#6900--02 / common things • around the house ~ old dog new tricks

all photos (embigenable)

IN HIS BOOK, Why People Photograph, Robert Adams wrote:

“…photographers must also face the threat that their vision may one day be denied them. Their capacity to find their way to art-to see things whole-may fail for an hour or a month or forever because of fatigue or misjudgement or some shift in spirit… For every Atget, Stieglitz, Weston, or Brandt who remain visionary to the end, there is an Ansel Adams who, after a period of extraordinary creativity, lapse into formula… when photographers get beyond copying the achievements of others, or just repeating their own accidental first successes, they learn that they do not know where in the world they will find pictures …”

FOR SOME TIME I HAVE BEEN RUMINATING ON the idea of “repeating my own first successes” inasmuch as, when began to make pictures, I did so with what I eventually came to recognize as my own personal vision. A vision that continues to dictate the manner in which I make pictures; id est, I photograph what I see in the manner of how I see it. Throw in the fact that, in my “serious” work, I tend make only square pictures, one could state that I am continually repeating myself, picture making wise.

On the other hand, I can rationalize myself out of that (square) box simply by noting the fact that what, referent wise, I picture is spread out all over the map of life and living, a picture making habit that label as discursive promiscuity. And BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, I also have an accepting and comfortable relationship with complexity.

Be all of that as it may, my vision remains firmly intact. However, I have acquired an itch that requires at least a bit of scratching. That is, the nagging desire to make pictures that do not conform to my “standard” deep depth-of-field, shades of the old-timey f 64 look. FYI, that desire is a long-standing one, for me, that has been exacerbated by the inherent quality of small(ish) sensor* digital photography wherein, typically, pictures tend to have deep depth of field, aka: everything in focus, nice and sharp. One might suggest that I am suffering from a (very) mild case of sharpness fatigue.

So, enter the iPhone and its PORTRAIT setting. Apple has continued to improve its functionality and I have been playing with it for a while now. And yes, the results are not exactly the same as making pictures with a large sensor, so called full-frame, camera coupled with a wide open, large aperture (aka, fast) lens. Plus, its function is limited to subjects within a 2-8ft range.

Nevertheless, to my eye and sensibilities, it does satisfy my desire for narrow DOF looking photographs. And, I do really appreciate the fact that I can modify the DOF effect to a greater or lesser degree-as many times as I wish after the picture is made.without permanently adjusting the original file.

All of that written, here’s the surprising thing that has appeared, seemingly out of nowhere; a significant number of these PORTRAIT setting pictures have been seen and made as “full frame” photographs. Who would / could have thought?

In any event, the one trait that I like most about these narrow DOF photographs is that, to my eye and sensibilities, they look just like photographs. And I do want my pictures to look like photographs.

*The magnification of a lens means how large (or small) a subject can be reproduced on the image plane (e.g., film and image sensor). As one increases magnification, the depth of field decreases. Conversely, as one decreases magnification, the depth of field increases.

# 6899 / common things ~ I'm an enthusiast, they're enthusiasts, wouldn't you like to be an enthusiast too?

the TOKO MIGHTY ~ (embiggenable-the photo, not the camera)

JUST SHOOT ME. WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW is yet another top 10-or should it be, TOP 10) camera list.Ya know, cuz there is nothing more entertaining than reading about someone’s-ratchet up your enthusiasm fan-boys!-beloved camera….oh, wait….scratch “someone’s” and substitute “50 (or more) someone’s”.

In any event, shown above is my nominee; the incomparable TOKO MIGHTY...

… just the right size cuz it fits comfortably in the hand on the finger tips. It has a format. Spares no any attention to quality materials / build and detail. Film available everywhere somewhere (maybe, or maybe not). Finest plastic optics. And, 2 interesting bonus features; 1. it has not only a rangefinder window but also a waist-level viewfinder (extremely minuscule but cute), and, 2. it has a film advance nob but, interestingly (as I mentioned), no rewind nob. Made In Occupied Japan.

Who could ask for, or needs, anything more?

#6893-94 / common things • around the house ~ what's in a name?

all photos (embiggenable)

photography noun pho•to•gra•phy /fəˈtäɡrəfē/ : the art, application, and practice of creating images by recording radiant energy, especially light, on a light-sensitive surface.

IN AN ENTRY-The future of photo blogs-ON A “PHOTO” BLOG (as so labeled by the author), it was stated that:

“…it's almost like the joy of discussing new gear and new techniques has been wholly replaced on most of our photo blogs by personal observations about day-to-day routines, life's struggles, diets, and photo walks….”

Now I could go on a 5,000 word rant about the “joy of discussing new gear” but I won’t. Instead, I will attempt to discuss, with a modicum of intelligence, what, iMo, qualifies-and does not-as a photo(graphy) blog.

A simple / concise description of my idea of what constitutes a righteous photo(graphy) blog is one that features photographs. Blogs that feature photographs + thought-provoking words regarding the medium and its apparatus (aka: its conventions, applications, practices) are a bonus.

Or, in other words, I like blogs that, first and foremost, feature photographs that poke, prod, tickle, and challenge my visual senses. Toss in a few words / a little brain stimulation along the lines of what-the-hell-is-a-photograph-(any photograph)-anyways? and I’m hooked and the site is earmarked.

If one takes the time to find and follow some good leads, aka: links, I find that there are a surprising number of blogs / sites out there that satisfy my aforementioned wants. Rarely does a week go by during which I do not discover something new and interesting. There is a surprising amount of really good work out there being made by no-name photographers.

As for the “joy” to be had by discussing new gear, new tricks, how to-s, et al, I have to write that, for me, the “joy” eludes me. And, quite frankly, it annoys me to a certain extent that blogs which traffic in such subjects call themselves photo blogs. Whereas, at best, they might legitimately considered to be photo related blogs. Although, for example, gear related blogs most often fall into a category more accurately described as object fetishication related. AND, don’t get me started, re: “photo” bogs that constantly veer off into what the author’s eating, drinking, driving, exercising, recreating, et al habits and preferences are.

All that written, I do have an interest in reading about what an accomplished artist-big name or no name-might have to express about their vision as an integral part of what drives him/her to make pictures. However, that written, my interest in the medium of photography and its apparatus has always been about the pictures.

# 6887-92 / people • common places/things • travel ~ five days

late Sunday afternoon ~ all photos ~ (embiggenable)

Thursday evening

Thursday evening

Saturday evening~ Utica, NY

Thursday evening near home

Friday lunch

BETWEEN THURSDAY EVENING AND SATURDAY EVENING I ate in 4 different restaurants that were spread apart by 300 miles; a local restaurant (mile zero), a Rochester, NY restaurant (mile 300), a Rochester hotel restaurant, and a Utica, NY restaurant (mile midpoint on the return drive). The drive was instigated in order to attend the wake of a HS classmate / teammate and to visit a bedridden classmate / friend who is in a long-term care facility. Both activities were in Rochester. Managed to squeeze in a lunch with the ex and a long time friend while in Rochester.

Needless to write, the trip-to include 11 hours of driving within 24 hours-was a bit of an emotional roller coaster ride. So on Sunday I decompressed by processing photos, watching a hockey game, and ending with a sit on the upstairs porch with a cup of coffee watching the sun go down.

True to form, of course I made some pictures along the way. Could have made more but for on reason or another I did not make any at the wake or the care facility. In any event, inasmuch as I always have a picture making device at hand, I do tend to make lot of pictures. Although, I often wonder if my picture making habit is due the fact that I always have a picture making device at hand, or, whether I always have a picture making device at hand because I have a picture making habit.

That written, I tend to go with the habit idea cuz I do have what some might consider to be a near obsession with picture making. I don’t believe I could stop making pictures even if I wanted to. In a very real sense, my eyes will not / can not stop seeing pictures everywhere. And, to be accurate, this is a life-long “condition” inasmuch as I was drawing pictures at a very early single digit age. I made money during high school making drawings that were considered to be “illustrations”. All of which evolved into my “discovery” of making pictures, photography wise, at age 19. That was when I began a life long working life in the photo making world.

# 6883-86 / common places / things • people ~ on the subject of magic

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED TO WILLIAM EGGLESTON THAT the design of most of his pictures seemed to radiate from a central, circular core, he responded that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag. This response, in the opinion of John Szarkowki, was…

“…presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove antidote to their magic.”

Re: rational analysis - it is the provenance of art critics and academics to delve into the rational analysis-the techniques-and the art theories-the aesthetics-employed in the making of any given piece of art. In most cases the rational analysis is intended to assist a viewer of any given piece of art in more fully understanding, aka: the ability to “interpret” and discover meaning (aka: content”)-and appreciating it. Or, in some cases, to assist a viewer in recognizing that a piece of art is actually a piece of crap.

In any event, whatever the merit(s) of rational analysis might be to some, one prevalent demerit, iMo, is the constant ascription to artists-PhotographyDivision-of consciously / deliberately using techniques and aesthetic devices in the making of their pictures. An assertion that is based upon the ignorance of critics and academics who, for the most part, are not practicing and/or accomplished artists themselves. That is to write, that based upon their voluminous technique and art theory expertise, they are predisposed to miss the forest for the trees.

Re: magic - To continue with the “forest” metaphor - the most interesting picture forests-in this discussion Photography, Fine Art Division-are germinated and fostered by picture makers who tend, on the whole, to understand that art theory and technique-other than what they need to make their vision visible-are nothing more than a hill of beans in their world.

iMo long-considered opinion, their “magic” springs fully formed and, seemingly, unbidden from their innate, personal vision-literally and figuratively how they see the world. Simply written, it’s all about the pictures…

“Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.” ~ Paul Strand

All of the above written, and getting back to the idea of fearing that rational analysis “might prove antidote to their magic”… I get it. Breaking down one’s vision-in this case, so called “magic”-into its individual components might, like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, be never able to be put back together again.

That’s cuz true vision is not formulaic. It is not a collection of parts glued together to create a operations manual. Rather, vision, like a photograph itself, it is an organically synthesized whole that is somewhat akin to magic-i.e. possessing the power of apparently influencing the course of (picture making) events by use of mysterious forces.

So, iMo, it is best to embrace the magic and go with its flow.

PS 2 new galleries - POLES and EYES DOWNCAST - on my WORK page.

# 6870-71 / common things • around the house • decay ~ recuperating

HAVEN’T BEEN AT MY COMPUTER FOR A FEW DAYS while recovering from a very nasty icy sidewalk fall. However, Also haven’t been inclined to make any pictures but I did spend some time making Lego flower arrangements. And while I was wiling away the time, I did receive a notice that one of my photographs was accepted into a REMAINS-themed exhibition.

# 6864-67 / common things • still life ~ good is as good does

WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, most notably on TOP, I must admit to being rather flummoxed, aka: confounded, or, simply confused, re: the idea of what is color photography and/or who is a color photographer?

It would be simplistic to write that / everyone who makes photographs with a device or materials capable of rendering reasonably accurate colors of the real world-as seen by a healthy human eye-is; a) making color photographs, and, by reasonable extension, 2) a “color” photographer. However, it would seem that in some quarters, just making color photographs is not enough to qualify one as a “color” photographer.

Apparently there is some other criteria that must be meet in order to be consider as a color photographer”. And, therein is where my confusion resides.

iMo, making color photographs makes one a color photographer. To my way of thinking, it is as simple as that. However…..

….I believe it to be indisputable that there are good color photographs and…gasp…not-so-good color photographs. iMo, the difference between the two is very easy to identify. A good color photograph is, quite simply, first and foremost, a good photograph.

My definition-influenced by my bias(es)-of a good photograph is summarized by this Cartier-Bresson quote:

“To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second the significance of an event, as well as the precise organization the forms that give that event its proper expression. And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”

I would substitute the phrase moment in time for the word event (a moment in time could include an “event”). However, that written, to my eye and sensibilities, the overall form seen in a photograph derives from the organization of the visual elements-line, shape, space, color and value-as framed and presented in the photograph. That organization is, in essence, balancing act. All of the visual elements must conspire to create a congruous whole-congruity determined by what the photographer wishes to express.

And, when it comes to color, I think it important to understand that the colors as presented in a photograph are just one visual element of any number of other visual elements that might be found in a good photograph. In my experience, I have found that color photographs that are saturated with color-or color(s) that has been over saturated-for color’s sake tend to slide over into the category of kitsch and dreck.

ASIDE Nevertheless, kitsch and dreck rarely fail to elicit fawning praise from the unwashed masses. cuz, ya know, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I would guess that therein could be found my definition of what constitutes a good color photograph and that a photographer who makes good color photographs is a good photographer. Although…

…I’ll stick with the idea that there is no such thing as a good color photographer, or for that matter, a good monochrome photographer. iMo, there are only good photographers as defined by their making of good photographs of any variety.

# 6859-63 / common places / things ~ a day in the life

woke up. looked out the front door. made a picture. ~ All photos (embiggenable)

drank coffee, had a donut. went upstairs to get dressed. made a picture.

after a doctor appointment went to grocery store. made a picture.

went back home. went upstairs to warm up the cocktail hour porch. made a picture.

late night just before retiring noted part of an 8 year old arrangement on the fireplace mantel. made a picture.

SO ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY HAS ME thinking, re: forget about defining what may or may not constitute a good color photograph and/or photographer. Instead, how about defining what constitutes a good photograph independent of categorization- i..e., bw / color, street / still life / landscape / et al.

CAVEAT there can never be a universal definition cuz, as Julian’s grandmother said, “For every pot there’s a lid.” Itaque, the definition found herein is decidedly influenced by my bias(es).

It would be easy, and a cop-out, to just quote Ansel Adams and be done with it:

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

On one level that makes some sorta sense. Although, yes, he was most likely offering an opinion about rules, as in, you don’t need no stinkin’ rules to make a good photograph. However, the fact of the matter is that, if there are good photographs there must also be not-so-good (bad?) photographs-plenty of which were made by the rules. In any event….

My photographs-and those which give me viewing pleasure made by others-tend to be driven by an openness to every picture making possibility the world offers. An openness-sorta like making photographs “to find out what something will look like photographed” (Garry Winogrand)-which is akin to curiosity. That is, a curiosity which recognizes that any thing in life, if accurately and profoundly penetrated by “seeing…observation full and felt” (Walker Evans) is interesting and always strange.

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-most often present interweaving repetitive visual elements of line, shape and color. Nevertheless, the recognizable individuality of any motif is superseded by its role in the pictorial whole. It is the resultant pictorial effect, not the technique, that predominates. The whole is indeed is greater than the sum of its parts. And, I might add, the whole is most often greater than that which is literally depicted.

I am not interested in technique beyond having enough to get the job done. And, the last thing I would want to be evident in my photographs is how they were made. To wit, Robert Adams said it best:

“…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.”

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-always dwell in the two dimensional world. That’s cuz there ain’t no 3D in the world of photography. It’s flat as pancake, paper (substrate) thin and best viewed-and pictured-in that perspective. Apologies to stereoscopic practitioners.

All of the above written, I suppose I could have just written that my photography pursuits have the goal of suggesting that the commonplace is a never-ending, ever-changing world of visual patterns / forms which present the opportunity for the making of interesting, strange, and therefore, to eye my and sensibilities, beautiful pictures. I also like pictures made by other like minded picture makers. Although, I am always open to surprises.