(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
IT WASN’T UNTIL ABOUT 4 MONTHS PAST I BEGAN TO start making full-frame pictures with the iPhone PORTRAIT setting. So it was somewhat of a surprise that I “discovered” 30+ pictures made with that combination all of which fall under the label around the house. Hence a new gallery on the WORK page by that name. ASIDE while most of those pictures were made in the house, a few were made in very close proximity to the house. END ASIDE
0.5 selfie ~ (embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
JUST YESTERDAY, RIGHT THERE ON/IN THE NY TIMES, AN article titled, The Rise of the 0.5 selfie. A few excerpts:
..All of a sudden, one day, everyone was taking 0.5 selfies…Unlike a traditional selfie, the 0.5 selfie — so named because users tap 0.5x on a smartphone camera to toggle to ultra-wide mode — has become popular because it is far from curated. Since the ultra-wide-angle lens is built into the back cameras of phones, people can’t watch themselves take a 0.5 selfie…You really don’t know how it’s going to turn out, so you just have to trust the process and hope something good comes out of it…These images are best when they have “ominous, creepy” vibes.
Having read the article-with sample pictures-it was incumbent upon me, last evening while dining out, to teach the bartender how to make an 0.5 selfie. She done good, getting the wife, daughter and me well placed in the background.
Question: is there something in human DNA which causes people to get crazy / weird when making a selfie? - the question arose as I sat stoically by while the selfie was made.
Had a nice drive home after dinner. Happy to be a passenger which allowed for some on-the-go picture making.
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
WOKE THIS MORNING TO A GREY DAY. IN AN EFFORT TO brighten up the day, I decided to get out and about, use the sky as a blank slate and make some pictures. Throw in some neutral grey road surfaces and, iMo, you have got the stage set for pictures in which colors come to the fore.
In a perfect picture making world, I would have grabbed my dad’s Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera out of the closet, went down to the drugstore, bought a roll of color negative film, then taken a stroll around the neighborhood looking for something to prick my eye and sensibilities. Instead, I picked up my iPhone and headed out with FRANK BREUER on my mind.
drive-by picture / Manhattan ~ (embiggenable)
Gowanus Canal / Brooklyn, NY ~ (embiggenable)
Brooklyn Street / Brooklyn, NY ~ (embiggenable)
((embiggenable)
SPENT SATURDAY IN BROOKLYN ATTENDING A KINDERSCHULE graduation event followed by a private party. There was quite a sunset. The party was at a bar / restaurant called Pig Beach-BBQ pork their speciality.. Kinda thought that was a strange place to have a Jewish / Socialist party.
Pig Beach-no beach, just a name-is in Brooklyn along the Gowanus canal. The canal is one the most contaminated sites in the US of A. It is currently undergoing a clean up that will take 10 years. So, even if there had been a beach, there would be no swimming.
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.
the daughter (r.) and her cousin, both scheduled to be married next Spring ~ (embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(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.
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
“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?
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
“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.