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.

# 6203 / kitchen life • common things ~ writing about photography as art

August 14, 2022

Consider this, re: good field strategy:

THE VISUAL TEXTURE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH derives from an optical mix of steadfastly articulate, recorded facts that have been presented in a manner calculated to emphasize the subject matter’s cumulative rather than individual visual appearance.

FYI, I consider the subject and its visual essence to be indivisible and the complexity of any given environment as potentially articulate aesthetic material.

The preceding is a slightly modified-by me-excerpt from Chapter 2: COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMALISM in the book the new color photography by Sally Eauclaire (a friend for whom I was a consultant on the book). I have co-opted it to make 2 points:

Eauclaire’s idea, re: Field Strategy, pretty much describes the (my) picture which accompanies this entry.
writing about art, subset photography as art, can get pretty “academic” / art-speak wordy at times. Some might even suggest that it can get rather obtuse.

So, my answer to the question raised in the preceding entry - why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography instead of going over lots of gear and technical work?- is that if one wishes to write or read about the “art of photography”, one needs to write or read about art in a more general sense. That is, if one aspires to making pictures that are considered to be Fine Art (as opposed to Decorative Art), one had better read up on what the FIne Art World considers to be Art. And, there is precious little written about Art in general, photography in particular, on the interweb.

Much of what has been written about Art, in book form, has been written by academics who, seemingly by natural inclination, are devoted to shunning simple English….

…formalists perceive real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation. They test every edge, tone, color, and texture for its expressive potential and structural function. Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is co-opted for its visual capabilities. yet delineated with utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter.

My point: if I, or anyone, were to write about the art of photography in any manner resembling the preceding excerpts-which I firmly believe are actually quite on point, photography as art wise-I believe the “average” reader of just about any blog would stop dead, eyes glazed over, at “real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments”, not to mention “expressive potential and structural function”, “delicately adjusted equilibrium”, and “co-opted for its visual capabilities”. I mean, how many of you out there have a “field strategy”?

So, why bother going down that road? The audience would be minuscule.

All of the above written, I must admit that I have read quite a lot about Art and the subset of photography as ART and it hasn’t hurt me none. Some of that reading has even helped me discover and understand what the hell I am doing-acting more intuitively (recognizing and expressing my “inner” self) rather than acting out a conscious intellectual strategy-in my picture making endeavors. And, I would highly recommend to those wishing to discover and understand what the hell they are doing, picture making wise, to read as much as they can stand about Art with the objective of cultivating a “feel” for the making of Art.

However, writing about the art of photography is not something I pursue on this blog. What I have written about photography on this blog has been more concerned with the idea of what exactly is a photograph? or, what are the medium’s intrinsic characteristics / strengths? And that is what I will continue to do.

# 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?