# 6200-02 / common places • common things ~ stupid is as stupid does

August 13, 2022

***it’s raining outside*** ~ (embiggenable)

ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERWEB, IT HAS BE POSTULATED, AS AN answer to the question of “…why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography here on the blog instead of going over lots of gear and technical work…”, that:

“…a viewer using a phone or small iPad to view will see none of the technical "features" that might make the image worth looking at.”

“…when we do try to talk about the work we end up with so many different avenues for viewing, each of which is a diminished and poor replica of the original, that it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.”

At first blush, I would tend to suggest, first and foremost, that the author of the blog in question does not talk about the art of photography cuz that author has a very dim understanding of what it is that constitutes photography as Art. Consequently, the author would be best served by sticking to what he knows, aka: gear. My opinion is offered in light of the fact-one of many-of the author’s suggestion that “technical features” might make an image worth looking at (don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that cringe-worthy idiocy) - a statement in full-blown support of why Bruce Davidson is “not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore…”

Re: with so many different avenues for viewing… it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.” when trying to writing about on a blog. BS. While the author’s point, re: the diminished image quality-for any number of reasons-of images on the interweb, is true enough, unless a device’s viewing parameters are highly compromised, I believe that there is more than enough visual information in most cases to make a reasonable assessment of a picture’s aesthetic / ”artistic” worth. Enough, so that, you know, you can determine whether or not a picture is “worth looking at”.

I would even go far as to suggest that, under ideal screen viewing conditions-there is a long list of items under the concept of “ideal”-one could even undertake a critical, informed review of a picture.

Is viewing an image on the interweb-under ideal conditions-the same as viewing that image as a print? Short answer, “No.” Slightly longer answer, a qualified “Yes.” inasmuch as most of the visual qualities which distinguish a photograph as Art, especially the idea of form, are easily perceivable on even a less than ideal viewing screen. And, an on-screen viewing of a good photograph can stir virtually all of the feeling, emotion, and thought that a print of the same image can incite.

iMo and experience, I can write that, in the Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are very few who are interested in the technical features of a photograph. That’s cuz they know and have viewed countless number of photographs which display very little in the way of technical features but which, nevertheless, are some of the greatest photographs ever made.

# 6199 / kitchen life • common things ~ arriving at a fork in the road

August 9, 2022

IT IS A RARE DAY WHEN, ON THE INTERWEB, ONE COMES across an ultra-addicted gearhead having a come-to-jesus picture making moment wherein he/she realizes that he/she has “… really tried hard to substitute hardware for talent. Over and over again.” Add to that a fair amount of other self-flagellation, and it qualifies as something akin to a red-letter day.

That written, I can write that it took a decent amount of fortitude for her/him to confront the fact that, after all of that gear infatuation / acquisition, his/her “images [were] maybe a bit sharper but by no means any better in terms of insight, impact or overall splendor.” And the time, effort (and cash) spent on all that gear preoccupation could have been better spent “finding a great model, a great location.”

All of that written, even if the aforementioned penitent manages to follow the straight (pun) and narrow path of the joy of photography, aka: making pictures, not acquiring gear, he/she still is going to have a long slog getting to the point, if ever, of making pictures that exhibit “insight, impact or overall splendor”. That’s cuz spending time finding a “great”model, a “great” location or overall “splendor” does not a great picture make ( nor, I might add, does getting “bored sticking with one focal length”). A referent-centric pursuit may lead to the making of pictures with splendid decorative value-which may be the sine non qua of that which he/she wants to achieve-but it will not lead to making pictures of insight, impact or overall splendor.

If I were one to leave a comment on the blog of the remorseful, maybe born again picture maker, it would be something like this - Get over it. A camera is, in a very real sense, little more than a recording device for what the human eye sees. (with an emphasis on how the human eye sees). If the human in question does not take the time to learn, understand, and embrace how he/she sees the world, the idea of acquiring a personal picture making vision is a lost cause and all the gear in the world ain’t gonna save your picture making ass.

# 6198 / kitchen life • common things ~ for every pot there is a lid

August 7, 2022

"Nothing exceeds like excess”~as someone said

“No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public” ~ H. L. Mencken

ON MY LAST ENTRY, MARKUS SPRING-a long time follower-WROTE; “…accepting the overcooked look as what memory and feelings conjure up to "it looked exactly like this…" He also expressed an idea on why this is so in response to which I present the above quotes.

I am aware of a picture maker who creates nothing but over-HDRed, ultra-excessive color saturated pictures (his idea of fine art), apparently with great commercial success. His very large prints adorn hospital, corporate, public place, and wealthy residential walls (they ain’t cheap). iMo, the pictures are nothing more than wretched ornamental dreck. His website has 100s of followers whose eyes glaze over and mouths salivate-as judged by their adoring comments-with each of his offerings.

It would be easy to write that this quest-as represented by the aforementioned picture making excess-for wretched excess can be found in so many things American-houses, cars, movies, advertising, et al-and label it as an American obsession. However, I believe it can be found in abundance in most, if not all, first-world countries / cultures. It is also my belief that this quest for excess is nothing new. The grand cathedrals of Europe come to mind as an example. There is also the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to consider.

In any event, I gave up a long time ago thinking that those involved in the quest for excess, at least in the arts, are brain-dead cretins. That’s cuz I came to realize that, that which can be labeled as Decorative Art, does, indeed, serve a purpose. It might even be called a valuable purpose. That is to write, Decorative Art is a vehicle which can assist in gaining an escape, albeit temporary, from the humdrum boredom of everyday life.

And, by one means or another, who is there who does not need an “escape” every now and again?

# 6195-97 / kichen life • common places ~ what you see ain't always what you get

August 5, 2022

left, AFTER / right, BEFORE ~ (embiggenable)

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE iPHONE CAMERA MODULE IS not perfect. While it does, in fact, produce files that require only minor adjustments-primarily bright sunny day pictures. Where it “fails” to get it almost right are those picture making situations that have; a. low contrast, and, b. night / very low light scenes. In those situations the computational bits seem to be programed to deliver a full-range (nearly pure black > nearly pure white) file. That is, a file that does not match what the eye sees in situ.

In some cases, a simple adjustment with a BRIGHTNESS slider gets you very close to where you want to go. In other cases, a more nuanced use of the CURVES tool is called for. In either case, the fact that you are working with a fairly rich file-no, not RAW rich but way more than adequate-gives one lots of room with which to work. Neither fix requires an advance degree in Rocket Science or software engineering.

FYI, I am going to try a few experiments with making pictures with the Scene Detection and Smart HDR disabled to determine the difference, if any (I assume there will be), that those setting create.

PS all of my file processing is performed with the intent of accurately reproducing, as much the medium and my memory allow, what my eyes perceived, in situ, at the moment of making a picture.

# 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.

# 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

# 6072-76 / everyday • common places • common things ~ on being creative

May 17, 2022

“For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges…a learning curve and growth process that is rewarding, stimulating and self-renewing. But, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit.” ~ Brooks Jensen

ON MY LAST ENTRY, RE: THE STUPID IDEA OF ADDING GEAR TO MAKE PHOTOGRAPHY MORE INTERESTING, Thomas Rink left a link to a site that, along similar lines, suggested “a photographer’s kit for getting out of a creative rut.”

The writer of that, iMo, cliche-d camera-club advice article wrote that “creativity is the difference between a nice photo and a NICE photo.” That statement was then followed by a description of his “photographer’s creative kit”:

“…using accessories, taking advantage of my camera’s unique menu options, trying different exposure techniques…or simply something I remember another photographer doing well.”

iMo, the conflated idea that “creativity” + the application of craft / technique as a means to becoming “creative” is a thoroughly ignorant misunderstanding of the idea of true creativity as it pertains to the making of pictures. While a learned application of craft / technique employed in the making of a photograph can certainly be a significant element of a finely realized picture making vision, it is the vision itself-the manner in which a picture maker sees the world-that imparts the idea of creativity on the part of the picture maker.

iMo, in other words, a finely realized picture making vision don’t need no indiscriminately applied art sauce-employed under the rubric of “being creative”-to make it “NICE”.

iMo, true creativity in the making of pictures is simply about being creative-thinking outside the box of conventional picture making “wisdom”-about what is suitable as a subject for the making of a photograph and then going about picturing it in the unique / singular manner in which you see it.

“To see something spectacular and recognize it as a photographic possibility is not making a very big leap. But to see something ordinary, something you’d see every day, and recognize it as a photographic possibility, that’s what I am interested in.” ~ Stephen Shore