around the house / simulated Polaroid / # 3688 ~ just mucking arouund

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I LIKE RUNNING AMUCK WITH MY iPHONE or any other picture making device.

"The cumulative effect of one hundred and thirty years of man’s participation in the process of running amuck with cameras was the discovery that there was amazing amount of significance, historical and otherwise, in a great many things that no one had ever seen until snapshots began forcing people to see them." ~ John Kouwenhoven

FYI, I made pictures with and without the lens flair. The one with the flair looks better to my eye and sensibilities. It fits the snapshot aesthetic rathere well.

civilized ku / around the house/ kitchen life # 3677-79 ~ I'd pay for that

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I HAVE OFTEN THOUGHT THAT, IF a school of higher learning were to create a course of study, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus, which was built solely around multiple volumes of quotes, sans any and all reference to gear and technique, from a wide range of picture makers / critics together with a library of photo monographs from those same picture makers, there just might be a whole lot more interesting pictures to look at.

As an example ...

"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others....The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ JOHN SZARKOWSKI

around the house / kitchen life / single women / # 3668-72 ~ luck is where you find it

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ACCORDING TO MIKE JOHNSTON ON T.O.P. I am "lucky indeed." That's cuz I have the answer to his riddle and cuz I can answer "yes" to the second question...

"What are you happiest making pictures of—what kind of pictures have the highest satisfaction/gratification quotient for you—and do you have access to it? If you know the answer to the first riddle and can say "yes" to the second question, you're lucky indeed."

Re: "the riddle" - What are you happiest making pictures of / what kinds of subject matter? My answer to that question is quite simple inasmuch as, when I first began making pictures, I ignored (without much effort) the standard advice for good picture making which goes along the line of, pick a referent-almost always meaning a person/people, place or thing-that you care about / are interested in and concentrate on making pictures thereof.

This "timeless" advice, iMconsideredo, unfortunately leads many / most to believe that the literal, depicted referent is what a picture is and should be about. Which tends to lead to the impoverished idea that, if a picture is to be considered as beautiful / interesting, it is only because the referent is beautiful / interesting. Which, in turn, leads to, as Johnston points out in the same entry, "motifs [that] are beginning to become almost standardized in photography, as so many people take the same picture over and over again.

Not wishing to belabor the preceding opinion / point, my answer to Johnston's riddle is simple .... my favorite kind of subject matter is any thing and every thing cuz my real picture making interest / subject is the rhythms, the melodies, the harmonies, to include the dissonances that can be seen and found just about everywhere regardless of the actual /literal depicted subject matter.

And, since my favorite "subject matter" can be found / seen just about everywhere, I have constant and seemingly endless "access" to it.

So, I guess I am a very lucky guy indeed.

around the house / kitchen life / kitchen sink / # 3663-67 ~ no thinking required

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

GIVEN THE MEDIUM OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND ITS APPARATUS' intrinsic / inherent relationship with the real world as its primary defining characteristic which distinguishes it from the the other visual arts, it is my considered opinion that, in the digital picture making domain, the medium has moved beyond the creation of images which depict the real world in a "realistic" manner to that of the creation of images which are more hyper-real than real.

That written, and lest anyone think that I believe that the medium and its apparatus has gone to hell in hand basket, I am referring to that segment of the picture making world-camera makers and picture makers-for whom there is never enough rich color / saturation, micro detail, resolution, sharpness and brilliance. All of which are employed in the making of pictures which appear, to my eye and sensibilities, to be more real than real (my apologies to the Tyrell Corporation).

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that this proclivity is solely the product of the digital picture making world inasmuch as, back in the good ol' analog days, one could choose color film / paper products which were designed to exaggerate / distort the real world. Fujichrome Velvia film and Cibachrome color paper come immediately to mind.

In either case, analog or digital, I just don't understand the desire to subvert the medium's primary characteristic. However, I might suggest that those who go down that road seem to lack the imagination / creativity to make good pictures within the "constraints" of adhering to the real as opposed to slathering the real with a cheap-trick veneer of art sauce.

natural world / around the house / # 3660-62 ~ for your eyes only

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ART DOESN'T NEED A SUBJECT. iMconsideredO, content is antithetical to the art aesthetic and it is form that opens the gateway to the rapture of the art experience. Consequently, I would rather view a piece of art that makes me want to puke than one which makes me want to think* about it, i.e. to discern meaning (aka: content). However...

....lest I get carried away, I can not ignore the fact that, inasmuch as I navigate the art-waters of the medium of photography, my art making endevours are inexorably liked to real-world referents. That is the intrinsic nature of the beast. And, especially so with the medium of photography, what is depicted is most often linked to a picture's content, aka: meaning.

Fortuntely for me and my picture making, I am (seemingly) preternaturally drawn to making pictures of 'nothing" or, more accurately, nothing of any great visual significance. That is fortunate inasmuch as the depicted referent is unlikely, for those atuned to it, to get in the way of seeing the artistic sensibility / characteristics, the intended content of my pictures, employed in the making of my pictures.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, that is just the way I see it.

* which does not mean that a picture I view might not incite thoughts. Although, most of those thoughts are descriptive of the emotion(s) which the picture might have incited in me.

around the house / #3658-60 ~ cleaning up

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

A FEW DAYS BACK, I STARTED WRITING AN ENTRY that addressed Stephen McAteer's question:

"...do you have any posts outlining how you get such natural colours in your pictures?...My own photographs tend to be over-saturated as they come out of the camera. I would much rather have naturalistsic colour rendition like yours."

However, as I was plugging along on it, I realized that I was writing a long-winded how-to tutorial of how I get to my color look. A process which is very dependent upon my very specific workflow and tools that may or may not have any relevance to anyone else. So, what follows is more of an overview which I hope will be more helpful.

Let's start with a few lines form Paul Simon's song Kodachrome:

They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah

Back in the good ol' days of film, picture makers had lots of color film choices. And each one of those choices came a film makers' idea of what color should look like, even to the point where individual film makers had multiple color film offering, each with a different idea of how color should look. Not to mention the difference between how transparency film and color negative film dealt with color.

My choice in the analog era-for my personal picture making-was always a Kodak color negative film which was biased toward "natural" or "neutral" color rendition. That's cuz I wanted my pictures to represent, as close as the medium could produce, color that looked like what my eyes perceived in the real world. The fact that color negative film also delivered, compared to transparency film, a greater dynamic range-with wonderful soft highlight rendition-was an added bonus.

In any event, the look I obtained from using a neutral / natural color negative film became the look I came to, dare I write, love. And, it is also the look that I strive to achieve in my digital era picture making. I think of it as my embedded-in-my-head/eye baseline.

Moving on ... the key to obtaining natural color is to first identify the color "bias" of the picture making device you use. There are probably a number of techincal means-involving expensive equipment and software mastery-of doing so. Then there is the non-technical seat-of-your-pants manner of doing so which only involves your eyes and some messing round with Photoshop and a reasonably calibrated monitor.

HINT: most picture making device makers create color engines which tend to be biased toward a warmish color rendition with a bit of color saturation thrown into the mix, i.e. warm(ish) "rich" color. Hey, why not, cuz who does not like the world to have "nice bright colors" and look like all that world is "a sunny day"? Based on that observation, I find that I do most of my color "correction"-in pursit of natural-like color-in the yellow and red color channels.

In my specific picture making world, I have found that I need a just a bit more adjustment (reduction) in the Y segment of the B channel than in the A channel (also a reduction). Although, in some images, I find I only need to make the B channel adjustment. In making just these 2 relatively minor adjustments, it is amazing how natural-like all of the color in an image becomes.

In it also important to note that ALL processing for contrast / tonal adjustments be made on the LIGHTNESS channel in LAB color space. Making those adjustments on the RGB curve line will effect the color in an image as well. Not so with the LIGHTNESS channel.

Once again, I should point out that my color processing is performed with Photoshop using, almost exclusively, the CURVES tool in conjunction with the INFO window. That processing is always performed on individual color channels, NEVER on the RGB curve line. And, my normal processing adjustments are usually made on the A and B channel in LAB Color Space. NOTE: I never use the Hue/Saturation tool over than, after mking my color adjustments, I will now and again use the tool to reduce overall saturation by just a smidge.

The one adjustment function for which I do use RGB color space is the first adjustment I make-if I deem it needed-on an image. Step 1 is to identify the highest value (closest to 250 in the INFO window) hightlight in an image, one that I want to appear as a clean neutral white. Then on each individual color channel, I adjust each channel to be equal (as seen in the INFO window), as in 250R / 250G / 250B. Then, step 2, keeping the same CURVES window open, I find the lowest value shadow (closest to 10) that I want to appear as a clean neutral black, then I adjust each channel to be equal (as seen in the INFO window), as in 10R / 10G / 10B.

At this point, the CURVE line shoud still be a straight line. If that is so, just by adjusting the highest and lowest color values to equal, as incredible as it might seem, all of the color values along the CURVE line will be as "clean" as they can be, given the overall color bias of a devices' color engine. It is at this point, I move on to making my correct-the-devices-color-bias adjustments (R and Y) in LAB color space.

As mentioned, all of this image processing is based on the use of the CURVES tool + INFO window in Photoshop or some other processing software which has a CURVES tool and allows for processing in LAB color space. Using CURVES may seem like rocket science to some but, if so, there are a zillion simple tutorials out there that do a good a job of demonstrating the use thereof.

That's it folks. Hope this was helpful.

landscape / around the house # 3652-54 ~ waiting for rain

in Nova Scotia ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3rd

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

INCREASINGLY I FIND MYSELF BEING DRAWN TO MAKING pictures which are without any apparent center of attention / featured referent. Which, by extension, would seem to suggest that those pictures have no particular meaning or considered intent. That, quite simply, they are, just pictures.

However, don't be fooled. I am making these pictures with a very well considered intent to convey a concept, or, if you will, a "meaning". And, be advised that my head is working at explaining the intent / meaning-without having to delve into arcane / obtuse artspeak gibberish-of the concept driving this work.

More to come.