# 6459-62 / people • foilage • sink • picture window ~ philistinish pleasures

645 medium format camera / transparency film ~ all photos ~ (embiggenable)

µ4/3 / square format

iPhone / square format

iPhone / full frame

8x10 view camera / color negative film

IN A RECENT T.O.P. ENTRY MIKE JOHNSTON prattles on (and on and on and on), re: that whatever a picture maker’s intent, meaning-wise, a viewer will make of it whatever they want, influenced by what mental / emotional makeup he/she brings to the viewing. A postulation which is totally dependent upon the idea that a photograph is capable of possessing / communicating a meaning. An idea that I-and many others-reject.

Unfortunately, iMo, the art world has, over time, reached a point wherein content-what a piece of art “says”-is valued over form-what a piece of art looks like. Me?… I subscribe to K. B. Dixon’s idea that:

“The contemporary fine-art establishment is a coalition of vested interests. They are not doing the medium any favors by relegating the idea of “visual interest” to the scrap-heap of philistinish pleasures. In a photograph, as in a painting, the photographer wants to see something he wants to look at. He does not want some ancillary item—some half-baked idea of intellectual profundity.”

Call me a philistine but I much prefer visual interest in a photograph-or any art form-over “intellectual profundity”. Or, to put in another way, I believe a photograph is meant to be seen, not “read”. I want a photograph to hit me in the eye like big pizza pie cuz that’s amore. If you wanna read, get a book.

I believe Susan Sontag got it right when she wrote:

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy… the very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness.” ~ Susan Sontag

I also think she got right again when she wrote:

“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art. ”

That’s cuz I believe that, if you want to suck the life out of a photograph-or any piece of art-try turning it into words instead of letting it seduce and captivate your visual senses.

FYI the pictures in this entry are meant to represent the fact that there is no “magic” format for creating interesting form. No cropping was employed in processing / editing these photos - full frame only.

#6848-53 / landscape • urban landscape ~ return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

SO, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED…

“Why would a film photographer shoot color?…”

Especially when - according to Mr. Johnston:

Digital color soars way, way past film color… [although] some serious big-city art galleries are still very attracted to large-format (mainly 4x5") color negative film as a medium” ~ Mike Johnston

As a long time picture maker-c.1979-1987-with the use of an 8x10 view camera together with 8x10 color negative sheet film, I believe I am qualified to answer that question….

…in a nutshell, the answer is short and sweet: it is an aesthetic consideration. That is, an aesthetic based upon the look and subsequent “feel “ of prints made with large format color negative film.

To wit, photographs made with large format color negative film are characterized by prints which exhibit soft, subtle tonal transitions, easy on the eye contrast, a “creamy” highlight and shadow presentation, and a very pleasing amount of sharpness and detail. Characteristics which, taken all altogether, yield up, to my eye and sensibilities, what I think of a as very “liquid” visual sensation. For those who are sensitive to such things, this look and feel offers a very attractive alternative to the all too common “hardness / coolness” of most digital-produced work - excessive eye-bleeding sharpness and comparatively rather too-vibrant color properties.

But, here’s the thing…unless you have viewed (I am willing to bet that very few youngins have) as an example, a Meyerowitz print on a gallery wall, my attempt to explain this aesthetic might read as a bit far fetched. Nevertheless, it is a real thing.

And, writing of Meyerowitz, I had a one-on-one conversation with him where we both spent a significant amount of time waxing poetic about our experience with the scanning of our respective 8x10 color negatives and subsequent making of digital prints. The scanning of those original color negatives revealed a significant amount of subtle color, highlight / shadow detail, and resolution that was “hidden” in the enlarger / C print world but was revealed in the digital print making world. That written, the work still exhibited the “classic” look and feel of a C print made from and large format color negative. Meyerowitz exclaimed that he felt as if he was experiencing his work in a somewhat dramatically different manner.

All that written, while I would love to return to making photographs with 8x10 color negative film, it ain’t gonna happen inasmuch as a single sheet of KODAK 8x10 color negative film costs $30US. Add in processing with a 1200dpi scan at $24US a pop and it becomes a very expensive undertaking. Maybe I can apply for a grant.

CAVEAT the scans in this entry of a few of my 8x10 color negatives may or may not, depending on quite a few device viewing variables, get across my point.

# 5883 / life without the APA ~ That wouldn't make you a shallow person would it?

from Life Without the APA body of work ~ (embiggenable) 8x10 view camera + µ4/3

LET ME BEGIN THIS ENTRY WITH A VERSE FROM LYLE LOVETT’S Here I Am song (it will make sense later):

Given that true intellectual and emotional compatibility
Are at the very least difficult
If not impossible to come by
We could always opt for the more temporal gratification
Of sheer physical attraction
That wouldn't make you a shallow person
Would it?

Add to that a link to a Stephen Shore picture, Holden Street, North Adams, Massachusetts. FYI, the street image in my picture in this entry was created long before I was aware of Shore’s picture. Nor was the composite image made with a single thought of imitating Shore’s picture.

OK then, now I can move onto the point of this entry…

I was skimming through a book of Stephen Shore pictures, interviews and commentary when I came across a commentary, re: the aforementioned linked picture, by Joel Sternfeld. The commentary, which ran to 7 pages in length, started as follows:

Stephen Shore’s photograph of a summer morning setting on Holden Street in North Adams, Massachusetts, appears to be a picture replete with dualities, the most obvious being that of town and countryside. The brick commercial buildings bookend a panel of green hills and blue sky as if the entirety were a early Christian altarpiece. The most sacred panel, the center one, contains an image of a deity , which in the secular case turns out to be a wooden building of pure white. The building stands in front of a mountain, a standard symbol of spiritual elevation.

After this “Christian altarpiece, sacred panel, deity, standard symbol of spiritual elevation” Art Major-ish search for meaning, aka: interpretation, Sternfeld-whose pictures I admire-goes on 7 page literary, cultural, architectural, historic, photo theory laden exposition / academic treatise that, iMo and for me, adds little, if anything, to the pure visual senses enjoyment of just looking at the picture. Which is not to write that, for Sternfeld, it does not matter inasmuch as all his interpretation stuff goes to the cause of justifying his appreciation of the picture cuz, without it, it’s just a picture.

Nor am I suggesting that my Life without the APA picture(s)-and pictures like it made by others-do not contain dualities, symbols, cultural / literary references, et al if it is a viewer’s propensity to “see” such things. However, my intent in the making of those pictures was simply to illustrate how the Adirondack forest preserve might look like-and consequently, feel like-without the protection / oversight of the APA. And, in doing so, create pictures which tell that story without requiring that the viewer have a Phd in Art History or Art Theory to “get it”.

In any event, back to Lyle Lovett and the relevance of his lyrics to this entry.

It seems to me that Joel Sternfeld (and others like him who are given to the nearly compulsive desire to discern meaning and interpretation in pictures) needs to find a feeling of “true intellectual and emotional compatibility” with a photograph-a feeling which is “at the very least difficult If not impossible to come by” (for mere mortals)-in order that he not succumb to the temptation of “the more temporal gratification of sheer physical attraction” to a picture and thus descend into the realm of becoming “a shallow person”.

# 5880-82 / landscape (new topographics) ~ staying true to my vision one picture at a time

Adirondacks / Blue Mt. Lake, NY ~ (embiggenable) • Nikon F3 / color negative film

Finger Lakes Region, NY ~(embiggenable) • view camera / color negative film

Rochester, NY ~ (embiggenable) • view camera / color negative film

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH VERY FEW “SERIOUS” PICTURES MAKERS, Adirondack residents wise, (if any) make pictures which make visible the hand of humankind in the Adirondacks. Picture wise, I mean pictures made for display in galleries, et al. Even Adirondack Life Magazine, in its annual Adk Life calendar, selects reader images which, surprise, surprise, evidence only pictures made in the god’s-own-garden genre.

That written, I was honored to have a multi-page-one picture per page-feature spread in Adirondack Magazine. The feature was not an assignment, rather it was of pictures selected from my picture library. I am happy to write that there was not a single god’s-own-garden picture to be seen therein. On a side note, the art director had the courage to use my dead deer in a pickup bed picture. And, lo and behold, the feature was awarded an Award of Merit at the International Regional Magazines Award Event.

You can read about it and see the spreads here.

first spread ~ (embiggenable)

# 5682-86 / miscellania ~ an assortment of "serious" cameras

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) KODAK Tower / 8x10 view camera

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) iPhone

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) µ4/3

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) Nikon F3

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) Polaroid SX-70

IF YOU WANT TO GET ME ALL WORKED UP, just point me to a link on the interweb which contains the phrase "serious camera". Especially so if it is used in a sentence along the lines of the iPhone is not a serious camera".

That written, do not be misled into thinking that this entry is made in defense of the iPhone cuz it is not. Rather, it is about the rather dumb idea that there is such a thing as a "serious camera".

The idea of denigrating certain types of cameras (and the people who use them) got a significant boost with the introduction of the first KODAK. "Serious" picture makers of that era considered the KODAK to be nothing more than a "snap-er's" device which according to a "serious" camera maker's manual stated that "...the photographer whose knowledge has been confined to pressing the button can never hope to make good pictures."

Adding to that thought, Stiegltz opined, "... thanks to the efforts of these persons [the] hand camera and bad work become synonymous." FYI, the "these people" Stieglitz was referring to were "...every Tom, Dick and Harry...[who] without trouble, learn how to get something or other on a sensitive plate." Steichen, on the other had, referred to them as "ye jabbering button-pushers".

In my picture making career, I experienced the not-a-serious-camera prejudice back in the mid-60s when I was handed a Graflex Crown Graphic as the camera for use by a US Army photographer. This dispite the fact that I was stationed in Japan, a country awash in 35mm SLRs. But, of course, those were not "serious cameras". FYI, my ongoing whining and caterwauling eventually led to the acquisition of not 1, but 2, Nikon Fs for my picture making use.

In any event, dispite the fact that the It's-not-a-serious-camera BS willnever die and as you may have deduced, in my picture making world, there are no "serious cameras". There are only good pictures ("serious" pictures?), no matter the picture making device used to make them.

ADDENDUM OK,OK. I wrote that this entry was not conceived as a defense of the iPhone. I still stand by that statement but I would be remiss to not provide a link to the iPhone Photography Awards (2020). Lots of "serious" picture makers making "serious" pictures with a "serious" camera. Be sure to check out each category (at the bottom of the page).

ku # 1425 / civilized ku # 3639 (ku-ish) ~ entre chien et loup and a sunrise

Blue Mountain and fog at sunrise ~ (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera w color negative film

sailboats on Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

Theblue mountain sunrise fog picture is a companion picture to the from Castle Rock picture in my last entry. It was created, after climbing up to Castle Rock and camping the previous evening, next the morning. The fog that blanketed the entire landscape can be seen rolling in the from Castle Rock picture. Both pictures can accurately be described as f8 and be there. or, more precisely, f64 and be there pictures inasmuch as the fog was an unanticipated atmospheric event.

It is also fine example of luck rewarding the prepared. In this case, prepared meant not only an 8x10 view camera, 8x10 film holders, tripod and light meter but also a backpacking stove for a lite supper and breakfast, lantern, sleeping pads and sleeping bags (2 of each as I had my assistant along with me). The luck also included the fact that the fog fell below our perch on Castle Rock.

AN ASIDE: A gallery-crafts + a small room for photography-in Blue Mountain Lake was interested in selling the pictures. I had framed 8x10 contact prints of the pictures which I priced at $250/print. When the gallery owner heard the price, she had second thoughts about hanging them inasmuch at that time, c.1981, the price was quite a bit high for the market.

I convinced her to hang 1 of each. Much to her surprise (and delight), they sold as a set on the first day they were displayed. Needless to write, she wanted more and over time 20>30 sets were sold. The guideboat picture also sold quite well. She was happy and so was I.

FYISome very slight color banding in the sky might be visible. This due to downsampling for the web. The original is silky smooth.

civilized ku # 3637-38 / ku # 1424 ~ let there be light

from Castle Rock ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss w 8x10 color negative film

guideboat ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss w 8x10 color negative film

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

George Eastman opined:

"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography."

iMo, this quote, coming from a guy who employed hundreds of research scientists who knew light and how to make outstanding light sensitive emulsions, can be understood in a number of ways .... Eastman's research department certainly understood, from a technical point of view, that "light makes photography". Those who make pictures came to understand it from an aesthetic point of view and worked to "embrace light" as a pictorial meme employed to enhance a picture's visual impact in ways both subtle and dramatic.

Numbered amongst the light from an aesthethic POV picture makers, there is a subgroup of landscape picture makers who, to my eye and sensibilities, "admire" and "love" the light to the point of being a fetish. These picture makers often describe their picture making activitiy as "chasing the light" and by their definition, the light is that which is both dramatic and colorful or which emphasizes the sturm und drang of the natural world. I have never been a member of this club.

That written, there was a time when I did pursue a particular type of light .... the soft and color subtle light found during the time of day called the gloaming or as-using my favorite descriptor-entre chien et loup (between the dog and the wolf). That picture making time was during the late 70s>mid-80s when I toted one of my 8x10 view cameras about my hometown and the Adirondacks. I did so because, at that time, that was what "serious" fine art color picture makers did.

In order to capture the subtle quality of the light and color, my film of choice was 8x10 Type L (long exposure) color negative film. Even though Type L film was manufactured to compensate for the color reciprocity failure due to long exposures (60-120 seconds), I was pushing the envelope out to 10>20 minute exposure times* due to my use of an f64 aperture setting.

Although I still have my 8x10/4x5 view cameras and lenses, for a variety of reasons those days are gone. Over the last 2 decades, I have increasingly let "the light" chase me and, when it catches me, I make pictures of it. To be honest, I subscribe to a picture making idea best described by Brooks Jensen:

"There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light. There is just light."

*FYI, something I did from time to time, during a 20 minute exposure, was to walk through the scene I was picturing. I never detected any impact on the negative of such activity. I just did it to be a wise ass.

pouporri • civilized ku / ku ~ flogging a dead horse?

Adirondack Guideboat ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY -(embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera

Adirondack Lodge ~ The Hedges / Blue Mt. Lake, NY -(embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera

Sunset from Castle Rock ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY -(embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera

Sunrise from Castle Rock ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY -(embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera

From time to time I come across something, most often something written, which gets me ruminating on a subject, in this case the medium of photography and its apparatus.

Most recently, while searching for something different, I came across a online piece addressing how to make better landscape / nature pictures. In that piece, the author addressed what he considered to be the shortcomings of the "traditional" landscape / nature picture. In a nutshell, a "successful" traditional landscape picture depends upon the primacy of its referent(s) in order to be considered a beautiful picture. In other words, pictures in which dramatic referents are pictured in dramatic light / atmospherics with saturated color a plus.

Here in the Adirondack PARK (it's actually a forest preserve), there are a handful of picture makers dedicated to making "traditional" landscape/nature pictures. In addition to them, there is a continuing flood of legions of "serious" picture makers coming into the region with the same picture making intent. iMo, they are all engaged in making pictures which, to my eye and sensibilities, are all somewhat minor variations on the the same "standard" landscape/nature picture.

Re: my history, re: landscape/nature picture making - my "serious" Adirondack picture making began circa 1980. All of that picture making was accomplished using and 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera with TYPE L (3200K/long exposure) color negative film*. Since my intent was to create very high quality (technically) prints, the use of an 8x10 view camera was a no-brainer, as was the choice of color negative film.

Aesthetically, my intent was to create pictures which fell into the traditional landscape/nature genre albeit with a slight twist ... I limited most of my picture making to that time of day known in some quaters as entre chein et loup, aka: between the dog and the wolf. A time when the sun has set but some daylight lingers on. My referents could also be considered to be of traditional iconic Adirondack stuff.

Judging by the substantial prints sales of those pictures, I apparently it the sweet spot of Adirondack picturing. However, in 1985, I moved to a place far enough away from my then easy access to the Adirondacks and my Adirondack picture making waned almost entirely.

That situation changed in 2000 when I moved to the Adirondack PARK where I now reside. And, over the intervening years, actually decades, something else had changed. I was no longer interested, flogging a dead horse as it were, in making traditional landscape/nature pictures. That is to write that I was no longer interested in making pictures in which the primacy of the referent(s) was the thing. Rather, I was interested in making pictures in which the visual qualities / characteristics, independent of what was depicted, as they appear on the surface of the 2D print are what defines those pictures that are "beautiful".

Quite simply, that is to write, making pictures which, when the image resides on the surface of a print, a thing in and of itself, is considered to be a beautiful object.

That written, I am re-issuing a series of my "vintage" Adirondack pictures. The reason for that is quite simple ... I have recently discovered that there is still (and most likely always will be) a considerable market for such work. So, why not?

FYI, the 2 Castle Rock pictures above were made one evening and the following morning. I stayed on Castle Rock over night along with the 10,000lbs of picture making gear (or so it seemed on the hike up to Castle Rock) needed to make an 8x10 color negative picture. I had no advance notice of the atmospherics which presented themselves, almost on cue. Strickly a case of f45 and be there.

* low light, small aperture (f45, although it might have been f64) and ASA 100, resulted in shutter speed of 20 minutes. Hence TYPE L color negative film which was developed to compensate for the recoprocity effects of long exposure, Although, a 20 minute exposure was severely pushing the boundary of that compensation.