#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?

# 6155-57 / around the house • common things ~ it should come naturally

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

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. [...] [when viewing tan “interesting” photograph] we would be uncertain 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

ASIDE : NOW THAT-it is 1 day after my 75th birthday-I AM A DAY OLDER AND MUCH WISER I will return to writing about the idea of creativity. END OF ASIDE

In my last entry, The Eye Traffics in Feelings, it was written that, iMo, a creative photograph is one that excites the eye, not the intellect. Therefore, it seems logical that an explanation / definition of what I think constitutes a “creative photograph” would be in order…

In the photography realm, decorative arts division, a creative photograph most often refers to a picture that most often employs obvious effects, techniques, and “tricks” in order to make a picture “interesting” and appear to be the result of a creative approach to making a picture. In addition, those pictures are invariably representations of what I would label as officially approved photographic referents and they are composed by the rules.

In the other photography realm, the Fine Art division, photographs that display straight-forward approach to picture making, i.e. sans effects, flashy technique, or cheap tricks, are much more the order of the day. That is to write, creativity is evident in a picture maker’s choice of what to picture, aka: the act of pointing, and in doing so, imbuing the work with a formal rigor that identifies a work of art, aka: (amongst other qualities) an interesting configuration.

iMo, a creative picture maker is free to point his/her camera at any fact, event, circumstance, and configuration. However, to my eye and sensibilities (in both the making of my pictures and the viewing of those made by others), it is the manifestation of an interesting configuration, aka: form / the pattern created by the pointer, rather than the depicted referent that excites my eye cuz…

“It ain’t what you eat, it’s the way how you chew it.” ~ Sleepy LaBeef-that excites my eye.

To be certain, I am not alone in this preference for form inasmuch as most (all?) of the Fine Art world places a very high value on this quality in any Art genre.

To quote Sir Ansel:

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

Indeed. Just as there are no rules in Fine Art Photo Division for what can be pictured, there no rules for the making of an interesting configuration. The only right configuration for a photograph is the one that a picture maker chooses to create, the one that best serves the intent of the vision he/she wishes to express.

“Good composition is the strongest way of seeing:” ~ Edward Weston

In the case of my picture making, my eye and sensibilities are pricked by scenes in the real world that provide the potential for the making of pictures with visual energy. That is a visual configuration quality that keeps the eye moving-skittering and careening and bouncing off my imposed frame (like a pool ball on a pool table)-across the 2D visual field of a photographic print. Although, that written, I attempt to illustrate that quality in a manner that appears to be controlled, as opposed to haphazard and indiscriminate.

All of the above written, I believe that creativity finds its roots in a photographer’s understanding of how he/she sees the world. That is, that which is commonly referred to as their vision. If that manner of seeing is one that leads some of us [to] point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others, then chances are better than good that true creativity and the making of pictures that excite the eye will follow quite naturally .

# 6145 / kitchen sink ~ can't help myself

(embiggenable)

ON THE PREVIOUS ENTRY, RE: TAKING MY GOOD FRIEND UP TO THE POINT WHERE HE might pee his pants, Geoff (thanks for the comment) asked:

“How do you know when your friend has (almost) reached that point - going beyond it could mean a difficult 'deep clean' of the upholstery?”

I know at the point when my friend starts making unintelligible noises that sound like a screeching barnyard animal. Then I know that it is time to dial back the speed and lateral g-forces. In any case, I don’t worry about having to deep clean the upholstery cuz he’s an old guy-mid-70s-and I just assume he wears “adult” underwear. But, enough of that, back to photography stuff…

There are times when the voice in my head says, “Enough already with the kitchen sink pictures.” Although, it is possible that the voice might just be repeating what I sometimes think that the wife is whispering in my ear when I’m asleep.

Regardless, in either case, I sometimes think that the voice might just have a point. That is, right up until the point I am standing in front of the sink and, once again, there is something going on in there that my eye and sensibilities will not let me ignore. And, despite the voice in my head, I have come to believe that ending my kitchen sink picture making ain’t gonna happen.

In fact, I am at peace with the idea that, if the gods of photography forced me to only make kitchen sink pictures for the rest of my picture making-days, I would be very OK with that restriction. Fortunately for me, there has been no such decree. But if there were to be, I could rest easy knowing that every day there will be a new arrangement-not all are picture worthy-in the sink.

Of course, there is a fly in the ointment, called the wife. Cuz, no matter what the photography gods might decree, if the wife ever decides to make sure the kitchen sink were to be kept spotless, I’d be screwed.

# 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.

# 6095-97 / common things ~ TMI

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

“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

SINCE MY FIRST MAKING OF A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE use of a digital camera, I have been applying-during processing-vignetting to my pictures. Recently I have also been making pictures using the iPhone PORTRAIT setting in order to achieve a limited DOF. From time to time, a slight hint of overall Gaussian Blur makes an appearance in my pictures. And, overall color saturation reduction is a regular part of my image file processing.

My rationale for these post-click-of-the-shutter processing steps is predicated on my dislike of the ever-increasing-let’s call it what it is-fetish for ultra realism. That is, iMo, the quest for maximun sharpness / resolution / detail together with extreme dynamic range, micro contrast, and color saturation that give us those nice bright colors, give us the greens of summers and makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah.

Some might opine that I am wallowing in a nostalgia for the good ol' days of color film cuz, I must confess, to a certain extent I want the look and feel of my pictures to resemble the look and feel of a color C print made from color negative film. However, I want that look and feel, not cuz it mimics the analog look and feel but cuz, to my eye and sensibilities, I just flat out do not like the look and feel of the hyper-realism so evident in the current picture making environment.

In today’s digital picture making domain, iMo (and to my eye and sensibilities), so many pictures contain “too many facts”, aka: too much information (TMI). Or, if you will, a “surfeit of realities”. I would go so far as to suggest that the surfeit of realities found in hyper-real photographs far exceeds what the human eye-with a fixed glance-can see when viewing the same scene in situ. These pictures are, to a certain extent (to my eye and sensibilities), rather “clinical”. That is, while they present a surfeit of facts, they have a rather distinct lack of mystification.

ASIDE To be certain, in my application of processing techniques I always attempt to respect how the depicted referent(s) appeared to my eye in situ. END ASIDE

FYI, Robinson put forth the above quote most likely between 1869>1890. One can only imagine what he might have to say re: today’s digital surfeit of realities.