# 5742-46 / kitchen life ~ it's about the eye, not the brain

April 27, 2021

THE PAST FEW DAYS HAVE YIELDED UP A WEALTH of picture making opportunities in my kitchen.

Amongst many things, the light has been nice and interesting (iMo) serendipitous arrangements of things have been popping up here and there. The picturing results, to my eye and sensibilities, are visually very interesting and rather captivating.

That written, I am well aware that, for any number of reasons, these pictures may not be interesting and captivating to many viewers. That's fine with me cuz I am making pictures that suit my eye and sensibilities. Which, unless one has to pander to the masses for the sake of profit (not at all a bad thing), making pictures that suit one's personal vision should be how one goes about making pictures.

In any event, from time to time I do question the idea of what my vision dictates, art sensibility wise, as a good picture. That is, my vision dictates that a good picture (or any art) must, first and foremost, be visually interesting and captivating (regardless of what the depicted referent might be).

That dictate is cuz I believe the best pictures (or any art) should prick the eye, the viewer's visual apparatus, rather than the brain, the viewer's thinking apparatus. Which is to write that I believe that the best art is directed toward sight, aka: seeing, as opposed to "thought", aka thinking.

Or, to break it down even further, when making/ viewing pictures (or any art), I want to "feel" something rather than "think" something.

That doesn't make me a shallow person, does it?

ADDENDUM "Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts." ~ Walker Evans

# 5733-35 / kitchen sink•around the house•civilized ku ~ a truly fuzzy concept

April 20, 2021

NOT LONG AGO THERE WAS A SPATE OF JIBBER JABBER-minus the rapidity-about lenses...the "perfect" portrait lens, corner sharpness, Leica lenses vs every other lens maker in the known photo universe, the ever popular debate about the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image (aka:bokeh), etc./etc....true gearhead / fan boy stuff. However there was one statement*-made by the Mother-Of-All-Gearheads-which caught my attention:

"...the powerful lure of Leica legend always makes me wonder if their lens will supply just that tiny bit more 'edge' or 'magic' that will elevate images and make each image sweeter." ~ he/she who shall remain nameless

To my way of picture making thinking, if a picture maker is wishing for a lens that gives his/her pictures a "bit more edge or magic"/ "sweatness", then, iMo (and experience), that picture maker must be making some pretty lame pictures. Or, as Sir Ansel was said to state:

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

All of that written, that is not write that (portraiture as an example) there are lenses that might be better suited than other lenses for a given use. But even that idea is predicated upon the picture maker's picturing intent. As in, the intent to depict a subject as he/she really is or depict him/her in an idyllic representational manner.

In any event, if one is depending upon lens "magic" to make one's picture(s) "sweeter", iMo, one is relying on a "gimmick" rather than unique personal vision to float his/her boat.

*I use this example, not to denigrate the maker thereof, but rather as an excellent example of lens "magic" thinking.

# 5726-29 / kitchen sink•around the house ~ a little mystification as a relief

April 16, 2021

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED BY MIKE JOHNSTON ON TOP, under the heading of The Way Photographs Should Look, "What way do you like a photograph to look?"

My answer is in 2 parts, albeit in 1 sentence. (1)Since there is no way photographs should look, (2)who gives a rat's ass how anyone but the picture maker cares about how his/her photographs look.

Although it is worth noting that many a viewer of photographs have expressed how he/she would like another picture maker's photographs to look. You know what I mean ... the ubiquitous statement, "I wish he/she _______ " (insert directive of your choice, as in, cropped the scene differently, added more/less saturation or more/less contrast, etc.).

If you really want to know how someone thinks a picture should look, ask him/her to show you some of their pictures. And, if he/she does so but also starts to explain with words how they think a picture should look, tell him/her to shut the f... up cuz his/her pictures should "say" all there is to "say" about the subject.

In the 3 picture panel below, aka: triptych, there are 2 pictures which reflect my straight approach to making picture and how I like them to look. The 3rd picture has a bit of art sauce applied, which is not normally my cup o' tea. However....

"We got tired of the sameness of the exquisiteness of the photograph . . . [referring to the exact rendition of detail which is all-revealing.] Why? Because the photograph told us everything about the facts of nature and left out the mystery. Now, however hard-headed a man may be, he cannot stand too many facts; it is easy to get a surfeit of realities, and he wants a little mystification as a relief..." ~ Henry Peach Robinson

# 5720-25 / flora•around the house ~ inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy

April 14, 2021

PICTURE MAKING WISE, I AM, WITHOUT A DOUBT, A DEVOTEE OF facts clearly described...

"There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I like to think of photographing as a two way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing it as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." ~ Garry Winogrand

...but, nevertheless, I believe that a clearly described fact, as described by a photograph, can, in the best of cases, introduce a fair amount of mystery. Even if the intial mystery is simply incited by nothing more than a feeling of, "it is a mystery to me why the picture maker made this photograph." However, once a viewer gets beyond that "mystery" (if she/he can), there remains the idea that...

"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

All of that written and getting back to "facts clearly described", I have always believed that the medium of photography and its apparatus are inexorably and intrintically linked to the real. That idea fits nicely into my concept of the real - I see it, therfore, it is. However, when I make a picture of "it", followed by the making of print of "it", then viewing that "it" in a photograph of "it", I sense a change going on. A change something along the lines of...

"Instead of just recording reality, photographs have become the norm for the way things appear to us, thereby changing the very idea of reality and of realism. ~ Susan Sontag

In any event, I do not want to go too far down this rabbit hole. So, just let me write that, to a certain extent, it is all a mystery to me.

# 5712-14 / kitchen sink•around the house ~ inside and out

April 9, 2021

EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BEEN OUT AND ABOUT picturing gas stations and getting used to carrying around an actual "real" camera, I have not neglected picture making with the iPhone camera module.

# 5703-06 / around the house (sunlight)•civilized ku ~ that doesn't make me a shallow person, does it?

April 5, 2021

THERE CAME A TIME-ABOUT 12 YEARS PAST-THAT I purchased a "normal" lens-50mm equivalent-for my µ4/3 cameras. At that time, I had begun to desire soft backgrounds / foregrounds (aka: narrow DOF), relative to my point of focus, as opposed to the rather everything-in-focus characteristic of semi-wide>wide angle lenses when paired with a small(ish) sensor.

Truth be written, I never really committed to making pictures with that lens (25mm f1.8 M.Zuiko). It seemed that my picture making vision is inexorably linked to semi-wide lenses such as my much used 17mm f1.8 Zuiko (34mm equivalent). Although, I have comfortably transitioned to the 24mm equivalent lens of the iPhone.

In any event, over the past few days I have been making pictures with the 25mm Zuiko lens, a few of which are presented in this entry. It seems that my narrow DOF inclination has returned to the fore. An emergent condition that I would primarily attribute to my use of the Portrait feature of the iPhone. A feature which works really well 95% of the time, and, has the added bonus of being able to adjust the DOF (albeit background only) during the post-picture-making processing.

I am not certain where this is headed, picture making wise other than to write that I will be taking a µ4/3 body, with the 25mm M.Zuiko afixed, along with me when I leave the house. Even gonna give it a try with my idea of picturing old / "traditional" gas stations.

(embiggenable) • iPhone / narrow DOF simulated in processing (not the Portrait feature)

# 5698-5700 / around the house ~ a love story

March 31, 2021

MY INTENTION IN YESTERDAY'S ENTRY WAS TO include a link to a book which, iMo, is one the best ever photo books about light. However, in the search for a link to a site where the book could be purchased, I discovered a big surprise.

The book, Office Romance by Kathy Ryan (the director of photography at the New York Times Magazine)-see some pictures here-is apparently out of print. Or, as indicated by the publisher-Aperture-out of stock. I searched a bit more looking for book sellers who might have it in stock. That search returned just 2 available books.

The big surprise...1 book was available for $1,060USD, the other for $2,000USD. FYI, I paid, 5-6 years ago, retail-$29.25USD-for my copy of the book.

I purchased the book (published 2014)-a little gem at 5.5x8 inches with 140 photographs-in large part because all of the pictures were made with Ryan's iPhone. At the time of that purchase, I was just beginning to explore the capabilities of my iPhone's camera module and I was eager to see some iPhone images on paper and...

...I was also intriqued by the fact that all of the pictures were made in a single place-not unlike my around the house pictures-the New York Times Building in Times Square, New York. The building's architect / designer, Renzo Piano, wrote the book's Introduction and one of his comments...

"I really appreciate how these photographs contribute to the story of the New York Times Building. And I'm happy that it turns out to be a love story."

...which has caused me to reimagine my around the house pictures as my love story (of sorts) to the home in which I live. And, my recent book search tells me that I need to find a place in my home to keep and protect the ROI on my "investment".

# 5696-97 / around the house•kitchen sink ~ momentary beauty

March 30, 2021

LIGHT. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN A PICTURE CAN BE "about" light. After all, George Eastman said:

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

Without some form of light, making pictures is impossible, or, very difficult at best. However, to my eye and sensibilities, a picture which is all about light, that is, without a referent that adds rhythm and ryhme, is picture without compelling interest.

That written, I am a firm believer in the idea put forth by Brooks Jensen:

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

Consequently, I am not a devotee of the concept of chasing the light. As long as there is some form of light that allows me to make a picture of what pricks my eye and sensibilities, that's fine by me. However, that written, there are times when light compliments-that is, it adds to the rhythm and rhyme-the structure of my picture because it is an integal part of what pricked my eye and sensibilities, that is fine by me as well.