# 6572-78 / poles • common places • common things ~ sharing the joy of seeing

all photos (embiggenable)

added 4 new photos to my poles body of work (on my WORK page)

ON MY LAST ENTRY, RE: Blurb magazines, Dennis left a comment / question:

“In an earlier post, you commented the Blurb was not your go to book maker. Has that changed? Who is/was your favorite?”

My long term POD photo book source is Shutterfly. It continues to be so for “showcase” photo books of my favored bodies of work cuz they offer-don’t know if any other sources do-6-color printing. Their quality of materials and book binding is very good and, if there is a problem with the results, they reprint without question.

That written, I suspect-with good evidence-that most POD photo book sources use a small number of printing sources. A practice which results in pretty consistent quality across the board. In any event, in many cases, the choice of which source to use for POD photo books comes down to their book making software. Some are quite clunky and non-intuitive. Also worth considering / exploring is the fact that some POD sources offer products-of which Blurb magazines are a good example-that others do not.

Re: book making software: Shutterfly-like most sources-allows creators to make books with their software in a standard browser window. Blurb requires a creator to download their software onto the creator’s computer. That written, in any event, I never use the source’s layout patterns. Instead, I set up my books with blank pages and place my page files-made to the exact page size (to include a white border and any text)-full-bleed, aka: out to the page edges, on each page.

Re: making full-bleed page files: I make my page files in Photoshop. This procedure gives complete control over all of the layout possibilities: photo size, placement, number of photos per page, size / color of border (always white for me), text typeface / size / placement / color and quantity,

All of the above written, let me suggest, yet again, that if ya ain’t making prints, ya ain’t making nothin’. Ok, I get it, some of you might not have enough wall space to do your body of work justice so that’s why the photo gods gave us books. In my case, I currently have 70 POD photo books of my work-all shapes and sizes. That is in addition to the nearly 100 prints I have on my walls. You might conclude that I like displaying and looking at my work.

But here’s the thing I like about books; they’re portable. I can take them anywhere and share them with any one I choose. And, in the case of Blurb magazines, they are so inexpensive that, if someone likes them, I can give them away. That is to write, I am able to put my work in front of other people’s eye’s and, if they desire, into their life, to have and to hold.

#6547-51 / common places • common things • kitchen life ~ please box me in

all photos (embiggenable)

BEEN VERY BUSY LATELY MAKING BLURB MAGAZINES of my various bodies of work, Adirondack Survey, Kitchen Sink, and Discursive Promiscuity to be exact- the discursive promiscuity one can be seen in the above photo. I made the discursive magazine-named LOOK magazine which has now been changed to SEEN magazine-on a bit of a whim; just to see the quality (paper and reproduction). To be frank, I was impressed especially so considering that the price for a 28 page Premium magazine -8.5"x11", 80# matte pages / 80# semi-gloss cover magazine-is $8.60USD + $4.99USD for a hi-res Pdf of the magazine.

FYI, the reproduction was excellent and the paper is very close to the finish and feel of the substrate I use to print my photographs. In fact, I could cut pages out of the magazine, frame them and put them on my wall(s) and I would be very content to present them as excellent examples of my work. This result has my head spinning inasmuch as I feel like I have entered a crazy world where a quality 8.5"x11" photo print costs $0.33/print. That’s truly a crazy world cuz I can not make a 8.5"x11" print on my printer for that price.

All that written, what has kept me busy for the last week or so is creating magazines for 8-10 bodies of my work. The idea of having 10 magazines representing a lot of my work in a single slip case is just flat out very seductive.

# 6541-46 / common places-things • around the house • kitchen sink ~ an alternate reality

all photos (embiggenable)

FOR THE BETTER PART OF 2 DECADES I HAVE been making square format photographs. With either a real camera or the iPhone, my picture making procedure has been the same; set the picture making screen view to square and make the picture, open full frame RAW file in PS and crop to square in exactly the center of the image which yields an image exactly as I saw it on the screen of my picture making device. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Somewhere along the way-about 18 months or so ago-the monkey wrench gang sneaked into the room and, as is the wont, threw a wrench into the works; i.e. I began to notice that the full frame image suited my eye and sensibilities as much as the square version. In a perplexing manner, both aspect ratios seemed to “work”-differently but, oddly, the same.

The oddness steams from the fact that, in almost every case, the additional image information-top and bottom or left and right (depending on camera orientation)-”fits” perfectly, to my eye and sensibilities, into the picture. I find that very disconcerting inasmuch as that information was not visible on the viewing screen in situ. A fact that throws the traditional picture making adage-”compose”, aka: what to include/ exclude in the frame, carefully-right out the window. Or, at least, right out of my window.

A part of what I am enjoying(?) about this revelation is that the additional visual information creates an image that comes as a bit of a surprise. A pleasant surprise to be exact. That said, it leads to an interesting question; would I have achieved the same result if I had been viewing the in situ scene with the viewing screen set to a full frame view? …. answer: don’t know and probably never will cuz sure as hell I ain’t gonna changes horses in midstream.

Might be time for a photo book titled alternate realities - square format on one page, full frame on the adjoining page.

# 6537-40 / common places-things • landscape ~ it's like an itch, when ya feel it ya gotta scratch it

all photos (embiggenable)

THE NY TIMES HAS AN ONGOING SERIES CALLED The 10 Minute Challenge which challenges the reader to look, uninterrupted, at a single piece of art-to date, no photographs-for 10 minutes. During that time the viewer has the ability to zoom in/out in order to explore details. The viewer can stop at any time and a timer will let him/her know how long was spent viewing the picture. There is no penalty for not completing 10 minutes. Upon the termination of viewing, an art “expert” steps in and writes about/comments on the picture.

The commentary does yield up a few interesting bits and pieces, put they invariably veer off into art-school “lectures” which break down / disassemble the art piece into individual visual components in order to “explain” to the viewer how the art piece “works”. For the mechanically inclined, I guess this makes sense. For those who prefer the experience and sensations of viewing art, not so much.

An example of “experience and sensations” v. “mechanically inclined”: I would suggest that the difference can be explained by my approach to automobiles; the wife and I have 3 “drivers” cars; cars with exceptionally good handling-one has a track-tuned suspension-which means they handle the twisty bits at speed with composure and precision, aka: no fuss, no muss. They just drive and feel-the synchronous connection between car, driver, and the road-right. That written, I have very little interest in how, mechanically, it all comes together cuz I primarily care about the experience and sensations of driving those cars.

FYI, I especially enjoy, when driving the track-tuned car with my best friend as passenger, I can drive (literally) him through the twisty bits right up to edge of where the uninitiated tend to soil themselves.

Moving on, I accepted the 10 minute challenge for Edward Hopper’s painting, Manhattan Bridge Loop. and made it through to the 10 minute mark. While I did zoom in 2-3x to view a few details, I primarily viewed the piece in its entirety letting my eyes wander around the piece exploring various points of interest that caught my attention. I enjoyed my time with the painting. Time well spent, although, having spent time viewing a number of Hopper’s paintings-most notably Nighthawks-I can write that, staring at it on a screen is a far cry from seeing it on a wall.

Next up, I read the commentary which was complete with multiple images of the picture with the perfunctory lines and shapes drawn across/on its surface to…I don’t know…make sure that stupid people “understand” the picture and that painters use lines and shapes in constructing their work? I guess this annoys me so much cuz it‘s a kissing cousin to the advice you get from photo “experts” on the subject of how to “master” composition.

On the positive side, re: the commentary, it included these words from Mr. Hopper, himself:

Mr. Hopper wrote that he was primarily interested in the “vast field of experience and sensation. Form and color and structure were the tools he used to express those ideas….Why I select certain subjects rather than others, I do not exactly know, unless it is that I believe them to be the best mediums for a synthesis of my inner experience,….So much of every art is an expression of the subconscious, that it seems to me most all of the important qualities are put there unconsciously, and little of importance by the conscious intellect.…But these are things for the psychologist to untangle.

The highlighted part of Hopper’s words support, iMo, my belief that most of great art is created, not by thoughts, but by feelings. Think too much about it and yer gonna fuck it up. Ya gotta feel it when yer makin’ it. Loosen up and let it all hang out. If ya wanna think about it, think about it later.

It was Joel Meyerowitz who wrote:

“I connect to things in a visceral way…The camera is a reflex for me, it rises to my eye and opens up to take in that thing out there-sensation, feeling, cohesive elements that appear in front of me. It is a way of matching and absorbing the response I have to the world. It captures my consciousness and, later, this allows me to read my consciousness back like a text and understand my relationship to things or moments.”

In any event, if you have a subscription to the NY Times, I recommend the challenge. If not, why not click on one of my pictures and spend 10 minutes with it?

# 6534-36 / commpn places-things • folliage ~ some men follow their junk

all photos (embiggenable)

RECENTLY, OVER ON T.O.P. , THE TOPIC OF “the most interesting photographer in history” was raised. To define that phrase M. Johnston went on to write, “Interesting meaning fascinating or thought provoking, in any aspect—personal lives, significance, ideas and attitudes, accomplishments, whatever.” Stated that way, I had very little interest inasmuch as I have no curiosity, re:what someone who makes pictures has for breakfast or if that someone picks his/her nose or who might literally, run around in little circles from dawn to dusk. The only saving grace in that descriptor was the inclusion of “significance” and “ideas.”

Having written all that, I can state that the primary interest I have with any photographer is the pictures he/she make or have made. The only interest I might otherwise have, is bit of background on what drove him/her, if applicable, to pick up photography and, minus any art-speak, what he/she believes he/she is trying to accomplish with their work. However, that would only interest me if I found his/her photographs interesting.

So, in any event, I thought, just for giggles and grins, that I would enlighten my readers with my list of photographers who. iMo / to my eye and sensibilities, make interesting photographs…

  1. THE SIGNIFICANT: In a class by themselves, Shore, Eggleston, Meyerowitz, Adams (Robert), Frank. These guys radically changed the idea of what can be photographed and what constitutes a good photograph like no other photographer before them.

  2. THE QUIRKY: Joel-Peter Witkin, Diane Arbus, Martin Parr, Weegee, Paula Klaw.

  3. THE VENERATED: Evans, Stieglitz, Weston, Margaret Bourke White, Porter, Bresson.

  4. THE ONE AND ONLY: Maier

In my personal photobook library, re: Photographer Monographs, I have at least one-in some cases 2 or more-book of each of the above named “interesting photographers”. That written, I have many other monographs by photographers whose work I admire. However, they tend to fall in one or another of the 1-3 categories listed above and I felt that those listed are more than enough for anyone to figure out the kinds of photographs I find interesting.

Burtynsky is one of my favorites (embiggenable)

FYI, a photobook I would emphatically recommend is Photo-wisdom ~ Master Photographers on Their Art;

Through the extraordinary images and insights of 50 of the world's master photographers, Photo-wisdom explores the richness of contemporary photographic practice. Photo-wisdom features commentaries from original interviews with world-leading photographers alongside exquisite reproductions of key images chosen by the artists themselves.The result is an unprecedented collection of 200 images showcasing each master photographer's work and their unique voice. ~ from publisher’s description

Then there’s this review-written by a woman-a customer on a used book site:

“It's big, it's beautiful, it's full of photos... but is it really full of wisdom? And if not, do we care? ….there's a lot to learn and a lot to love even if you never read a word of the accompanying first-person essays (mostly taken from interviews). But I do love reading that some photographers rely on luck, some make elaborate plans, and some let their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks.”

Keep in mind that “contemporary photographic practice “ is c. 2010, when the book was published and also note that the 50 photographers presented range from award-winning photojournalists to celebrity shooters; from politicized environmentalists to elusive artists; from timeless veterans to new visionaries; and from great storytellers to the makers of lasting icons. iMo, the diversity of the practitioners is what makes the book especially interesting.

In any event, the book is highly recommended and it can be found on a variety of used book sites (including Amazon) for very reasonable prices. I purchased my copy in 2012 in an upscale, small storefront, used book store on 2nd Ave. in the East Village NYC. Over a couple decades I visited the store 2-3x a year. It had a photobook section of ever-changing titles in near like-new condition at quite reasonable prices. Not that I am counting, but it is possible that half or more of photobook collection came from this store. Unfortunately, it closed a bout 10 years ago.

FYI, it should be evident from my discursive promiscuity approach to picture making that I am a photographer who-according to the woman reviewer quoted above-falls into the picture-making group that lets their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks…guilty as charged.

# 6523-26 / landscape • autumn ~ change is a-comin'

all photos (embiggenable)

JUST SOME PICTURES FROM my neighborhood. Stick season is coming and some white stuff has been comin’ and goin’ at higher elevations. Gotta get my winter backpacking gear together cuz I promised myself that I would- while I still can-spend a few days and nights in the back country this winter.

# 6520-22 / common places/things • autumn ~ take some Extra Strength Tylenol and call me in the morning

all photos (embiggenable)

A COMMENT FROM DENNIS ON my last entry:

“…what set you off this time? Just because it worked for you don't mean jack for anyone else. Falling Water is lovely but falling down…”

Cannot imagine what, in my last entry, caused Dennis to experience a “migraine inducing eyeroll”. That written, let me pass on my condolence. Hope you feel better. In any event, I thought I should respond to his “riptose” on 2 counts; re: Fallingwater (1 word, not 2), and, re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else”.

re: Fallingwater - fun fact, Fallingwater is not falling down. Nor was it in eminent danger of falling down. In 1995 it was determined that the concrete cantilevered balconies were insufficiently reinforced. What a surprise (sarcasm alert). Who could have guessed that a structure-an untested, never-before attempted, never-imagined construction technique, using materials available at that time-built 60 years prior might just need a bit of additional reinforcement? In any event, in 2002 additional reinforcement was installed leaving Fallingwater's interior and exterior appearance unchanged and the original construction engineering intact.

re: “don’t mean jack for anyone else” - I have no idea if the topics and/or ideas and opinions expressed on this blog have any meaning, applicability, or value to anyone else (other than M). And, I most emphatically make it known that, with my liberal and continued use of the acronym, “iMo”-note that M is both bold and italicized-I am not writing ex cathedra. So, Dennis, please accept my thanks for pointing out the obvious.

And, speaking of the obvious, I would never suggest that what works for me would necessarily work for anyone else cuz, ya know, statistically, half the population is below average.

# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

all photos (embiggenable)

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.