / pleasure of seeing. That’s cuz photography is a visual art. Consequently, I have devoted my picture making to the Art of Observation…

”…the matter of art in photography may come down to this: it is the capture and projection of the delights of seeing; it is the defining of observation full and felt.” ~ Walker Evans

While there are a zillion essays, treatises, and dissertations regarding “content”, aka: what a piece of art says, the cynic in me-or is it the realist in me….I get the 2 confused at times-thinks that it all comes down to one thing; the idea of imbuing art with meaning came about cuz artists want the populous to believe that making art is difficult, all in the cause of covering up the fact that making art is a fun / pleasurable undertaking.

I mean, ya know, how can anyone take art seriously if it comes about from artists just having fun?

Me. I just try to keep it simple and always remember the words of Yogi Berra:

“You can observe a lot by just watching.”

# 6238-40 / landscape • common places ~ b + w + some gray stuff in between

September 8, 2022

…”flat, leaden skies, intermittent rain. Damp and dark. And dull.” ~ Mike Johnston

IMO, IF YOU ARE GONNA DO MONOCHROME, you must embrace the world in all its weather glory cuz, to paraphrase Paul Simon, all the world's not a sunny day, oh yeah. And I might add, iMo, if you can’t make a rainy, cloudy day look like more than dull, maybe monochrome ain’t your calling.

Then again, I am not a monochrome guy, so what the hell do I know about it?

FYI, BW conversion in Photoshop / LAB Color Space.

6222-26 / common places-things • kitchen sink • rist camp ~ deception

August 28, 2022

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” ~ Robert Adams

This Robert Adams quote has always held my attention inasmuch as it kinda, sorta skirts around the edges of my picture making intentions. My eye and sensibilities are unquestionably pricked by the commonplace and the avoidance of the grand geste (picture making wise) but, I can not write that I fully embrace the idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

To put a finer point on that idea, iMo, there is not a lot in the commonplace world that is visually beautiful in and of itself. However, within the domain of picture making, much of the commonplace world contains visual fodder for the making of beautiful things, “things” being photographic prints which give to evidence to finely seen and pictured form.

That written, while there are some who can see an actual blade of grass and perceive / feel / experience the every-thing-is-connected beauty underlying the universe, it is probable that they might not experience the same thing while gazing at a rather mundane picture of that same blade of grass.

By the same token, I also believe that many viewers, looking at a picture of that same blade of grass which-in its totality across its visual plane-evidences a depiction of a finely seen sense of form, might be incited to exclaim, “That is beautiful.” However, is the viewer remarking on the blade of grass itself or the depiction thereof? I wonder cuz, without a doubt, the blade of grass and the depiction of it are most definitely not the same “thing.”

All of that written, I am still faced with the is-beauty-commonplace question. And, the best answer I have been able to come up with is that, no, within the context of the real world, beauty is not commonplace. However, within the context of picture making, the commonplace is rife possibilities for coaxing beauty from the seeming rubble of the mundane.

# 6210-13 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ qoutidian ubiquity

August 19, 2022

FORTUNATELY, RE; MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, IT SEEMS that no matter where I go are there is always a kitchen sink and kitchen garbage.

On a different topic, I have been avoiding getting caught up in the monochrome sensor GAS” discussion”. That’s primarily cuz I do not think that my thoughts on the matter would be all that well considered.

First and foremost, I admit to not being much of a BW-oops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making guy. That’s cuz, for the most part, I believe that BW picture making is a curse on the medium and its apparatus.

Think of it this way…with the exception of cave dwellers, virtually all painting was created using color...ASIDE Sure, sure. With the advent of the printing press, illustrations were presented with the use of just black ink, BUT, even then some illustrators were given to hand coloring the printed illustrations. And, BTW, for the purpose this discussion, etchings and woodcuts are not paintings. END OF ASIDE…So when color dyes / paint became available, painters took to it like ducks to water. Without too much assumption, one could surmise that they adopted color materials cuz they were exceedingly more expressive and representative of the real world. And, fortuitously, they were never burdened by the need to break out of or revert to a BW painting legacy.

The medium of photography and its apparatus were born and wedded to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures and continued to be so bound until the 1936 introduction of Kodachrome film. ASIDE Sure, sure. Prior to 1936, there were a number attempts to create the means for making color photographs but they came and went in fairly short order. END OF ASIDE However, even with the advent of commercially available color film, “serious” photographers remained committed to using BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-film and, of course, making BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-prints.

Re: the curse - that BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-legacy has attached itself to the medium and its apparatus like fleas on a mangy dog. Consequently, those picture makers who cling to it today, in a manner similar to a deeply held religious belief, are given to uttering, in defense of their precious process, such ludicrous nonsense as it is easier to see and capture form or a person’s inner essence without the “distraction” of color. Nonsense.

ASIDE To be certain, if BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making is your thing, have at it unto your heart’s content. While, I appreciate much of the classic BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-work of the picture making masters, I just do not see the need for it any more. END OF ASIDE

Re: my second thought on BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making…the current practitioners of that genre seem to be hung up on the idea the only good BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures are those made the analog way, aka: using film or some digital facsimile thereof. In their quest for such a facsimile, they have landed on the idea of monochrome sensors as if those sensors create are more “pure” BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-files than converting a color image file to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome.

That notion is something that I can not wrap my head around inasmuch as, in the digital color>BW conversion domain, there is such a variety of conversion techniques / options that the picture maker has the capability to create any “look” imaginable for his/her pictures. Apparently, the current crop of BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures makers do not like the digital conversion process cuz-here’s the curse again-that’s not the way it was always done.

And, please stop already with the ridiculously absurd idea that “seeing” in BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-is easier / better when the image on the camera screen / viewfinder is BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome. That’s akin to saying Evans, Adams (both), Weston, Frank, and all the others who came before the advent of a digital BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome sensor would have somehow had an easier time of making pictures-perhaps even “better” pictures-if only they had a Leica Q2 Monochrom (or whatever the current fan boy monochrome-there, I got it right-sensor camera may be)? Once again, nonsense.

PS the BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture in this entry was converted from a color image file by first converting it to LAB Color Space then isolating the Lightness Channel by discarding the A and B Channels. At that point, I convert the file to RGB Color Space and then make minor adjustments, global and local, to taste using the Curves tool in PS.