# 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.

# 6199 / kitchen life • common things ~ arriving at a fork in the road

August 9, 2022

IT IS A RARE DAY WHEN, ON THE INTERWEB, ONE COMES across an ultra-addicted gearhead having a come-to-jesus picture making moment wherein he/she realizes that he/she has “… really tried hard to substitute hardware for talent. Over and over again.” Add to that a fair amount of other self-flagellation, and it qualifies as something akin to a red-letter day.

That written, I can write that it took a decent amount of fortitude for her/him to confront the fact that, after all of that gear infatuation / acquisition, his/her “images [were] maybe a bit sharper but by no means any better in terms of insight, impact or overall splendor.” And the time, effort (and cash) spent on all that gear preoccupation could have been better spent “finding a great model, a great location.”

All of that written, even if the aforementioned penitent manages to follow the straight (pun) and narrow path of the joy of photography, aka: making pictures, not acquiring gear, he/she still is going to have a long slog getting to the point, if ever, of making pictures that exhibit “insight, impact or overall splendor”. That’s cuz spending time finding a “great”model, a “great” location or overall “splendor” does not a great picture make ( nor, I might add, does getting “bored sticking with one focal length”). A referent-centric pursuit may lead to the making of pictures with splendid decorative value-which may be the sine non qua of that which he/she wants to achieve-but it will not lead to making pictures of insight, impact or overall splendor.

If I were one to leave a comment on the blog of the remorseful, maybe born again picture maker, it would be something like this - Get over it. A camera is, in a very real sense, little more than a recording device for what the human eye sees. (with an emphasis on how the human eye sees). If the human in question does not take the time to learn, understand, and embrace how he/she sees the world, the idea of acquiring a personal picture making vision is a lost cause and all the gear in the world ain’t gonna save your picture making ass.

# 6198 / kitchen life • common things ~ for every pot there is a lid

August 7, 2022

"Nothing exceeds like excess”~as someone said

“No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public” ~ H. L. Mencken

ON MY LAST ENTRY, MARKUS SPRING-a long time follower-WROTE; “…accepting the overcooked look as what memory and feelings conjure up to "it looked exactly like this…" He also expressed an idea on why this is so in response to which I present the above quotes.

I am aware of a picture maker who creates nothing but over-HDRed, ultra-excessive color saturated pictures (his idea of fine art), apparently with great commercial success. His very large prints adorn hospital, corporate, public place, and wealthy residential walls (they ain’t cheap). iMo, the pictures are nothing more than wretched ornamental dreck. His website has 100s of followers whose eyes glaze over and mouths salivate-as judged by their adoring comments-with each of his offerings.

It would be easy to write that this quest-as represented by the aforementioned picture making excess-for wretched excess can be found in so many things American-houses, cars, movies, advertising, et al-and label it as an American obsession. However, I believe it can be found in abundance in most, if not all, first-world countries / cultures. It is also my belief that this quest for excess is nothing new. The grand cathedrals of Europe come to mind as an example. There is also the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to consider.

In any event, I gave up a long time ago thinking that those involved in the quest for excess, at least in the arts, are brain-dead cretins. That’s cuz I came to realize that, that which can be labeled as Decorative Art, does, indeed, serve a purpose. It might even be called a valuable purpose. That is to write, Decorative Art is a vehicle which can assist in gaining an escape, albeit temporary, from the humdrum boredom of everyday life.

And, by one means or another, who is there who does not need an “escape” every now and again?

# 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?

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

July 28, 2022

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

July 25, 2022

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

July 21, 2022

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

July 19, 2022

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?