the new snapshot # 186-87 / civilized ku # 5135 / kitchen sink # 44 ~

exhibit statement

dead flies ~ restaurant bathroom / Ogdensberg, NY (embiggenable) • iPhone

random arrangement ~ Au Sable Forks, NY (embiggenable) • µ4/3

A few days ago on TOP, Mike Johnston wrote:

Here's one small way that smartphones are better cameras than other cameras, which no one seems to ever talk about. What if you see—recognize—pictures better on a screen than through a squinty eyepiece viewfinder? ... it's perilous to my ego to consider that I might "see" (compose) better with a flat screen than with a more lifelike and dimensional eyepiece view ... because they tend to "flatten" the scene, that is, make it look more two-dimensional rather than three-dimensional, which (I suspect) aids me in visualizing what the picture will look like as ink on paper.

Ever since I purchased my first Olympus (E-P1) digital camera, I have been using the LCD display as my sole picture making reference. Even with my purhchase of an Olympus OM-D series camera, I still use LCD displays as my primary picture making reference - although, I do use the EVF for fast moving sports (hockey) picturing. I use the LCD display for the very reason Johnston mentions, its flattening effect.

FYI, I should write that, in my commercial picture making life, I spent a lot of time under a focusing cloth, both for my 4x5 and my 8x10 view cameras. In addition, I also spent considerable time looking down onto the viewing / focusing screen of various medium format SLRS. In each case I experienced a heightened awareness - relative to OVF viewing - of a picture's structure (some might say,"composition").

Why is the flattening effect so important to my picture making? The simplest answer is that printed pictures - why make pictures if not for printing them? - are flat 2D objects. And, that intrinsic characteristic (together with my eye and sensibilities) dictates and directs my attention - both in picture making and picture viewing - to a picture's form, i.e. the manner of arranging and coordinating parts for a pleasing or effective result.

Consequently, I perfer the 2D experience, as viewed on an LCD display, in the making of my pictures.

RE: Johnston's statement, "...one small way that smartphones are better cameras than other cameras, which no one seems to ever talk about. iMo, the reason no one talks about the flattening effect of viewing a referent on a display / focusing screen is quite simple ... very few picture makers, even "serious" ones, think of or perceive printed pictures as 2D objects. For most, a picture is a window which allows a viewer to perceive, albeit faux, a 3d world.

kitchen sink # 42 / (the new snapshot) infared-ish # 1-4 ~ taking/making

coffee cup / reflected light ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

infared-ish flora - (embiggenable) • iPhone

infared-ish Hudson River - (embiggenable) • iPhone

infared-ish pine - (embiggenable) i• Phone

Consider this:

If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest. - Berenice Abbott

Now consider this:

Writing as a picture maker who has been, for the most part, a committed practioner of straight picture making, I whole heartedly endorse the preceding quote. However, inasmuch as I have recently strayed from the straight (and narrow) I have had a few thoughts, re: straight picture making. FYI, rest assured that my commitment to straight picture making is as secure as ever. However ...

... the thought has occurred to me that one of the photo medium's problems in being considered as an art form is, in fact, the very idea that a photo is just a realistic image of real-world referents and nothing more. While the statement, That's a beautiful picture, is often heard, that statement is directed, more often than not, at the depicted referent as opposed to the picture as a thing in and of itself.

While a similar statement-change "picture" to "painting"-could be made, a painting, however, is almost always considered by a viewer thereof to be art (good, bad, or indifferent). Whereas a photo is most always considered to be just a picture of something. And, as we all know, anyone can take a photo but it takes a "real artist" to make a painting.

Since the beginning of time, picture making wise, many picture makers (Photo Division) have been devoted to making "art" by veering away from the straight (and narrow) and lathering up photos with a lot of art sauce, re: visual effects - especially effects which are part and parcel of the painting genre. The new world of digital picture making has only added to that proclivity. In most applications, the effects are intented to negate the relationship of the picture to realistic representation.

Other picture makers have come to the conclusion that they can make "art" by picturing only "spectacular" referents. And in doing so, they typically add as much art sauce as possible by making those pictures in the most dramtic manner possible ... warm directional light, wide angle / telephoto lenses, ND filters to make dramatic skies, and other dramatic picture making techniques.

All of that written, now consider this:

The coffee cup / reflected light picture in this entry. If it were a painting, most viewers would consider it to be art. Afterall, it is a painting, made by an artist. As a photo, most viewers would consider it to be a picture of a coffee cup and inquire, Why did you take a picture of that?

FYI, the above commentary should not be understood to be a complaint nor a rant. It is just an observation in the cause of creating some food for thought.

the new snapshot # 82-85 ~ on the road again

Off to Walpole, MA for the weekend for a hockey tournament. From there to the Jersey Shore for life-in-hell week. Followed at the end of the week with a return to Marlborough, MA for another hockey tournament.

I will be publishing entries as I go.

the new snapshot # 38-40 ~ cheaters never win

kitchen sink with dinner remains

lawn chairs with sunset

red truck in the rain

Knowing that I will never stop making pictures with my "real" cameras, I am working on a desktop processing workflow which in the end creates a pretty reasonable simulation of the new snapshot pictures made and processed on my iPhone.

I think I'm coming close inasmuch as the three pictuures in today's entry are; 1 made with my iPhone camera module and processed on that device, 1 made with my iPad camera module and sent to my desktop for PhotoShop simulation processing, and, 1 made with a "real" camera and sent to my desktop for processed PhotoShop simulation processing.

When it's all said and done, I believe that it's difficult to discern which is which. Anyone wish to venture a quess?

While I have no desire or intention of "cheating" in the making of my the new snapshot pictures, there will be times when the iPhone camera module will not be suitable for capturing a referent in the manner in which wish to present it.

FYI, when using my iPad, with its 10 inch screen, to make the picture in this entry, I felt like I was using a view camera relative to the iPhone screen. However, each device makes the same 12mp file. Interesting perception nevertheless.

kitchen sink # 41 / the new snapshot # 22 ~ could I? should I?

sink drain strainer ~ Au Sable Forks,NY - in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable)

it is what it says it is

Over the past week or so, the subject of lighter / smaller / downsizing, re: camera gear, has pop-up on a number of sites. Most entries addressed the switch from bulky / heavy DSLRS + their lenses to compact and light mirrorless cameras + their lenses. However, one particular entry on TOP, iPhone Magazine Cover, was of particular interest to me.

AN ASIDE: all of the entries caused me think of this quote from Bill Jay ...

...photographers who carry 60 pounds of equipment up a hill to photograph a view are not suffering enough, although their whining causes enough suffering among their listeners. No, if they really expect us to respect their search for enlightenment and artistic expression, in [the] future they will drag the equipment up the hill by their genitals and take the view with a tripod leg stuck through their foot.

As should be obvious, I have been making quite a number of my the new snapshot pictures - over 70 and counting - all of which are made using my iPhone 6s. After making pictures with it in a variety of situations / light / of referents, I can write that I am quite pleased, somewhat surprised and rather impressed with the phone's - it is NOT a camera - picture making capabilities. And, just as important, I am having a bushel full of fun doing it.

FYI, the fun part derives from the fact that I have become much "looser", more spontaneous and most certainly have an expanded range of what I consider to be picture-worthy referents.

In any event, I went on an online search for iPhone pictures in order to see what was going on in that photo milieu. In doing so, I came upon the iPhone Photography Awards site. An organization which has been "celebrating the creativity of iPhone userd since 2007" and has the archives to prove it. In those archives are some damn impressive pictures. More than enough to create converts for the iPhone cause.

All of that written, the question(s) of the moment is, "Am I an iPhone convert? Could I downsize my picture making gear to just an iPhone? Should I use just an iPhone?"

There are no definitive answers as of yet. However, the pictures in today's entry, both made from the same iPhone picture file suggest that, in many picture making cases, I would have very little to lose.

kitchen sink # 40 ~ buku bokeh

Relative to yesterday's entry, re: Mike Johnston's crochity old man moment, I thought I would post this picture because I believe that I got the correct plane of focus, the right DOF and therefore did the right thing for this picture.

kitchen sink # 39 ~ the problem with photography

drain stopper (embiggenable)

If the purpose of art is to be, if not appreciated, at least seen, then photographs as art are at an extreme disadvantage.

The problem, iMo, is that making photographs is relatively easy as compared to painting, sculpture and other visual arts. Because it is easy, the world is awash in photographs, even very good photographs, and there simply aren't enough galleries in which they can be seen. That is, seen in the way a photograph must be seen to be appreciated, i.e., as prints on a wall.

A substanial part of the problem, re: not enough galleries, is the fact that, in order to survive, a gallery must make money and the only way it can do so is by the sale of prints. Unfortunately, for the serious but unknown very good picture makers, the only sales worth pursuing (for a gallery) are those prints by known picture makers whose prints are sold to serious collectors for thousands of dollars - more often than not, 5-figure thousands of dollars - in very limited editions (usually 10 or less).

The limited-edition 5-figure sales model, in a very real sense, is antithetical to one of the photography medium's unique and intrinsic characteristics - the ablility to create from a single film frame / digital file an unlimited number of original prints. However, serious art collectors are not interested in acquiring an piece of art which could be labeled as "mass-produced". Hence, limited edition prints, the smaller the edition the better.

So, given that model, the question arises, could a gallery survive by selling "reasonably" priced open-edition prints - a reasonable price being in the $200-300 range (keep in mind that a gallery typically takes 40-50% of the sale price)? The answer is, most likely not. Why? The market for reasonably priced photography prints is very limited. Why? Because photography is perceived as too easy. After all, why pay $220-300 for a print when one can make one for oneself?

I have had some sucess in prints sales. Primarily during a period when I concentrated on making pictures of a particular location in the Adirondacks which fortunately had a gallery, albeit a crafts gallery with a small dedicated photography room. That, together with substantial sales generated from a nearby up-scale resort in the same location, resulted in quite a number of sales even though my prices were at least double those of other pictures on display in the gallery.

In any event, I may have the opportunity to open a gallery - most likely an artist co-op gallery - in a very high tourist traffic location - with a very very low-cost lease. Ridiculously low, in fact. The purpose of the gallery would be to showcase photography prints (mine and those made by others) intended to be offered at reasonable open-edition prices.

In order for this venture to work there would have to be an emphasis on the display of photographs of the NE / High Peaks region of the Adirondacks - not of my kitchen sink - inasmuch as the primary market would be tourists to the area. Could it work? Maybe, maybe not. The only way to find out is for me to make the time commitment needed to give it a try.