# 5549-51 / flora•kitchen life•kitchen sink ~ is it out there waiting to happen?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ARGUABLY, ALTHOUGH iMo UNARGUABLY, THE LAST BIG THING in the picture making world was the emergence of the New Color picture making movement. And quite a number of "big name" picture makers rose to the fore during that era.

Names such as Eggleston, Meyerowitz and Shore (amongst many others) who not only pioneered the use of color picture making in the fine art photography world but also made manifest the idea that any thing was suitable as a referent for picture making. For decades to follow, the work of those pioneers inspired / influenced a generation or two of picture makers who, with their own variations / vision, stood firmly on the shoulders of the earlier pioneers...Mossimo Vitali, Edward Burtynski and Andreas Gursky as examples.

Within the borders of any thing goes, there was a minor movement of straight photography minicry which was actually staged tableau vivant...Gregory Crewdson, David Hilliard, Jeff Wall and Aaron Hobson (my son) come to mind. Lots of interesting work to been seen in this genre.

In any event and all of that written, I have been increasingly struck by the fact that there has not been, nor can I see one on the horizon, another / next Big Thing, picture making wise. One could suggest that the emergence of smartphone picture making is a Big Thing, and it is, but it is more of a change in how pictures are made rather than a change in how picture makers see the world.

On the other hand, it could be argued that smartphone picture making has truly embraced, like no other movement, the idea that any thing and ever thing is, indeed, ripe for picture making thereof. Within that picture making world is the selfie. A genre which is loaded with picture making trash but, nevertheless, in which there is a significant amount of gold.

Who knows? Maybe a major art instition will, as MOMA did with the New Color Photographers, mount a ground breaking exhibition of selfie gold and, as a result, launch the next Big Thing.

# 5538 / natrual world•flora ~ sorta same as it ever was

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ON A RECENT ENTRY, # 5532 / Here we go again, A COMMENT WAS LEFT by Markus Spring...

"Hmm, AI in image processing doesn't really attract me..."

Markus went on to explain why AI image processing does not attract him. ASIDE my rsponse to Markus is in no way to be considered as a rejoinder / contrarian response cuz it is not.END OF ASIDE.

Since my dawn of picture making time, I have avoided any thing that might be considered as an "automatic", aka: not controlled by me, function or accoutrement. As an example, from day one, I always used a handheld light meter, normally with a spot metering attachment. None of that who-knows-what-it's-doing in-camera metering for me.

When I adopted digital picture making, I continued to be a control freak ... RAW format only (none of those crappy JPEGS for me). As I worked my way up the ever-improving sensor capability's ladder, I worked my ass off processing my image files to obtained my desired result. Not because I wanted to but cuz, given the shifting state of the art, I had to.

So, my embrace of Ai-based picture making-together with an, at first, skeptical embrace of JPEG image files-could be considered by some who know my history as a rather strange development (might be a pun there).

But here's the thing. I have come full-circle to a point of same-as-it-ever-was, picture making wise. To wit, back in the analogue days,you chose your poison (color film / paper), made an exposure, took the result into the darkroom and made a print, using the very limited range of control available to do so, and lived with the result. Which is not to write that the result could not be a very nice color print cuz, most often it was.

Compare that to my current picture making M.O. I have picked my poison (an iPhone), make an exposure (Ai hard at work), open the jpeg in my "darkroom", make a few minor adjustments (work-arounds, side-steps, "tricks", flat out ignoring some conventional processing wisdom), make a print and live with the result. Which is not to write that the result could not be a very nice color print cuz the result is always> remarkably close, if not not perfectly matched, to my desired result.

And, have no doubt about it. My desired result, print wise, conforms to a very high standard. Back in the analogue days, my C prints were very often perceived to be dye transfer prints-in large part due the fact I printed with condenser-head enlargers, not diffusion-head enlargers.

My digital era prints are produced to mimic the best qualities of analogue era C prints. Soft detailed highlights and deep but detailed shadows with smooth tonal transitions and "clean" natural color. Prints are sharp but not state-of-the-art (so called) eye-bleeding sharp. In short, a pleasing / easy to look at picture.

CAVEAT All of the above written, it should be understood that, while it might seem that I just breeze my way through some quick and easy picture making steps, especially at the prcessing stage, that is simply not the case. I bring 30 years of Photoshop image processing skills and experience to every image file I process.

There is no question that the iPhone Ai gets me remarkedly close to where I want to be (90% of the time), it still requires a significant amount of applied skill and knowledge, Photoshop image file processing wise, to achieve my desired end result. To be sure, it is not rocket science level wise but most certainly it is not click the button / move the slider wise simple.END OF CAVEAT

# 5508-19 / still life•kitchen life•flora ~ re: the shallow end of the gene pool

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

AS I WADE THROUGH THE AUTUMN COLOR SEASON OF WRETCHED EXCESS, picture making wise, I am reminded of a few of Brooks Jensen's 100 Things I've Learned About Photography...

• If you want to sell a lot of photographs, use color and lots of it. If you want to sell even more, photograph mountains, oceans, fall leaves, and animals.

• We are fast approaching critical mass on photographs of nudes on a sand dune, sand dunes with no nudes, Yosemite, weathered barns, the church at Taos, New Mexico, lacy waterfalls, fields of cut hay in the afternoon sun, abandoned houses, crashing waves, sunsets in color, and reflected peaks in a mountain lake.

• Finding great subject matter is an art in itself.

I mean, seriously, there is much more to Autumn than standing by your car on the roadside, pointing a picture making device at a hillside covered with autumn color, then printing or posting online the resultant picture with color saturation pushed to 11 (on a scale of 1-10).

Or, on the other hand, maybe not. After all, 50% of people (including picture makers) are below average.

flora / kitchen life / # 3646-48 ~ waiting game

outside ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3rd

ephemera ~ (emvigeenable) • iPhone

inside ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

IF MY INFORMATION IS CORRECT, YESTERDAY WAS CAMERA DAY. That is not a date which is marked on my calender. Although, truth be told, I do not have any dates marked on my calender simply because I do not have a calender.

In any event, as it happens, I have actually been thinking about a camera. An Olympus Pen F to be exact. That's cuz, now that Olympus (my long-time camera brand of choice) is getting out of the camera business, I am thinking now is the time to purchase a new body which, hopefully, will last me until I pass over to the the big darkroom in the sky.

However, it is still early in the game, re: the new entity that will acquire the Olympus photo gear operation, to know what kind of ongoing support will be available for what remains of the photo product line. Panasonic is an option but it remains to be seen what their commitment to the µ4/3rd format will be without Olympus in the game. That written, with the advanced-amateur camera market in free-fall, who knows where any camera maker is headed.

All of that written, you might wonder why, with my nearly exclusive use of my iPhone for my picture making, I am even considering a new camera. The answer is quite simple: 1.) I can not ever imagine giving up making pictures with a real camera. There are some picture making requirements that the iPhone does not meet to my satisfaction, and, 2.) there is at least one picture making project I wish to undertake that the iPhone can not give me the look I am seeking, i.e. narrow depth of field with a wide angle lens-see the above outside picture which was made with a 24mm (equivalent) lens on one of my µ4/3rd camera.

All things considered, re: a new camera body, I think a waiting game is in order to determine how things will shake out. In the meantime, my current µ4/3rd gear is giving me exactly what I want, so, it's on with the show.

flora / kitchen life / # 3627-28 ~ whistle while you work

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THE PHRASE "WORK HARD", re: MAKING PICTURES, SEEMS TO ME TO be a rather ridiculous misnomer when mentioned / written in that context. However, that is exactly how it is being used in a 3-part entry on T.O.P.

Let me begin on this topic with one of my favorite quotes from Bill Jay ....

"...photographers who carry 60 pounds of equipment up a hill to photograph a view are not suffering enough, although their whining causes enough suffering among their listeners. No, if they really expect us to respect their search for enlightenment and artistic expression, in [the] future they will drag the equipment up the hill by their genitals and take the view with a tripod leg stuck through their foot."

Now, to be fair, Mike Johnston does begin his series with writing that "no one cares how hard you worked", to which I would add, that is cuz it is all about the pictures you make, stupid. However, my point, re: working hard while making a picture, is that, if one is working hard at it, then that's cuz: a) he/she does not have their own unique vision, and/ or, b) he/she does not have a firm, yet relaxed, grip on the mechanics / technicals of making a picture.

Re: a) he/she does not have their own unique vision - assuming that one understands the concept of vision as knowing how one sees, literally and figuratively, the world and how that knowledge is the basis upon which you make pictures, then making pictures is as easy as just about anything gets. That's cuz, all you are doing is making pictures of what you see.

You only have to work hard when making pictures when you are making pictures of what you have been told is a "good" picture. As in, picturing a "good" referent using "proper" techniques. Or, in other words, when you are working to someone else's standards rather than your own. To which I write, "Screw that."

Re: he/she does not have a firm, yet relaxed, grip on the mechanics / technicals of making a picture - if you are "hauling around 60 pounds of equipment", you are burdening yourself, literally and figuratively, with too much crap which will only get in the way of picturing what you see. If you understand and have idenitified your own unique vision and use that knowledge as the basis upon which you make pictures, then it should be understood that, at this point, you should have narrowed your equipment list down to 1 camera / 1 lens.

Essentially, what that-1 camera / 1 lens-means is that for every unique vision there is a single unique lens. Really. Trust me-and the overwhelming majority of unique-vision driven pictures makers-on this one. It is as simple as that when it comes to making it easy, no working hard required, when making pictures. Or, in other words, when the picture making device in your hands becomes invisible, no thinking required, then all of your other senses can be focused upon the seeing.

All of that witten, I have never, in my picture making life (personal and professional), associated the phrase "working hard" with picture making. Applying my efforts with diligence, focus and determination? Sure. However, that written, the phrase I associate with my picture making is "having fun".

Or, in other words, it's never "working hard" when you are whistling while you work.

around the house / flora / # 3624-26 ~ the cruel radiance of what is

no wonder the wife likes working from home ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THIS ENTRY MIGHT JUST BE AN EXERCISE in futility for some inasmuch as, if the included link is behind a pay-wall, my point will be somewhat incomplete. Nevertheless ....

... here is the link, A PORTRAIT IF AMERICA THAT STILL HAUNTS, DECADES LATER. In case you can not link to it, it is an article about Robert Frank's New Orleans Trolley picture.

neworleanstrolleyfrank.jpg

The article itself is a dissection, one might even write vivisection, of Frank's iconic-at least so in photography circles-photograph from his landmark work/book, The Americans. The author of the piece is Arthur Lubow, a journalist who writes mainly about culture and is the author of Diane Arbus: Portrait of a Photographer.

To be right up-front about it, iMo, I really dislike this article. However, to be fair, I do not dislike it any more or less than any other similar articles in which an author is seemingly engaged in trying to impress the reader with his/her insightful art knowledge. And, as should be obvious by my last entry, parts is just parts, I especially dislike it when an author, discussing / writing about a picture, rips a picture into distinct-from-the-whole separate "pieces".

In the article in question, the author actually uses other photographs and a painting to "explain" / add "meaning" to some of people depicted in the picture. I guess that is because they just can not be allowed to be themselves. Instead, they must be associated with other figures depicted in other art in order to be "understood".

And, writing of other art, the author picks apart individual elements in the photograph in order to describe one element as "a hallmark of the Minimalist art that would blossom in the ’60s", or another element as, "could easily be a Whistler painting", or yet anoter element as, "like something out of Abstract Expressionism".

Once again, as the author does with the depicted people, the things he describes with even more art references just can not be allowed to be eactly what they are. You know, things depicted and described as the camera sees them.

In what I consider the author's most egregious example of derivative artspeak lunacy (I will just give you the whole quote)....

"...the arabesque W of the Walgreens drugstore logo behind her ... is like an insignia that ranks her as an officer in the governing establishment, placing her just below the rider in front of her. Because that first decorative element, by strange coincidence, features a similar but larger swoop.

I could go on and on and fester on the emotions, mindset, and, in one case, even what the future holds for one person that the author confidently ascribes to the depicted people but, suffice it to write, the one thing that comes to my mind after reading this piece...

"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art ... Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of "meanings." ~ Susan Sontag

To be perfectly clear, here is my point .... Frank's picture is a very powerful and moving picture about what was and, in many cases and places, still is. That is to write, things as they are or have been.

An awareful and sentient viewer of this picture does not need any art-referential balderdash to be affected by the back-of-the-bus / separation-of-the-races mentality depicted and, by association, the brutality and human suffering engendered by it. All of which can "seen" and understood just by the simple act of looking at the picture.

Or, as James Agee wrote...

"For in the immediate world, everything is to be discerned, for him who can discern it, and centrally and simply, without a either dissection into science or digression into art, but with the whole of consciousness, seeking to perceive it as it stands: so that the aspect of a street in sunlight can roar in the heart of itself as a symphony, perhaps as no symphony can: and all of consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is.

flora / # 3616-18 ~ it's not easy being green

(embiggenable) • iPhone

before LAB curves adjustment ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

after LAB curves adjustment ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

ON THE SUBJECT OF GREEN IN MY LAST ENTRY Thomas Rink commented (partial):

At times, I find it difficult to make the green of vegetation look "right" in pictures....

my response:

CAVEAT It should be noted that my response is predicated upon my experience with my picture making devices (iPhone / Olympus µ4/3 cameras) and the manner in which they "see" color. And, re: devices "seeing" color, all camera / device manufacturers' picture making software has their own unique manner of turning digital information into color. Just as various makers' film did in the analog days.

In my experience, I have found that, in general, both my Olympus cameras and my iPhone (to a lesser extent) seem to have what has been descibed by reviewers as an ever so slight warm color bias. And I notice that bias most in pictures with a lot of green wherein the greens, to my eye and sensibilities, contain a bit too much yellow. The result is that, in cases where there are multiple shades of green, the greens can start to kinda blend together, color wise.

I discovered a solution to this issue way back when I started messing around with color adjustments in LAB color space. The solution, for my image files, is as simple as it gets ...

(embiggenable)

... after converting an image to LAB color space, I go to the "b" channel (Yellow/ Blue) and put an anchor point at the 0 input/0 output point (the exact center of the curves line). Then I put an anchor point on the yellow side of the curves line (above the 0/0 anchor point and drag it downward until, using my monitor as a visual guide, the greens look as I remember them from when I made the picture. Then I add another anchor point at the top of the curves line to straighten the line between the 2 anchor points.

Next, I go the "a" channel (red/green) and place an anchor at the 0/0 point on the curves line. Then I add an anchor point in the green side of the curves line (below the 0/0 point) and drag it up (adding magenta) ever so slightly, again using my monitor as a visual guide to determine whether I need to make this adjustment - sometimes I do, sometimes I do not. Many times the "b" channel adjustment is all an image file needs. In any event, I then convert the image file back to RGB color space.

What I see most from the above process is that, especially once the yellow is adjusted, there are more shades of green and, over all, the greens look more "accurate". I have provided before / after pictures so, if you are viewing them on a reasonably calibrated monitor / screen, you can judge for yourself.