# 6228-31 / landscape (ku) • common places ~ the crux of the matter

September 3, 2022

HAD TO LEAVE RIST CAMP FOR A FAMILY 3-day wedding event in Vermont. Not my favorite thing to do but family duty calls. In any event, a comment or 2 (or more), re: M. Johnston’s recent post about his methodology for making a body of work.

Johnston’s method broken down to its bare bones requires a year of daily picture making (of a defined idea) to create 400-1500 keepers which, after serious editing, will produce “40–60 pictures that work together in sequence and express my take on my idea.” This method stands in rather stark contrast to my current methodology…

ASIDE it should be noted that my methodology is entirely dependent upon the fact that a picture maker intent upon making a coherent body of work has a firm understanding regarding how he/she sees the world. An understanding which results in a subsequent picture making vision which directs-in fact, mandates-the manner in which he/she makes pictures. That’s cuz-in the Fine Art world, Photograph Division-rare is the picture maker whose entire life-long body of work is not created with a single, finely focused picture making vision. END OF ASIDE

….just earlier this week, “equipped” with my long-standing picture making vision-walking along a plank, dock-like walkway through a very small bog / swamp-within the span of approximately 30-45 minutes I made (iMo) 20 gallery exhibition quality (especially so in my neck of the-literally-woods), intimate landscape “keepers” (one of which is in this entry-more to come when I get back to Rist and some “serious” image processing) which would-and will-make a very nice photo book.

Lest this read like bragging about my super-human picture making abilities, my point this…the most demanding requirement for making a body of work is the time and effort it takes to realize one’s picture making vision. In some cases, that might take years. That’s cuz, iMo and iMe(xperince), a picture making vision can not be manufactured (do not confuse vision with a “creative” technique). Rather, it must flow from within, i.e. one’s nativism-the philosophical theory that some ideas are innate. And, recognizing one’s “native” vision often requires a substantial amount of introspective time, effort and picture making.

To be certain, I am not suggesting that, even after “finding” one’s vision, the making of a coherent body of work is as easy as falling off a log (say, after drinking a pint of high-proof bourbon). There could be many reason’s for extending the time and effort it might require to refine what it is that one is trying to convey. I, for one, will be returning to the aforementioned bog / swamp within the next week to have another look at it. An “effort” that will most likely result in the making of a few more “keepers”.

FYI, there will more to come on the idea of why I believe 20 pictures-no matter the total number of keepers I might have in a body of work-is the upper limit I would ever have in an exhibition or a photo book.

# 6227 / rist camp • common places • landscape ~ looking around the place

August 30, 2022

***made from my Adirondack chair on the Rist Camp porch*** ~ (embiggenable)

“Your own photography is never enough. Every photographer who has lasted has depended on other peoples pictures too – photographs that may be public or private, serious or funny but that carry with them a reminder of community.” ~ Robert Adams

WITHOUT A DOUBT, I CAN WRITE THAT MY own photography is never enough. Evidence of such is the amount of time spent, almost daily, wandering about the interweb looking for / at good pictures. That time is augmented by visits to galleries in order to view photographs. And, time spent viewing photographer monograph books should be thrown into the time-eater machine as well.

I spent all of that time viewing photographs simply cuz of the pleasure I get from doing so. That pleasure, for me, comes in 2 forms: 1) call it inspiration inasmuch as the shear diversity of POVs-how other picture makers see the world-encountered inspire me to keep on making pictures in the manner of how I see the world, and, 2) although I never thought of it this way, it is Adams’ idea of “reminder of community”.

I am not certain if Adams’ idea of “community” is photographer community based or humanity community based, Or, quite possibly, both. However one chooses to understand it, for purposes of this entry I am going with photographer-based community…

In my quest for finding and viewing good photographs, I find the the interweb is a very messy place. Doing searches based on the words “photography / photographs” most often yields up a lot chaff and precious little wheat. Instagram used to be useful but no much anymore. If you are into “groups”-usually very specific types of photography-flickr might be a good thing-but not so much for me.

In any event, let me suggest a method for getting right to the nub of viewing some damn good photographs…

Over the years, I have been submitting photographs to Photo Place Gallery themed juried exhibitions (with, I might add, a great deal of acceptance success). The themed exhibitions request for submissions are issued on a monthly basis and subsequent exhibitions are also presented on a monthly basis. Those photos which are accepted are exhibited online and on the walls of the gallery-in Middlebury, VT. And, get this, for a very nominal fee, the gallery will print and frame your photo for the exhibition. FYI, you can request the print (not the frame) after the exhibition comes down.

That written, I mention Photo Place Gallery for 2 reasons: 1) if you are at times running out of reasons to make pictures, it might be helpful to use Photo Place Gallery’s monthly themes as an exercise to get out there and make pictures, even if you do not submit the pictures for exhibition consideration. When the themed exhibition appears online, you can then see how other picture makers approached the subject, and, 2) re: the point of this entry, the online exhibitions have links to the accepted pictures maker’s websites.

Cuz the quality of the accepted photographs-30 for the gallery / online exhibition + 30 more for an additional online exhibition (selected from several thousands of submissions)-is very high*, using this website as a portal for the viewing, on the accepted photographer’s sites, of some very fine bodies of work is a no-brainer.

The number of viewing possibilities is, quite frankly, overwhelming. I think it possible that one could spend the better part of a year-with time out for coffee and a few naps-exploring the wealth of offerings.

*FYI, the jurist’s for the exhibitions, a different, single jurist for each, are nationally and internationally known photographers, gallery directors, or teachers. Hence the very high quality of the accepted photographs.

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.

#6207-09 / commonplaces • nocturnal ~ night prowler

August 18, 2022

THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLES OF CLICHED / BAD ADVICE FOR the making of pictures than one can shake a stick at. iMo, the leading candidate for bad advice, re: the making of pictures which might be considered as Art, is the oft heard / read idea that one should make pictures of some thing about which one cares or is interested in. A bit of advice which, on its face, makes a certain amount of sense. That is, except for the fact that the idea of ”thing” is almost always understood literally, aka: as an actual person, place, or thing.

Consequently, the bulk of “serious” amateurs head out and make pictures that I would label as quite literal. Straight forward, descriptive pictures which are focused on actual people, places, or things. The result of which is a zillion or more very nicely composed, technically competent, markedly look-alike Decorative Art pictures.

And, the inevitable result of that glut of samo-samo pictures is the oft heard complaint, “every thing that can be pictured has already been pictured”. That angst leads to the pursuit of making pictures of the same old subjects / things but with special “effects”. All in an effort to make pictures that are “different” or more “artistic”. Which, iMo, is taking a bad idea and making it even worse.

In any event, my idea-in the cause of contravening the preceding bad advice-is to interpret the notion of “thing” as a mental concept or abstract idea as opposed to an actual physical thing, aka: person, place, or thing. As an example…

…the pictures in this entry. The literal-ists in the crowd might perceive that I made pictures of a white house, a shed, and a side door when, in fact, while those “things” are depicted in these pictures, the “thing” I was picturing was the concept of “night”.

While the concept of night is not overtly intellectually complex, it is, for some (including myself), emotionally compelling / complex. Although some might consider this concept to be somewhat simple-minded, my point is that a concept does not have to be mind-bending or a trip down the rabbit hole.

The important thing is to get away from the mindset that making pictures is all about the literally depicted referent cuz it is at that point that a picture can truly be about more than what meets the eye.

# 6200-02 / common places • common things ~ stupid is as stupid does

August 13, 2022

***it’s raining outside*** ~ (embiggenable)

ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERWEB, IT HAS BE POSTULATED, AS AN answer to the question of “…why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography here on the blog instead of going over lots of gear and technical work…”, that:

“…a viewer using a phone or small iPad to view will see none of the technical "features" that might make the image worth looking at.”

“…when we do try to talk about the work we end up with so many different avenues for viewing, each of which is a diminished and poor replica of the original, that it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.”

At first blush, I would tend to suggest, first and foremost, that the author of the blog in question does not talk about the art of photography cuz that author has a very dim understanding of what it is that constitutes photography as Art. Consequently, the author would be best served by sticking to what he knows, aka: gear. My opinion is offered in light of the fact-one of many-of the author’s suggestion that “technical features” might make an image worth looking at (don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that cringe-worthy idiocy) - a statement in full-blown support of why Bruce Davidson is “not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore…”

Re: with so many different avenues for viewing… it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.” when trying to writing about on a blog. BS. While the author’s point, re: the diminished image quality-for any number of reasons-of images on the interweb, is true enough, unless a device’s viewing parameters are highly compromised, I believe that there is more than enough visual information in most cases to make a reasonable assessment of a picture’s aesthetic / ”artistic” worth. Enough, so that, you know, you can determine whether or not a picture is “worth looking at”.

I would even go far as to suggest that, under ideal screen viewing conditions-there is a long list of items under the concept of “ideal”-one could even undertake a critical, informed review of a picture.

Is viewing an image on the interweb-under ideal conditions-the same as viewing that image as a print? Short answer, “No.” Slightly longer answer, a qualified “Yes.” inasmuch as most of the visual qualities which distinguish a photograph as Art, especially the idea of form, are easily perceivable on even a less than ideal viewing screen. And, an on-screen viewing of a good photograph can stir virtually all of the feeling, emotion, and thought that a print of the same image can incite.

iMo and experience, I can write that, in the Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are very few who are interested in the technical features of a photograph. That’s cuz they know and have viewed countless number of photographs which display very little in the way of technical features but which, nevertheless, are some of the greatest photographs ever made.

# 6195-97 / kichen life • common places ~ what you see ain't always what you get

August 5, 2022

left, AFTER / right, BEFORE ~ (embiggenable)

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE iPHONE CAMERA MODULE IS not perfect. While it does, in fact, produce files that require only minor adjustments-primarily bright sunny day pictures. Where it “fails” to get it almost right are those picture making situations that have; a. low contrast, and, b. night / very low light scenes. In those situations the computational bits seem to be programed to deliver a full-range (nearly pure black > nearly pure white) file. That is, a file that does not match what the eye sees in situ.

In some cases, a simple adjustment with a BRIGHTNESS slider gets you very close to where you want to go. In other cases, a more nuanced use of the CURVES tool is called for. In either case, the fact that you are working with a fairly rich file-no, not RAW rich but way more than adequate-gives one lots of room with which to work. Neither fix requires an advance degree in Rocket Science or software engineering.

FYI, I am going to try a few experiments with making pictures with the Scene Detection and Smart HDR disabled to determine the difference, if any (I assume there will be), that those setting create.

PS all of my file processing is performed with the intent of accurately reproducing, as much the medium and my memory allow, what my eyes perceived, in situ, at the moment of making a picture.

# 6191-94 / narrow depth of field ~ is it now an effect?

August 3, 2022

*from my* ***single women*** *series* ~ µ4/3 camera / 20mm (40e) / @ f1.7 (embiggenable)

***iPhone*** ~ Portrait setting (embiggenable)

BACK IN THE OLDEN DAYS OF PICTURE MAKING, aka: pre-digital, picture makers came by narrow depth-of-field “honestly” - camera+”fast” lens+shoot wide open = narrow depth-of-field. This technique was applied to many uses such as portraiture or drawing attention to a featured referent in a picture. But, in any case, it was derived from an intrinsic characteristic of the medium’s equipment.

In today’s digital picture making realm, narrow DOF is harder to come by given the typical smaller than so-called full-frame sensors + the laws / science of optics and image magnification (which I won’t get into here). For many picture makers who desire max DOF in their picture making , this a bonus.

As an example, in my picture making, wherein I am seeking out aesthetic form, I want every line, shape, texture, space, color, value, et al to be rendered with clarity and definition. That’s cuz every visual element with my imposed frame is an integral part of the aesthetic form I picture and hope to make perceivable to the viewers of my pictures.

For those who like narrow DOF, the options for obtaining it are limited and usually very expensive. Like, have you priced a (so-called) full-frame digital camera with a “fast “ high quality lens? While I like narrow DOF in some of my picture making, the expense versus small need-actually, it’s more like desire-does not justify the expensive. So….

….when the desire for narrow DOF strikes-I turn to my iPhone 13 Pro Max and its Portrait setting / feature. And, in case you haven/t noticed, over the past few months I have been using that setting-and,surprise for me, within a full-frame-much more than I ever imagined that I would. That’s cuz, best as I can tell at this point, I have been seduced by what my eye and sensibilities perceive as the soft, emotional warmth of pictures made with some significant degree of limited DOF. Which, again to my eye and sensibilities, stands in contrast to the hard, analytical, detached coolness of those pictures made with sharp definition and clarity from edge to edge.

ASIDE No. the iPhone Portrait setting does not accurately replicate the effect of the the old-timey film camera+fast lens combination. Yes. It can get confused, re: what to soften versus what to keep sharp, by small details. But, with some processing “corrections”, it does what I want it to do for my apparent narrow DOF picture making purposes. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I am ever so slightly conflicted with use of the iPhone Portrait setting. For the first time in my picture making life, I am using a filter to achieve a look / effect. OK, it'‘s not a filter. It is actually computational photography, Nevertheless, I can not help but feel that I am “cheating”, re: my sacred straight photography vow. Although, when picturing scenes / referents which are static, I do pre-select the aperture setting which creates the DOF look I am after and, 9 times out of 10, I print the file from that selection.

So, RATIONALIZATION ALERT, it’s kinda like straight photography, right?