# 6185-90 / the new snapshot • commonplaces ~ my precious stand-in

this weekend past ~ (embiggenable)

times past ~ (embiggenable)

“…it rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.” ~ Jean Shepherd

OVER THE YEARS, THE WIFE HAS PLAYED, DURING OUR TRAVELS, HER ROLE in my pictures, ala Jean Shepherd’s “loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.”, with the patience of a saint. And, this weekend past was no different.

Our travel this weekend past, a 260 mile (total) out-and-back run to the central Adirondacks in order to purchase a dozen of the planet’s best cinnamon sugar donuts, started with our first ever gas up at our hamlet’s rebuilt-from-scratch convenience store / gas station. After securing the donuts, we stopped for an early afternoon breakfast in the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake where we dined in a recently restored 1946 era diner that was moved-after its restoration-from Maryland to the Adirondacks.

I have been making travel pictures with the wife as a stand-in for quite some time. I began making them as a somewhat casual, satirical take on the classic tourist picture as described by Jean Shepherd. I continue to do so with the same intent but, as my collection of these pictures grow, I am now approaching the making of such pictures as a “serious” endeavor with the idea of creating a “serious”, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheeky, body of work.

My only regret about this undertaking is that it was not until quite recently that I started to this picture making seriously. Consequently, I am kicking myself in the butt-not easy to do at my age-for all of the stand-in picture making opportunities I have passed up over the years.

# 6175-77 / common places • common things ~ Gutenberg would say, "Print it!"

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

travel pics ~ (embiggenable)

IF IT IS TRUE, ANOTHER I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THING, re: picture making, is the notion that the making of photo prints is on the wain. I find it difficult to believe that “serious” amateur picture makers do not make prints. Why would anyone tote around a “serious” camera with which to make pictures and then not make prints?

In my case, I have 121 photo prints on the walls of my house. Add to that number 30+ photo books-let’s say an average of 20 pictures/book-sitting around the place and, it is safe to write, that I am not numbered amongst the do-not-make-prints crowd.

One way of looking at it (that’s sort of a pun), is that, in effect, I have approximately 800-900 printed pictures ready to go, posterity wise. And, since the work has been printed-in one form or another-over the past few decades, it was, and continues to be, a relatively painless endeavor.

Posterity wise, the most valuable printed pieces are the 12-picture, hard-bound, lay-flat pages, year-in-review calendar photo books that I make every year-for the past decade-as an Xmas present for the wife. The calendars are a collection of pictures of significant events, travels, and the like.

All of the above written, what is the point of picture making if you do not make prints?

#6171-74 / common places • common things ~ soft eyes

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

MY FEELINGS, RE: STICKING YOUR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG when viewing a photographic print, are well know. ASIDE For those who might not know it, in my fantasy world, all of my photo exhibitions would have crowd-control barriers-stanchion + velvet rope-along the walls where my prints are displayed. The distance of the velvet rope barrier from the wall would be determined by the size of the prints. And, of course, anyone leaning over the rope would receive an invisible ray electric shock. END OF ASIDE

That written, some might wonder why I hold such a strict viewing standard. The answer to that wondering is quite simple, having to do with, iMo, the very important idea-for both picture viewing and picture making-of soft eyes.

ANOTHER ASIDE Soft eyes, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to the art of seeing with the simultaneous, effortless combination of foveal vision-laser like focus on specific detail (a “hard” stare)-and peripheral vision-the taking in of the widest possible span and trying to catch all that is on the edges of this span (eye muscles stay relaxed) FYI, it is believed that peripheral vision is an acquired muscle-memory skill*. END OF ASIDE

So, why do I believe that soft eyes are a very important skill in the making and viewing of photographic prints? Consider this: the making of a photograph is considered to be the “art” of selecting. That is, noticing a piece of the world and isolating it via the imposition of a frame, aka: the edges of a photograph. The astute picture maker makes a decision of what include / exclude in the picture by means of that framing. And, it is the result of this decision which is creates the form-some might call it the design or composition-as perceived in the final print.

It should be needless to write, that the aware picture maker will include in his/her framing only those visual elements-actual things, shapes, lines, tones, colors, et al-that he/she believes (sometimes senses) are important to expressing what what and how they see, aka: their vision. In other words, every visual element within the frame of a picture is an integral component of the total visual statement. You can not have one without the other(s).

iMo, the only manner in which a picture maker can pull off this visual”miracle” (making something out of nothing), is with the art of seeing the world with soft eyes. And, if a viewer of such pictures desires to experience the totality of a picture makers’ vision then he/she must view a print in its totality with the use of soft eyes. And the only way that is possible is to view a print from a distance from which the eye can take in the whole image. Essentially, that means placing your foveal vision on the center of the image and letting your peripheral vision take in the rest.

And, I can write without a single, solitary shred of a doubt, that a viewer can not see the totality of a photograph with his/her nose where it don’t belong.

* when BIll Bradley, one of basketball’s all-time greats, was a young boy he walked down the main street of of his hometown and kept his eyes focused straight ahead and tried to identify objects in the windows of stores he was passing.

# 6166-70 / people . Common places ~ on the road agAin

FYI, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH ME, I am creating this entry on my iPad using the Squarespace app. Trying to see if I can go all mobile device and be happy with the results. Even the images files were processed on the iPad (Snapseed).

Best as I can tell, the contrarian in me is instigating me to do this “experiment” just so I am able to demonstrate to the commontaria ignoramicus that it is possible-in fact, if you know what you are doing, deceptively easy-to make good photographs with the simple-ist of gear and processing tools.

Of course, the preceding statement is dependent upon one’s understanding of what constitutes a good photograph. An understanding of “good” which most of the ignoramicus class confuse with things like max DR, max resolution, max color depth, max sensor size, the best glass, et al, as opposed to the tool that produces the best picture making results - the tool that, as Sir Ansel opined, is 12 inches behind the camera. I.E., the brain (+soul/heart) in which resides a picture maker’s vision.

To be certain, I would never suggest that anyone should chuck all the fancy stuff out the car at at 100 mph. However, I might suggest to someone just starting down the picture making trail that, as a variation on the OCOY practice, he/she use a mobile phone based “camera” and a simple mobile device based processing app as their tools for a year cuz…

…if one can not make a good picture with those simple tools, all the of “best” gear and processing tools will not get ya there.

# 6163-65 / commmon place • common things • kitchen sink ~ commentoria ignoramicus

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

AS IS TO BE EXPECTED, RECENT TOP POSTS MENTIONING THE IPHONE, as a picture making device, has instigated the regular chorus of “(merely) adequate” / not adequate / deficient / note-taking only,” et al comments. iMo, these commentoria ignoramicus are completely unqualified to have an opinion worth considering-on the topic of iPhone picture making quality-inasmuch as it seems, by their own admission, that have not used the device enough to discover and understand its capabilities.

In fact, I believe that the real problem is that these know-nothings have little or no idea what makes a good photograph good. They are all hung-up on the technical aspects of photography that can be seen / deciphered on a photographic print, especially those prints made with the use of their beloved camera brand. That fact is what caused Magnum photographer Bruce Davidson to say”

“I am not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore, but to people outside the photoclique.”

At exhibitions of my work, I can recognize a know-nothing from a mile away. He/she will be adorned with an “impressive”-looking DSLR, often sporting a large lens. Or, alternately, he/she will be looking at my prints with their nose within 6 inches of the prints. If one or both of these markers is missing, the other give away comes when they approach me and the first thing out of the mouth is, “What camera do you use?”

When mounting a defense for his/her choice and use of a particular picture making device, it is most often suggested-you may have to read between the lines-that he/she is a “perfection-ist”. To which I would respond-but never have because I am such a sensitive and polite kinda guy-”No you’re not. What you are is constipated tight ass and you might be better qualified to pursue, as a hobby, certified chartered accountancy.”

Any doubts about how I feel on the subject?

# 6153 / commonplaces ~ the eye traffics in feelings

(embiggenable)

“Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking seeing what no one else has ever thought seen.” ~ Albert Einstein

IN MY LAST ENTRY I PRESENTED A QUOTE FROM MR. EINSTEIN which I adapted-striking out his words and inserting my own-to make his thought more applicable to the making of photographs. I did so cuz Einstein trafficked in thinking, albeit very imaginative thinking (according to him, imagination is more important than knowledge), whereas, according to Walker Evans…

“The eye traffics in feelings, not thoughts.” ~ Walker Evans

I believe, wholeheartedly, that thinking in situ while picturing is antithetical to the pursuit of creative picture making. Rather, relying upon an instinctive feeling-knowledge guided by experience and an understanding of how you see the world-about what to picture and how to picture it-is a much more productive manner in which to foster creative seeing.

And seeing is what picture making is all about cuz photography is a visual art form. iMo, the best photographs are those that excite the eye-the visual senses-not the intellect (aka: the feeling destroying search for meaning). Therefore, in the pursuit of making pictures which excite the eye (creative pictures), a picture maker’s focus should be, in fact, must be, be directed toward the seeing and feeling of the visual characteristics of what is in front of his/her eye and camera. Then intuitively sensing / feeling how those visual elements, when isolated (framing) and arranged (POV)-as determined by when they just feel “right” as seen on a picturing device’s viewing screen-will work when spread across the 2D field of a photographic print.

While the preceding paragraph might seem to be a bit on the heavy side, prescription wise, in fact, to the practiced and knowledgeable eye, the awareness and implementation of such prescription is nearly instantaneous and intuitive-no thinking required-at the moment of picture making.

All of the above written, for me and as it applies my picture making, creativity springs from my understanding of how I see the world (literally, my vision) and how that vision directs my picture making (figurative) vision. That knowledge-and my trust, re: what pricks my eye and sensibilities, thereof-frees me from having to think about what to picture-the world is my oyster-and how to picture it-quite simply, as I see it. Consequently, I am able, picture making wise, to free associate (an aid in gaining access to the unconscious processes of creativity) in response to what I see.

# 6146-47 / common places • kitchen sink ~ there is plenty left to do

camera module output ~ (embiggenable)

processed~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I AM FOLLOWING, WITH MORE THAN A MODICUM OF INTEREST, Mike Johnston’s new-found embrace of the “modern miracle” known as the iPhone camera module. After years of expressing his thoughts-based upon the use of vastly outdated iPhone camera modules-re: iPhone / smartphone picture making capabilities, he has now arrived in the future with his acquisition of a new iPhone 13 Pro. Whereupon he is now waxing, if not poetically, wondrously about the the iPhone’s capabilities, most notably the Night Mode, declaring it to be…gasp….superior in that regard to a “real” camera. In addition to Mike’s enthusiastic response to the iPhone’s picture making capabilities, the TOP comment-ariat are chiming in with endorsements as well.

All well and good, but only up to a point. That point being the application of George Eastman’s early marketing slogan of, “You push the button, we do the rest” wherein it is being suggested that after you push the “button” on an iPhone, the camera module’s AI does the rest. To which I respond, “Bull shit.”

To be perfectly clear, I have been an iPhone picture maker, almost exclusively, for the past 3+ years and I would be amongst the last to deny that the iPhone picture making AI handles a remarkable number of “difficult” picture making scenarios very well. However…

iMo, based upon my expansive use of the iPhone camera module, I can write that the picture making AI has one significant flaw-at least for those seeking to capture a realistic rendition of the light found in wide range of picturing situations-that being that the AI software developers seem to think that all the world’s a kodachrome-like sunny day complete with nice bright colors. A “flaw” that I am quite certain makes the average non-”enthusiast” picture maker very happy. Me, not to so much.

That written, the iPhone picture making AI does not always get it perfectly right. Close, maybe, but not perfect. I find that, to get the results I am am seeking, I do as much processing work-corrections and adjustments-on an iPhone picture file as I have done in the past on a “real” camera picture file. Although, it can be written that much of that works is less “extreme” on iPhone files than on “real” camera files. In that regard, and Mike has it right, go can go very “deep” in making adjustments / corrections with iPhone files, even with jpegs. The files are remarkably rich in information.

The diptych in this entry is a good example of my point. The file from the iPhone displays a result typical of that made on an overcast day-with any picture making device-wherein a prominent referent in the pictutre is in the shaded area of the scene. It takes more than a simple adjustment of the color balance slider to balance the color balance for the both the shaded area and the non-shaded area in the scene. (FYI, I got the color balance “right” by making color adjustments in LAB color space. I never touched the color balance adjustment slider.) In addition, global and selective area contrast and brightness adjustments were made. And, is almost always the case with iPhone files, a bit of color saturation adjustments were applied, both globally and on selective colors.

All of the above written, I just wanted to bring a bit of reality to the wonders of the iPhone picture making capabilities. Those capabilities are impressive but no one should think that the end of image file processing days are over. After you push the “button” there is plenty of the rest for you do.

# 6144 / the new snapshot ~ wherein I go all gearhead

(embiggenable)

THERE ARE QUITE A FEW THINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Picture making wise, I simply do not understand the obsessive fascination with gear. Or, worse yet, the idea that creativity in picture making is dependent on technique + gear. FYI, I will have more to write, re: creativity, coming up.

That written, for the purpose of this entry my lack of understanding is tied to things automotive. Specifically, why would anyone drive a boring-to-drive car? That is, a thing that is more like an appliance than a machine that gives fun and pleasure to the act of getting from point A to point B.

My wife and I have 3 cars, all of which are considered to be so-called driver's cars. That is, a car that has responsive steering feel, linear brake feel, a natural sense of balance to its handling, a well resolved, well damped ride, it must sound good, it must have good clean throttle response, a decent gear change and seats whose springing is in sync with that of the chassis. Throw in above-average horsepower + torque with a slightly aggressive horsepower-to-weight ratio and you have a recipe for a very satisfying driving experience. Especially so here where we live with its abundance of 2-lane, over hill and dale, twisty bits.

The Abarth pictured above has all the ingredients of a pocket-rocket and more. It is a full-blooded descendant of Abarth / Italian racing machismo. 130mph+ top end, lowered, track inspired suspension, unassisted rack and pinion steering, tuned, free-flow exhaust (sweet Italian-bred howl), brembo brakes. Even the wife loves it. She calls it “very mechanical”. Hell, even Michael Schumacher-7x Formula One Champion-has one as his daily driver.

So, for me, it is, go fast, be safe, and have fun. BTW, part of the fun is bringing my good friend along and taking him right up to the edge of peeing his pants.

PS I apologize for going all gearhead, albeit automotive style. It will be back to our regularly schedule programming tomorrow.