# 6003-05 / around the house ~ casting about

April 5, 2022

ON MY LAST ENTRY THOMAS RINK WROTE A COMMENT IN WHICH he describes a picture making project he is working on. A project that bears a working premise that is somewhat similar to the project I wish to undertake.

“I'm currently pursueing a similar project, for about a year now. It's "about" a place where I've grown up….[T]he photographs are not about particular subject matter….but what I try to achieve is to "tell the story" what the place means to me, i.e. how I see it….[I] employ something like a "scatter gun" approach….I'll photograph anything that arouses my interest…”

Thomas’ picture making approach to his project is pretty close to how I will pursue my project. For that matter, his M.O. mirrors my M.O. in today’s making of the 4 pictures in this entry.

# 5998-6002 / around the house•(civilized) landscape ~ going fishing

April 4, 2022

OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS I HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT I want to explore the possibility of a new way of picture making. Specifically, to create a new, themed body of work that is different from those bodies of work that have emerged from my discursively promiscuous manner of making pictures.

The big question, re: that desire, is, different in what way? Other than the fact that I would like to create pictures that represent something about the place where I live-in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, aka the Adirondack Park-is a new approach about subject matter? technique? a combination of subject matter and technique together? In any case, in thinking about this, I find that I keep bumping with into the walls of the box into which I have locked myself, picture making wise.

Re: the problem with subject matter - simply written, in my pursuit of making pictures, fine-art wise, I have rarely focused on specific referents. That written, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked by repetitive references-my kitchen sink as one example (of many)-but, not because I seek out those specific referents. Rather, what pricks my eye and sensibilities are sections of the real world which evidence potential as photographs which create interesting visual form.

Consequently, I have a problem with pursuing a specific referent cuz of my fear that placing my emphasis on chasing a specific referent will lead to the loss of my feel for seeing and picturing form.

Re: technique - I have no interest in making any kind of pictures other than straight pictures. I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than to add any thing to my pictures that I consider to be effects or cheap tricks. However, that written…the medium of photography and its apparatus does have a handful of native picture making mechanics with which I have always had an interest.

There is one mechanics in particular that I have tinkered with over the years-that of Depth-Of-Field, aka DOF. My “tinkering” has run the gamut of trying to achieve, in some cases, maximum DOF, or, in other cases, minimal DOF. It all depended-and still does-on what i was intending to achieve, picture making wise.

Virtually all of my discursive promiscuity pictures depend upon maximum DOF to elucidate the form I create. I want the lines, shapes, tones, colors, texture, et al in my pictures to be clearly delineated across the 2D plain of my pictures. However, it has come to my attention in experimenting with the iPhone full-frame format-using the Portrait Mode-that a bit of limited DOF can still accomplish my picture making intentions, form wise.

Literal referent wise, I have always liked limited DOF for its ability to lend a bit of “mystery” to a picture. And, I will readily admit, the contrarian in me wise, that I like it even more considering the current picture making obsession with sharpness and definition to the eye-searing max.

In any event, wherever all of this picture making casting about might end up, I think it will include a bit of limited DOF. And, thank you, thank you to the iPhone for giving me the capability of fine tuning the apparent DOF after the picture making fact.

# 5873-75 / around the house • kitchen life ~ picturing experience

December 14, 2021

JOHN SZARKOWSKI WROTE (c.1976):

…it is true, as I believe it is, that today’s most radical and suggestive color photography derives most of its vigor from commonplace models…[I]n the past decade a number of photographers have begun to work in color in a more confident, more natural, and yet more ambitious spirit, working not as though color were a separate issue, a problem to be solved in isolation (not thinking of color as photographers seventy years ago thought of composition), but rather as though the world itself existed in color, as though the blue and the sky were one thing….[they] accept color as existential and descriptive; the pictures are not photographs of color, any more than they are photographs of shapes, texture, objects, symbols, or events, but rather photographs of experience, as it has been ordered and clarified within the structures imposed by the camera.

And, speaking of experience, here’s what Joel Meyerowitz had to say:

“I don’t want to talk about one aspect of these pictures over the rest. The fact is, I’m trying to photograph the wholeness of my experience. I’m trying to pass that experience back into the world…[T]hat’s what it’s about-the location of the subject, it’s about the passage of the experience itself, the wholeness, though you back into the world, selected by your native instincts. That’s what artists do. They separate their experience from the totality, from raw experience, and it’s the quality of their selections that makes them visible to the world.”

Add to the idea, re: Szarkowski’s and Meyerowitz’s photographing experience, Meyerowitz’s sensation of “feeling”…:

“I see things-this is my life-I look; I make visual images…[I]t’s what I’ve done since I was a kid. I feel things…[I] love sensations. But ,within the limited range of sensations that I am responsive to, certain optical things excite me...[I]f I am in a good place, where there’s lots of visual activity, I become supersensitive. I receive many signals and I pick and choose among them.”

…and I have started to think that I need to reassess the idea of so-called “vision “ as it is most commonly bantered about / understood in the “serious” amateur picture making world.

# 5863-67 / landscape (civilized ku • ku) • around the house ~ working different

December 8, 2021

I SORTA GOT SIDETRACKED BY THE IS-SQUARE-GOOD-FOR-LANDSCAPES thing along with a dose of BW infatuation. Using the work of Robert Adams as markers / aim points for both ideas, as well as rummaging around in my picture library for pictures which were suitable for RA-like (signs of man in the landscape) conversion to BW, I am well satisfied that, for my picturing, square and BW digital BW conversion processing is good. I might even state that it is very good.

Re: digital conversion / processing for color > BW. From time to time I come across, most recently on T.O.P., the idea that digital is not BW picturing friendly. That the only way to achieve the best BW pictures is via the analog, aka: film, picture making process. I disagree….

…That written, I am not here to debate one process against the other. Rather, the position I take is that digital BW images can be created which compare-that is, if comparing is your thing-very favorably with film created BW images. Me, I’m not into “comparing”. Nor am I a life-long devotee of BW picture making.

Sure, sure. Back in the analog days, I had my very own soup-to-nuts “formula” for making BW pictures - preferred film, developer, developing times / agitation, (my own “personal” zone system) + my preferred printing system - condenser enlarger, specific developer, specific graded paper. My formula produced BW prints that I liked very much. Not to mention, I truly enjoyed my private time in the darkrooms (1 for film processing, 1 for printing).

At the same time there were those who took the I idea of creating a personal BW picturing, processing, printing formula to an extreme. Example: I have overheard many a photo club conversation hotly debating the type of bulb to be used in an enlarger head. They loved to tinker with the process to the point where, in some cases, it was the reason they were involved with photography.

In any event, I’ll leave you with a hint-I have mentioned this previously-for making really good BW digital image files. The process is simplicity itself - open an RGB color image file. Convert to LAB Color Space, Discard the a and b channels, leaving only the Lightness channel. Convert to Grayscale. At this point you now have an image file that contains only the lightness values-independent of any color values-extracted from your original color file-THIS NOT THE SAME THING AS DE-SATURATING THE COLORS IN A COLOR FILE-not even close.

Once I have the Grayscale file, I will usually make small tonal adjustments in Photoshop to bring the tonal values in line with the feel of the original color file, therefore in line with the actual scene.

**RGB original** / **LAB conversion Grayscale** ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

# 5851-52 / landscape (new topographics) ~ one of these things is not like the other thing

November 27, 2021

OVER PAST MONTH OR SO I HAVE BEEN MAKING A FAIR NUMBER of full-frame pictures. In most cases, doing so after making a square-frame picture of the small referent / scene.

What I have learned from this procedure is that , while I still see square, picture making vision wise, I only see full-frame wise when I switch from square crop to full-frame crop on the viewing screen of the iPhone. That is to write, I do not see the world full-frame, picture making wise, “naturally” / intuitively. Nevertheless, I do feel that once I impose the full-frame rectangle on my viewing screen, I have no trouble “arranging” the visual elements on the 2D visual plane within my imposed frame into a satisfactory visual form.

The interesting result of this crop-of-the-real-world switcheroo is that the full-frame picture-even though it is based upon / around the square instigating prick to my eye and sensibilities-presents (in print), a remarkably different look and feel from the square version thereof. That is not to write that one is better or worse than the other. They are just different.

So, considering the preceeding, were I to set out to make a full-frame body of work, I would set my on-screen crop to full-frame and, after being incited to make a picture by a prick to my eye and sensibilities, I would then only view the instigating referent through the full-frame crop on the iPhone screen.

However, I am intrigued by the idea of making a photographs about photography body of work which is comprised of full-frame + square frame pictures of the same referent. The intent being to have an exhibition with one wall displaying square prints opposing another wall displaying the full-frame prints.

# 5888-90 / civilized ku ~ epiphanic visual interdependencies

July 19, 2021

IN MULTIPLE ENTRIES OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE MENTIONED my involvement in the landmark book, the new color photography*, by Sally Eauclaire (Abbeville Press,1981). Sally Eauclaire was an art critic and "neighbor" who lived down the hall from me in the warehouse I had converted into artist's living / studio lofts.

In the late 70s Eauclaire turned her writing attention to the then emergent genre of Fine Art color photography. She undertook the project of writing an overview of the movement having had no previous experience in critiquing / writing about things photographic. That was not a problem inasmuch as she intended to write about the art of photography, not about the techniques of making photos. Nevertheless, she wanted to learn about how specific pictures-selected from those featured in the book-were made. So, that's where I stepped in as her how-the-pictures-were-made consultant (I am credited in the book).

For me, the experience-over the course of 2 years-was an epiphany. During that time, as I perused portfolios from photographers-many of whom are now considered to be the star-studded founding fathers (and mothers) of "modern", Fine Art color photogaphy-it was an eye-opening experience. In addition to the fact that color photography was now being taken "seriously", it also gave witness to the idea that anything, any referent, was now fair game for the making of pictures thereof. As Eauclaire wrote, picture makers were now free to make color pictures of things other than "prodigious crags, rippling sands, or flaming sunsets."

All of that written, here is a excerpt form the book wherein she is writing about Stephen Shore's work and in which she also pretty accurately describes my approach to / intended goals, re: making pictures....

Shore's goal, like that of Evans, appears to be a "reticent, understated, impersonal art." Viewer's immune to his subtle, sensuous visual intelligence often descibe his work as "dry" and "detached" because they only see lucidly described facts....Shore does not use cliched pictorial packages to carry readymade meanings. In one sense, his subject matter is what it appears to be-a scrupulous inventory of visual facts. But Shore maneuvers his facts to reveal epiphanic visual interdependencies. Pictorial priorities supersede a devotion to what might constitute the subject's truth. He is engaged not with any place's knowable identity but with its visual mystique, its potential for being turned into a picture.

Is there a better description of the medium and its apparatus' ability to, when paired with a picture maker's "visual intelligence", transcend its descriptive facility by providing the playground and tools to see beyond the obvious?

*288 pages, 47 photographers (to include, William Eggleston, Stephen Shore, Jan Groover, Joel Meyerowitz, Eve Sonneman, David Hockney, William Christenberry, Mitch Epstein, Roger Merton, Michael Bishop), and well over 150 photographs.

# 5882-83 / civilized ku ~ a square squared

July 14, 2021

(embiggenable) • iPhone + Argoflex Seventy five — (embiggenable) • iPhone + Argoflex *Seventy five*

YESTERDAY, AS I EMBARKED UPON THE FIRST DAY OF MY 75TH YEAR ON THE PLANET, I was thinking back to the time when I thought I would create a series of pictures made of the view looking through the viewfinder of TLR. For one reason or another that never happened.

In any event, I still have the TLR I acquired for the proposed series so I got it out and made a picture of the view looking through the viewfinder. I think of the result as a view of the view through a viewfinder.

That written, this little exercise has not re-ignited a desire to make a series of such pictures. However, it has given rise to the idea of making some pictures-it uses still-available 620 film) with the ARGFLEX Seventy five TLR camera. Maybe that will happen. Maybe it won't.

My ambivalence on the subject comes from the fact that I have never fully embraced the activity of making pictures with a "toy" camera. That's inspite of the fact that I really like the look of such pictures. While the ARGOFLEX is not a true toy camera-or a crappy camera as they are affectionately called-(think Holga, Lomo and the like), it has all of the limitations of one; a single, undefined shutter speed (+ bulb setting), a single undefined aperature, no focusing capability, and lens quality that is as good as anyone's guess.

One might consider those "qualities" as a hindrance to good picture making. Nevertheless, for true crappy camera afficionados those are the features that contribute to the making of a good crappy camera picture.

# 5875-78 / landscape•civilized ku ~ onward and up-rightward

July 9, 2021

AFTER 20 YEARS OF MAKING SQUARE PICTURES-my "serious" work-I find it a bit flummoxing to be tinkering around with the rectangular format.

During the tinkering-playing with horizontal and vertical format full frame picture making-several thoughts have come to mind. Setting aside the square format signature identity thing-the more I think about that, the more it fades into the background-a thought I never really considered before has risen to the fore. I.E., the predominance of pictures made with the horizontal format / aspect (especially landscape pictures). FYI, I have no numeric stats to back up that thought but, it does feel right.

Hardware wise, that idea does make sense inasmuch as, throughout the history of photography, an overwhelming number of cameras have had viewing apparatus that is oriented to the horizontal format / aspect. Especially so in the modern era. The major exception, camera wise, being the (predominantly) medium format square format cameras.

Picture making wise, there are exceptions to the horizontal aspect /format procivility. Most notable is the portrait genre wherein most portraits are made in the vertical format aspect (group portraits excepted). Also, in my commercial photography life, I would guess that 90% of the pictures I made were in the vertical format aspect. That's cuz most of my pictures were made for the printed page-magazines, annual reports, etc. And to my previous point, hardware wise, Making vertical format / aspect pictures required turning the come on its "side" (its "natural" orientation?), or in the case of a view camera, rotating the back.

All of the above aside (and back to the signature identity thing), in the Fine Art Photography World, format / aspect matters inasmuch as most Fine Art picture makers rarely mix formats / apsect in a given body of work. That is to write that the format / aspect they work with is an integral ingredient of their vision / the manner in which thet see. That proclivity (amongst many other "rules") is as sacroscant in the Fine Art World as the one-camera, one-lens MO. Like it or not, good thing or not, the Fine Art World demands, if a practioner wishes to be taken seriously, a consistent artistic vision, technique and concept wise, in a given body of work.

That written, the Fine Art World is OK with an artist creating a new body of work that differs from that of a previous body of work. So, as I mentioned in an earlier entry, I am considering my full frame pictures to be a new body of work. And, to be rigorously consistent, I am leaning toward the veritical retangular format / aspect for all of the work.