@ 6868-77 / travel ~ excelsior, you fathead

birthday cannoli ~ (embiggenable)

Brooklyn ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown~ (embiggenable)

my kitchen + Brooklyn sink with window ~ (embiggenable)

EVERY YEAR-FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS-THE WIFE and I go to Cooperstown, NY where the wife has an annual conference. While she attends the conference, I play golf and hang out around the very upscale hotel on the lake. The trip also coincides with her birthday so we always go out for a nice meal. This year we also went to NYC / Brooklyn for a couple days before heading to Cooperstown (the home of the Baseball Hall of Fame). All of which brings me to the point of this entry…

….I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANY MORE…

To be precise, the “this” in question that makes me mad as hell is any utterance such as:

“It's fantastic for the things it's meant for and designed to do, but it's mainly a communication device. It can be exasperating as a camera.…they”-iPhone files-“fall far enough short of the best "real" cameras that ultimately they're just not terribly satisfying…”

iMo, those who make such utterances are; a) those who have not made the effort to understand the in and outs of how to use the iPhone photo making capabilities, b) those who are not using the RAW capture capabilities or c) don’t know how to process RAW files for maximum results, d) those who, like the commentator quoted above, are using older generation iPhones, and, e) those who are gearheads who make photos that are tack-sharp with saturated color and high dynamic range but are, nevertheless, rarely worth a second glance.

Now, to be certain, I am not proposing that an iPhone “camera” is ideal or well suited to every picture making task or that it can “satisfy” every picture maker’s aesthetic. However, that written, I am emphatically emphasising that it is perfectly capable of producing photographs that are as good-that is, expressing the intent of the photographer-any other picture making device.

Any one (me, being a prime example) who has used a wide variety of cameras-8x10 / 4x5 view cameras, medium format cameras, 35mm cameras, Polaroid cameras, and the like-knows that every camera has its own distinct peculiarities, both in their use and their rendering results. However, the only thing that matters to the picture making artist is that any given camera helps in producing his/her picture making intent.

All of the above written, just let me declare that, in a “perfect” picture making universe, I wish that picture makers would just pick whatever camera device is best for them and their intent and vision-if they even have one-and then keep their fucking yap shut and concentrate on making pictures that “satisfy” their eye and sensibilities. I might not like their pictures but that sure as hell it won’t be because of the camera they used.

FYI, during the 6 day trip I covered a lot of ground, picture making wise. l returned with 25 “keepers” which spanned multiple photography genres: landscape, street, people, night, and still life. All of the pictures were made with my iPhone 24 PRO Max camera device set to produce RAW files. And, to my eye and sensibilities, the results were very satisfying and, BTW, the “cmaera” served all of my picture making intents very well, thank you very much.

# 6830-32 / common places • common things • sink ~ it is what it is and that's all what it is

from Terry Falke’s book, OBSERVATIONS IN AN OCCUPIED WILDERNESS

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

“In photographing dwarfs, you don’t get majesty and beauty. You get dwarfs.” ~ Susan Sontag

Continuing with my thoughts on photography’s inability to convey meaning(s) or a true sense of place (amongst other such considerations), I offer for your consideration the Sontag quote about photographing dwarfs.

I agree with that concept but would also add that in photographing dwarfs, you “get” not only dwarfs, you also get a photograph of a dwarf(s). Ya know, a picture which illustrates what a specific dwarf looks like when photographed by a photographer at a specific point in time and from a particular POV-both literally and figuratively.

And, sure, sure…a photographer can employ the tools of the trade, his/her unique manner of seeing, and prop and posing, aka: theatrics sensibilities, to create a photograph of a dwarf who appears to project air of majesty and/or beauty, but, any intended (by the picture maker) meaning(s) to be gleaned from the picture is as Sontag suggests:

[an] “inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”

Be that as it may, or, make of it what you will, forgive me if you feel that I am flogging a dead horse. But, in my defense, re: my curiosity, can a photograph have narrowly defined, unambiguous embedded meaning?, I have been revisiting a number of my photo books-individual photographer monographs-in a effort to discover what,if any, meaning I can glean from the viewing of a wide variety-personal vision wise-of numerous bodies of work.

What I have discovered is that my native and initial reaction to the viewing of a photograph is to see it as a photograph. That is, to consider it it as an object, in and of itself. An object which presents-in good photographs-interesting / intriguing / engrossing visual form and energy that pricks my eye-not my intellect-and my visual sensibilities. After that initial, spontaneous reaction, then and only then, do I take in what is literally been photographed, aka: the illustrated referent(s) as captured by the picture maker’s gaze.

iMo, if a photographer has extracted engrossing form from the “mere” quotidian world, then he/she has created a really good photograph. That is to write, a visual image that stands on its own as only a photograph can. It don’t need no stinkin’ meaning. Nor, I might add, it don’t need no 1,000 words. Ya just gotta see it and feel it.

FYI, writing of “1,000” words, it is customary (and predictable) that every photo monograph contain at least 1,000 words (or many more). Forwards, introductions, and essays give a viewer much run-at-the-mouth ideas about the work; historic and medium references, purported meaning(s), and suppositions about the photographer’s methodology and intent, ad nauseam.

In the case of Terry Fake’s book / photographs (as is the case in every photo book I view), I looked at the pictures before I read the commentary. That’s cuz I also agree with Sontags’s idea that….

“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.”

…. and sliding down the rabbit hole of interpretation, more often than not, sucks the life out of a photograph (or any work of Art). Although, to be fair, I do on rare occasion find a kernel or 2 of insight that might add a smidgen of additional appreciation to body of work.

BTW, one of my favorite monographs is Mark Wise 18 Landscapes. That’s cuz: a) I like the work, and, b) the only words in the book are Mark Wise 18 Landscapes, as seen on the title page. That’s it. No words, not even a title or artist name on the front or back cover. One picture per spread on the right page, left page blank. No picture titles or captions. Last page has copyright info printed in minuscule 6pt type centered on an otherwise blank page.

My kinda book. Figure it out / experience / enjoy it for yourself and let the art commentariat go pound salt.

# 6816-22 / common places•things • kitchen sink • around the house • 1 very un-common thing ~

view from my back yard ~ all photos (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS I HAVE BEEN clicking away making pictures created with the iPhone ultra-wide lens, AKA: linear convergence pictures. The results suggest to me and my eye and sensibilities that that picture making technique is a valid concept for making a linear convergence body of work. Although…

… as can be seen when comparing 2 pictures made of the same scene (desktop workspace) but with different camera orientations-1 camera held vertical, 1 camera held at a downward angle-the results are quite different inasmuch as 1 view emphasizes the so-called wide-angle lens distortion, there other not so much. Which begs the question, “Should I limit my linear convergence picture making to one look or the other?”

My initial answer is that I do not want to mix and match the looks. So, it must be one way or the other. However, it may be that there is another option; a much less downward angle that more subtly exhibits the lens distortion. I’ll give that a go over the next few days.

FYI, over the past few days, I tried to resist being a 1-trick (linear convergence) picture making pony by making a few telephoto so-called compressed perspective pictures. Ya know, even more photos about photography.

cityside

countryside

# 6914-18 / convergence • common places-things ~ a different point of view

DURING MY DECADES OF VOLUMINOUS READING, re: photography and its apparatus, I have on numerous occasions come across the expressed idea of “photographs about photography”. That is, pictures that were made intentionally employing one (or more) of the medium’s unique characteristics / attributes in order to create pictures-albeit more commonly an entire body of work-that are uniquely photographic; characteristics / attributes such as, say, the camera’s capability to stop time / isolate a precise real-world moment from the flow of time, or, techniques such as limited / narrow depth of field.

Photograph made in that manner-independent of referent-are often considered, especially by art critics / academics, to be photographs about photography. And I mention the concept cuz it seems that I have started to create a body of work-tentatively titled linear convergence ~ a different perspective-that might be considered to be photographs about photography. Although the referents in these photographs and my picture making intent are typical of all of my previous work, the photographs are a departure from my previous work inasmuch as the format is rectangular and all the photos are made using the ultra-wide angle lens on the iPhone.

That written, I have yet to noodle together an artist statement for this work. That written, I do know what led me to this endeavor - for quite a while I have been futzing around with making pictures using the iPhone PORTRAIT mode. Not so much for making portraits as for making pictures with a narrow DOF. In any event, the PORTRAIT mode produces pictures in the 3x4 format which was I cropping to my preferred square format. However, along the way I started to identify-so to write-with the somewhat strange to me (over the last 3 decades) rectangular format.

ASIDE Which is not to write that I am a stranger to that format cuz I have made a zillion and a half rectangular format pictures over the years using 35mm, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. Hell, even my medium format camera had a native 6x4.5 rectangular format cuz 90% of my commercial work was made to appear on the “standard” 8.5x11 printed page. So why use a medium format camera with a native square format (Hasselblad) that produces a square picture which needs to be cropped to fit on the printed page? Not to mention the fact that I have always framed and configured my photographs in camera on the ground glass / viewing screen. There is no after-the-picture-making fact cropping in my picture making world. END ASIDE

So it was only a matter of time for me to make a rectangular format picture using the ultra-wide lens on the the iPhone. And, having done so, my eye and sensibilities were pricked by the result cuz I had “discovered” a different kind of form than I had been previously making. However….

…. I am acutely aware that these pictures might be-in fact most likely will be-considered to be rather gimmicky. Ya know, cheap tricks / effects and all. But, in fact, these pictures are an honest / authentic visual expression of the optical characteristics of one of the medium’s tools which, when used to make pictures, create images that are uniquely photography-centric; that is to write, images that can be made only by the means provided by photographic medium.

So, while that provenance qualifies these pictures as being photographs about photography, they will, nevertheless, most likely instigate the question (justifiably so), “What’s the point?” A question to which my response, at this conjuncture, is, quite simply, I like the way the pictures look.

I am also rather delighted by the play on the word perspective as used in the titled to describe the photographs, 1. the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other, and, 2. a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

In any event, I will keep on exploring this particular point of view for a bit. Who knows where it will go.

# 6903-06 / common places / things ~ it is what it is and that's all that it is

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

A FEW DAYS AGO, WHILE HAVING MY MORNING coffee, I made a picture; the making of which was instigated-very uncharacteristically (for me)-by an idea that the picture could serve well as a metaphor for a topic I have been considering, id est: the meaning(s) to be found in a photograph….

“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening… .A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.” ~ Gary Winogrand

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy…. Strictly speaking, one never understands anything from a photograph.” ~ Susan Sontag

On that topic I am in basic agreement with Winogrand and Sontag inamuch as I believe that photographs are “mute” and “cannot themselves explain anything”. And, made in a straight photography manner-”A piece of time and space is well described”-a photograph can show “what something looks like”.

That written, I am in total agreement with Sontag’s idea that “photographs…are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”. Inasmuch as photographs are mute, they nevertheless have the potential to incite feelings and/or emotional responses. However, that written, those responses are most often (or is it always?) the result of what an individual viewer brings to the act of viewing a particular photograph.

Consequently, one viewer’s response to a given photograph may be diametrically opposed to another viewer’s response to the same photograph. And, it is well within the realm of possibilities that neither response is that which the picture maker intended to incite. Or, in other words-and to paraphrase the notion that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”'-I would believe that, re: meaning in a photograph, the meaning is in the mind of the beholder.

Case in point, my “metaphoric” photograph in this entry; if I did not inform the you that the reflection in the glass on the art work-which is rather vague and indistinct-was seen by my eye and sensibilities to be representative of the indistinct and vague meaning that might be found / hidden in the photograph, would you “get” it? And, I can further suggest that the attempt to find meaning in a photograph-or any art-tends to get in the way of seeing the full expression of the picture maker’s vision, id est: what I was trying to show you.

All of the above written, it should be understood that I do indeed have have an intent, aka": what my pictures are “about”, in my picture making. However, that intent is important only to me. It is not important to the viewer of my pictures. It is not my responsibility to tell the viewer what to think feel when viewing my pictures. That’s cuz I want viewers to make of my pictures exactly what they will.

In any event, while doing research for this entry, I came across the following on forum topic re: meaning. I truly believe that most of the medium’s iconic Fine Art (acknowledged) photographers would agree, if they were honest, recognize this idea as integral to their picture making intent:

“What do my photographs mean? Well, I saw something that I thought looked worth recording, for whatever reason at the time. The scene interested my eye, and that's all it means to me. If I show you the picture, it's because I think it may interest you as well.
That's the meaning of my pictures.” ~ barzune (nom de web forum)

#6900--02 / common things • around the house ~ old dog new tricks

all photos (embigenable)

IN HIS BOOK, Why People Photograph, Robert Adams wrote:

“…photographers must also face the threat that their vision may one day be denied them. Their capacity to find their way to art-to see things whole-may fail for an hour or a month or forever because of fatigue or misjudgement or some shift in spirit… For every Atget, Stieglitz, Weston, or Brandt who remain visionary to the end, there is an Ansel Adams who, after a period of extraordinary creativity, lapse into formula… when photographers get beyond copying the achievements of others, or just repeating their own accidental first successes, they learn that they do not know where in the world they will find pictures …”

FOR SOME TIME I HAVE BEEN RUMINATING ON the idea of “repeating my own first successes” inasmuch as, when began to make pictures, I did so with what I eventually came to recognize as my own personal vision. A vision that continues to dictate the manner in which I make pictures; id est, I photograph what I see in the manner of how I see it. Throw in the fact that, in my “serious” work, I tend make only square pictures, one could state that I am continually repeating myself, picture making wise.

On the other hand, I can rationalize myself out of that (square) box simply by noting the fact that what, referent wise, I picture is spread out all over the map of life and living, a picture making habit that label as discursive promiscuity. And BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, I also have an accepting and comfortable relationship with complexity.

Be all of that as it may, my vision remains firmly intact. However, I have acquired an itch that requires at least a bit of scratching. That is, the nagging desire to make pictures that do not conform to my “standard” deep depth-of-field, shades of the old-timey f 64 look. FYI, that desire is a long-standing one, for me, that has been exacerbated by the inherent quality of small(ish) sensor* digital photography wherein, typically, pictures tend to have deep depth of field, aka: everything in focus, nice and sharp. One might suggest that I am suffering from a (very) mild case of sharpness fatigue.

So, enter the iPhone and its PORTRAIT setting. Apple has continued to improve its functionality and I have been playing with it for a while now. And yes, the results are not exactly the same as making pictures with a large sensor, so called full-frame, camera coupled with a wide open, large aperture (aka, fast) lens. Plus, its function is limited to subjects within a 2-8ft range.

Nevertheless, to my eye and sensibilities, it does satisfy my desire for narrow DOF looking photographs. And, I do really appreciate the fact that I can modify the DOF effect to a greater or lesser degree-as many times as I wish after the picture is made.without permanently adjusting the original file.

All of that written, here’s the surprising thing that has appeared, seemingly out of nowhere; a significant number of these PORTRAIT setting pictures have been seen and made as “full frame” photographs. Who would / could have thought?

In any event, the one trait that I like most about these narrow DOF photographs is that, to my eye and sensibilities, they look just like photographs. And I do want my pictures to look like photographs.

*The magnification of a lens means how large (or small) a subject can be reproduced on the image plane (e.g., film and image sensor). As one increases magnification, the depth of field decreases. Conversely, as one decreases magnification, the depth of field increases.

# 6899 / common things ~ I'm an enthusiast, they're enthusiasts, wouldn't you like to be an enthusiast too?

the TOKO MIGHTY ~ (embiggenable-the photo, not the camera)

JUST SHOOT ME. WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW is yet another top 10-or should it be, TOP 10) camera list.Ya know, cuz there is nothing more entertaining than reading about someone’s-ratchet up your enthusiasm fan-boys!-beloved camera….oh, wait….scratch “someone’s” and substitute “50 (or more) someone’s”.

In any event, shown above is my nominee; the incomparable TOKO MIGHTY...

… just the right size cuz it fits comfortably in the hand on the finger tips. It has a format. Spares no any attention to quality materials / build and detail. Film available everywhere somewhere (maybe, or maybe not). Finest plastic optics. And, 2 interesting bonus features; 1. it has not only a rangefinder window but also a waist-level viewfinder (extremely minuscule but cute), and, 2. it has a film advance nob but, interestingly (as I mentioned), no rewind nob. Made In Occupied Japan.

Who could ask for, or needs, anything more?

# 6895-98 / common things • around the house ~

signs of life ~ all photos (embiggenable)

IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A righteous photo blog. It was mentioned that blogs which feature only photographs are #1 in my book. Although, a few well written words about the medium and/or the vision which drove the creation of those photographs can add a bit of context to the pictures. Given those druthers, I find that are quite a few of the former but precious few of the latter.

iMo, backed up by my experience, the primary reason there are only a precious few photo blogs with well written words about artist’s vision (or the medium in general) is that writing about photography-driven vision is not a topic that those who have it are inclined to make an attempt to explain it. As Robert Adams wrote:

“Photographers are like other artists too in being reticent because they are afraid that self-analysis will get in the way of making more art. They never fully know how they got the good pictures that they have, but they suspect that a certain innocence may have been necessary…The main reason that artists don’t willingly describe or explain what they produce is...that the minute they do so they’ve admitted that failure. Words are proof that the vision that they had is not…fully there in the picture. Characterizing in words what they thought they had shown is an acknowledgement that the photograph is unclear-that it is not art.” from Why People Photograph

ASIDE It should go without saying writing, that one of my favorite righteous photo blogs is lifesquared.squarespace.com. I really appreciate the manner in which the author writes about photography in general without writing specifically about his pictures. Although some might suggest that that is just a sneaky cheat to imply that what he writes is actually about what he is attempting to do in his personal picture making. I guess the same could be suggested about the many quotes he presents from from photographers and photo critics; that those quotes tend to have the same end-aka: pov about the medium-as his. Be that as it may, at the very least he never tries to explain his pictures. END OF ASIDE

I believe that a perfect example of “admitting failure” can be found in the writing that accompanies every photo body of work created by the Academic Lunatic Fringe crowd. I have yet to view a single ALF picture which visually coveys the meaning ascribed to it by the psycho-social-scientific balloon bread writing that accompanies it.

While there is, some might say, an excessively staggering “wealth” of writing about photography out there, it is my experience that there is very little of it that does not end up making the picture(s) smaller, less complex, less resonant, depleted, and impoverished. In fact, it seems that it is quite difficult to write something about photography that does not get in the way of the pictures.

In any event, the key to good writing about photography, especially by photographers themselves, could be explained in words by the poet X. J. Kennedy:

The goose that laid the golden egg

Died looking up its crotch

To find out how its sphincter worked

Would you lay well? Don’t watch