# 6112-13 / kitchen life • common places ~ malarkey on a shingle

June 16, 2022

*finished (L.)* / ***original (R.)*** ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable) ~ full frame / Portrait mode

RE: THE DEATH OF THE SMALL SENSOR CAMERA. I am not one to profess that I know what the future will bring. However, I will not let that stop me from offering a few thoughts on the speculative idea that small sensor cameras are on the way out.

First, let’s define “small”….best I can tell, it the current camera market, it seems that “small” is any sensor smaller than a full-frame-24mmx36mm-sensor. And, for some reason, camera makers seem to have decided that, surprise, surprise, bigger is better. If I put on my cynical hat, I would write that they think that the more money they can charge for a camera+lenses the better.

That written, the idea that small-sensor cameras are in a death spiral is based on the notion that, a huge majority of avid amateur picture makers will all want a full-frame sensor camera. A notion that I believe to be nonsense. cuz…

a) most full-frame cameras+lens are very expensive but, even if the prices drop over time…

b) …most picture makers, even avid amateurs, do not want to lug around large, heavy gear.

c) most avid amateurs who use “small”-format sensor cameras have an investment in lenses for their systems. Moving to full-frame sensor cameras means the significant added expense of acquiring new lens.

d) in addition to the expense of full-frame sensor cameras+lenses, there is, for many, the added expense of upgrading the computer in order to handle and store the larger file sizes, and, perhaps most significantly……

e) not all picture makers, including most avid amateurs, have the desire or the need to engage in the “my dick is bigger than your dick” competition.

All of that written, let me add my ultimate reason for why I do not give a damn about any sensor size. Simply out, I do not care one iota how or what gear was used to make a picture. I only care about the picture itself. And, great pictures can be made with just about any camera / picture making device you would care to mention.

FYI, the diptych in this entry offers a peek at the man behind the curtain. That is, the work I often put into the processing of my pictures. In the case of this picture, I probably-I did not keep track-employed more than 20 separate processing steps-most local as opposed to global-to achieve the final result.

# 6109-11 / people • common places • the new snapshot ~ I don't understand

June 13, 2022

*the daughter* (r.) *and her cousin, both scheduled to be married next Spring* ~ (embiggenable)

WENT TO AN EXHIBITION OPENING (at an university gallery)-PAINTINGS, solo artist-THIS FRIDAY PAST. I was quite disappointed by what I saw even though, after seeing the work online, I was expecting a different reaction.

The work is described as “realist”-not photo-realism-in style. The subject matter was a large local family on their farm. Portraits of family members working on the farm as well as landscape scenes of the farm and its buildings. A review of the work focused on the artist’s ability to capture quality of “the light” as encountered in situ. View the work here.

As I understand it-as told to me by a member of the farm family who is marrying our daughter (as seen above making a selfie)-the artist works from photos. I found that interesting-but not unusual-inasmuch as my ultimate feeling, re; the work, is that the exact same images would have made a much better impression, to my eye and sensibilities, if they were presented as photographs instead of paintings - a take that stands in contrast to the oft-stated notion of, “That photograph looks like a painting.”

FYI, one of the primary issues I had with the exhibition was that, surprisingly, the galley lighting was not daylight balanced (5400K). Rather, it appeared to be closer to tungsten (3200K) which caused the colors of the paintings to have a warm, yellow-ish tint / cast that was quite unlike the more more neutral / “clean” look of the work as seen online.

I asked the artist about this fact and he said that he thought that the lightning enhanced the look of his work. A response which befuddled me no small amount inasmuch as it seems inconceivable to me that an artist who takes care in the selection the color to apply to his/her paintings wouldn’t seem to care about how they look on a gallery wall. That notion stands in direct opposition to how I process my work for printing in that, a hallmark of my prints, is very clean color which is intended to convey to a viewer, as accurately as the medium allows, how the world looked at the moment when I made any given picture.

Given the fact that the artist was lauded by his ability to capture the quality “the light”, I thought that the gallery lighting worked in significant opposition to that characteristic of the work. So much so, that it spoiled the entire viewing experience for me.

# 6106-08 / roadside attractions • the new snapshot ~ a question

June 10, 2022

“There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I like to think of photographing as a two way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing it as it is.” ~ Garry Winogrand

IN A NUTSHELL, WINOGRAND’S QUOTE IS A PRETTY EXCELLENT, SIMPLY-STATED description of straight photography.

I have always subscribed to making straight pictures and consider myself, re; my landscape photography, to be a New Topographic photographer, a moniker which emerged from the exhibition (the 2nd most—cited photography exhibition in history), New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape-at the George Eastman House in 1975. That exhibition introduced landscape pictures-primarily of the American West-that were stripped of any artistic frills and reduced to an essentially topographic state, conveying substantial amounts of visual information but eschewing entirely the aspects of beauty, emotion and opinion. Pictures that exhibited a cool detachmrnt / unsentimental manner of picture making.

To this day, the influence of that exhibition and the picture making M.O. that it spawned still commands a formitable following in the straight photography world. And, it is rather ironic that the pictures in the exhibition, which critics / academics described as having “an alleged absence of style”, became the forerunners of an actual style that has been called “…Arguably the last traditionally photographic style”.

FYI, 10 photographer’s prints-10 prints from each-were presented in the exhibit. The photographers were: Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott, Stephen Shore, and Henry Wessel. With the exception of Stephen Shore, all the photographers worked in BW.

In any event, I mentioned all of the above cuz I have given some thought to the question, has straight photography, in particular the New Topographics genre, reached a dead end? Or, perhaps, is it just aimlessly driving around in circles in a cul-de-sac? Which is not to write that there is not some very good work being created. However, it does seem that it has fallen out of favor in the Fine Art gallery world.

Perhaps a related question-how long is it possible maintain a cool unsentimental detachment?-is also appropriate.

Any thoughts?

# 6110-15 / roadside attractions • kitchen life • around the house ~ deceptivity

June 9, 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

I HAVE USED THE ABOVE ROBERT ADAMS QUOTE PREVIOUSLY. It presents an idea with which I totally agree -that is, only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace. That written, I also agree with the notion that most great pictures look uncontrived.

Re: deception - I am currently wrestling with the idea of whether or not to apply classic, retro, drugstore-style borders on my roadside attraction pictures. And, to be honest, there are times when I believe I should apply those borders on all of my pictures. The purpose of such an application is my idea of a pure deception. That is, I am trying to" “deceive” the viewers of my pictures that they were easily made cuz, you know, quite obviously, they are “just” snapshots.

Why do I engage in this “deception”? That’s cuz most people believe that snapshots are made quite “casually”. That is, without much thought of artistic intentions. And therein is the “hook”. The hook being that which gets a viewer of my “snapshots” to stop and consider- a heightened level of curiosty?-why these “snapshots” are hanging on a gallery wall.

WIthout any pretense of disingenuous humility, I know that I am a damn good picture maker. I also know that my pictures of the commonplace world, when displayed on gallery walls, can and do capture a viewer’s attention and interest, with or without a snapshot border. However, it is becoming increasingly important to me to emphasize the idea that beauty is commonplace. Or, to be more precise, that a beautiful, or at least interesting, object can be made from the awareful observation of the commonplace.

I will admit that I may be deceiving myself with my deceptive snapshot deceptions, I do think that that device can and often does incite in a viewer of my “snapshots” the curiosity to investigate what is going on in and with my pictures that may not be obvious at first glance.

# 6109 / kitchen life ~ here I am

June 7, 2022

“Sometimes it feels like I write about gear too much. But it's much easier to write about than how and why we actually make photographs.” ~ written on the interweb

SINCE I BEGAN BLOGGING-c.2005-IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY INTENTION to avoid writing about gear and, to a lesser extent, technique. That’s cuz of my bedrock belief that writing about and encouraging comments / discussion about gear is best left to the domain of the hopelessly un-imaginative / un-creative picture makers.

That written, I also believe that it is nearly impossible to write about the how of picture making inasmuch as-despite the prevalence of the How-To-Master (pick a genre) advice sites / books-the making of pictures that are worth more than a passing glance simply can not be reduced to rules / formulas. Rather, as Walker Evans wrote:

The meaning of quality in photography’s best pictures lies written in the language of vision. That language is learned by chance, not system…Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts.

iMo, these Evans quotes are amongst the best I have ever heard / read, re: the how-to of picture making and why it is so difficult to write about. That’s cuz there are not many picture makers who are able to separate their feelings from their thoughts when making pictures, much less be able to write about it. In large part that difficulty originates from the long-held idea that a photograph is suppose to “say” something / have “meanings”. That a photograph can not be enjoyed and appreciated as a sensuous object, in and of itself*.

And then, of course, there is the dander of expressing feelings. That is, the “danger” of being perceived as getting all soft and mushy / touchy feely cuz, when you come right down to it, feelings are deeply personal and often times expressing those feelings opens one up to all kinds of ignorant responses. And, when you think about it, what good would there be in letting anyone know how / what you were feeling when making a picture?

After all, that’s a very personal experience that comes from within, from knowing one self and how you see the world, aka: one’s own understanding of the language of vision.

Think about it.

*Given that true intellectual and emotional compatibility
Are at the very least difficult
If not impossible to come by
We could always opt for the more temporal gratification
Of sheer physical attraction
That wouldn't make you a shallow person
Would it? ~ Lyle Lovett

# 6108 / kitchen sink ~ perception

June 6, 2022

OVER THE YEARS I HAVE HUNG MY PICTURES, BOTH at home and in galleries, indifferent presentation styles. Early on, I framed and matted my pictures under glass. Then I moved on to prints mounted on board with no frames (prints with a narrow white border). Lately, I have been making prints with wide white borders which are then framed (classic gunmetal gallery frames) without glass.

The reason for giving up the use of glass is two-fold: 1) to my eye and sensibilities, the look and “feel” of the surface of my prints is important to me and glass, at best, obfuscates the print surface and, at worst, completely obliviates it, 2) other than museum glass-which is way too expensive-regular glass has too much reflectivity which also has a tendency to increase apparent print contrast.

Re: frames - after a period of not using frames, I have returned to using them, albeit with very wide white bordered prints, for one primary reason. A framed print, with the image surrounded by a wide white border tends to signal to a viewer that the picture is not to be considered lightly. That is, a signal that a good picture demands an expansive neutral white field in order to separate it from any visual distractions that might interfere with a viewer’s contemplation and consequent appreciation of the picture.

And, you know, ya gotta let a viewer know that it is important stuff -not just some crummy snapshot that a clueless relative took-that they are looking at.

# 6105-07 / around the house • roadside attractions (common places) • watch update ~ no $6000 cameras were used in the making of these pictures

June 4, 2022

“The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it.” ~ Weston

I THOUGHT IT WAS TIME FOR MY FIRST EVER WATCH UPDATE. You will be happy to know Mickey is still tapping his foot, one tap /second. And, he never tires of calling me “pal” when I inquire about the time. At the moment of this picture’s making, it was 11:35AM, 73F outside, and my heart was beating along at 66 BPM (6 minutes prior). It also should go without writing that I can live, any time I wish, my Dick Tracy fantasies when I talk to family, friends, or junk call recordings on my watch. Not to mention, how much joy I experience when reviewing, on my watch, my pictures from my iPhone picture library. And sometimes when I’m bored, I make an ECG using my watch and sent it to my cardiologist just cuz I can.

I pity the poor suckers who have a watch that only tells time.

That written, I also want to assure you that no pictures on this blog were made with a $6000 camera, or, for that matter, with a classic medium-format film camera.

# 6099-6101 / Adirondack roadside attractions (common places) • the new snapshot ~ a different kind of seeing

May 30, 2022

“I used to think that photographs were "composed." This made photography sound very unexuberant, as if it was primarily a deliberate act. Such a notion suggests that a photographer stands in front of an inviting landscape, arranges a composition, and then takes the picture. And it's true that many photographers work that way. Of course, if photographs can be composed, then there must be rules of composition, such as: the subject should never be dead center. But why not? I used to think you could learn how to be a photographer by learning the rules of composition and how to use a camera. Now I think just the opposite: if you have to learn rules, then it's already too late. The elements of a design can make a photograph bearable and inoffensive, but they will not make a photograph compelling. We are compelled by photographs which, within the limits of an objectively appropriate form, manage to offer us something that touches on authentic concerns - our happiness or unhappiness, our fidelities, our modern war with perplexity. The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive.” ~ John Rosenthal

RE: “The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive.”

For the past few months I have been wandering about the picture making landscape in search of a picture making trope which is focused on a recurring single referent theme. That is to write, a departure from my design, aka: form, focused picture making M.O. in which any and all referents are fodder for my picture making endeavors. An endeavor in which pursuit of design / form is at the fore. Content, not so much.

ASIDE I am using the word content in the sense of the depicted referent, not in the sense, as currently fashionable in the Academic Lunatic Fringe, of “meaning” or what the picture “says”. END OF ASIDE

The difficulty I am facing in this search for a referent-focused picture making M.O. is that I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to find / see form, as it appeals to my eye and sensibilities, when I am in the referent seeking mode of picture making. That’s cuz, for all intents and purposes, referent-focused pictures are pretty much all about the referent. Form (in the classic art world sense of the word), not so much.

Which does not mean that I am incapable of making referent-focused pictures that have interesting visual characteristics which are independent of the depicted referent. What it does seem to mean to me is that I feel like I am cheating by depending upon the chosen referent for snagging and holding a viewers interest. And, perhaps the biggest challenge I face in pursuing this endeavor is getting over that feeling.

FYI, the pictures in this entry, which fall under the heading of Adirondack roadside attractions, is most likely to be the referent-focused picture making path I will follow. That’s cuz: a) the Park is bigger than the state of Vermont and there are roadside things aplenty, new and old, which can attract a wanderer’s attention, b) they have never been “cataloged”, and, c) I am pining for a gallery exhibition-in one regional gallery in particular-and this referent-focused body of work just might be like shooting fish in a barrel, re: getting the attention of regional gallery directors.