@ 6868-77 / travel ~ excelsior, you fathead

May 24, 2024

***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

April 24, 2024

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

“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 ~

April 12, 2024

***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.

# 6835-45 / all things considered ~ life squared-a year in the making

January 3, 2024

(all photos embiggenable) ~ ***adirondack scenic***

***quite possibly my favorite picture from 2023***

AT THE END OF THE OLD / START OF THE NEW year, it customary in some quarters to do a year-in-review thing. In many cases it is a a “best-of” kinda thing. In any event, here is my take on it…

Inasmuch as, in an overall scheme of picture making things, I toil in the discursive promiscuity garden of picture making, I nevertheless feel compelled, by the medium’s custom of organizing itself into recognizable, theme-based bodies of work, to relegate my pictures to separate / definable bodies of work - 10 bodies of work as presented above.

That written, re: the pictures in this entry, while they are presented as the “best-of” each category, they are not necessarily my favorite pictures of 2023. If I were to discard the limits imposed by adhering to separate theme classification, it is possible that some of these pictures would not make the cut. Case in point, the adirondack scenic picture would be nowhere to been seen.

That’s cuz, to be honest, that genre-“beautiful” scenery pictures-is not something that I pursue with any passion. The simple fact of the matter, picture making passion wise, is that the only dictate that drives my shutter activation finger is the making of pictures of selected segments of quotidian life which prick my eye and sensibilities.

# 6757-61 / common places • common things ~ omphaloskepsis*

October 25, 2023

***can you see the alchemist at work?*** ~ **all photos** (embiggenable)

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead-his eyes are closed.” ~ Einstein

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN THAT I AM NOT a fan of hi-def photographs. That is photographs which make obvious extreme fine detail and resolution. To my eye and sensibilities they often tend to illustrate everything but reveal nothing. A good example of such is in the comment made by a gearhead who wrote about one of his pictures…

…look closely at the fabric on the side of the hat. The detail is there.

Unless the picture was made for the hat manufacturer-fyi, it was not-then capturing the fine fabric is critical to the picture making mission. However, if the mission is to incite an emotional / mental involvement from the non-fabric obsessed viewer or, the non-photo technique obsessed viewer, iMo, who gives a crap about the fabric detail?

And, I might add, looking “closely”at a picture is a sure-fire recipe for missing what a photograph might be “about”. That’s cuz a good photograph is all about the collective visual sum of its parts, not the parts in and of their literal selves. iMo, in a really good photograph, when the sum is good, the overall effect can draw the viewer’s eye across the field of the print in order to investigate some of the parts - an activity that I label as experiencing a photographs visual energy.

All of that written, it explains why I have never been in pursuit of making photographs that exhibit ultra hi-def or, for that matter, photo technique “perfection”. That’s cuz I believe that the best photographs are those that have, albeit most often subtle, a sense of the mysterious. That is to mean, mysterious in the sense of being somewhat enigmatic, i.e. difficult to understand or explain cuz, ya know, some things are best left to a viewer’s imagination.

I know that I am successful in that pursuit cuz, at exhibitions of my photographs or when someone is viewing one of my POD books, the single most common comment / reaction I hear is, “Why did you take a picture of that?” (mystery #1). Followed by, “I don’t know why I like it, but, I do.” (mystery # 2). Reactions that are the result of the fact that my photographs are not stating the obvious. As in, ain’t pictures of beautiful things beautiful.

To be certain, my photographs are not in any manner in the same mystery league as, say, the grand mysteries of the universe. However, I do believe that I am exploring the little mysteries of how the quoditian, aka: everyday life, can mysteriously present, to those whose eyes are not closed, “quiet,” little vignettes that, when pictured with a sense of creating interesting form, produce prints of surprising visual beauty…

…a perfect example of the medium’s alchemistical ability-something of a mystery or is it magic?-to facilitate the nearly inexplicable or mysterious transmutation of the commonplace into the exceptional.

The fact that my eye and sensibilities are captivated by those seeming mysterious “presentations” is, believe it or not, after all these years still a mystery to me.

*aka: navel gazing - the practice as an aid to contemplation of basic principles of the cosmos and human nature

# 6749-56 / landscape • rain • kitchen life • sink ~ autumn drive with pie

October 23, 2023

SATURDAY PAST I TOOK A MEANDERING COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE TO a farm stand to procure some fresh apple cider, concord grapes, and some produce. The weather was absolutely enchanting with rain, mist, and a leaden overcast. The landscape provided a bounty of picture making opportunities.

The fall harvest bounty was put to good use. I made a grape pie with the concord grapes. On Sunday the wife made roasted acorn squash-cut in half to make bowls-filled them with her homemade beet borscht soup with dollop sour cream. Then served them for dinner with a side of pan fried kielbasa. All in all, it made for a great weekend during which we celebrated our 26 wedding anniversary.

# 6718-22 / landscape • kitchen sink • common things ~ there's no place like home

September 26, 2023

***Rist • the last PM*** ~ (embiggenable)

***Rist • the last AM*** ~ (embiggenable)

BACK HOME AND WORKING WITH PS ONCE AGAIN. After nearly 7 weeks away from home and my desktop set up, I am realizing, now that I am back in the PS saddle, how much I depend upon PS to realize the full implementation of my picture making vision.

It’s not that I make any drastic / dramatic file processing procedures with PS. Rather, it’s a host of small, subtle adjustments that I feel significantly impact the look and feel of my prints. And, many of those adjustments are simply not possible to achieve with any mobile device software. I can come close enough-for web presentation-but not enough for the finished look and feel I want in my prints.

BTW, working from the iPhone RAW DNG files with the full PS software makes me really appreciate the file quality of those files. Really pretty amazing.

WARNING semi-gear stuff: Even thou I have not used it much lately, I have not completely abandoned my µ4/3 gear. However, I do haul it around on trips and shorter get-a-ways just in case I want to make a picture of something that is to far away for the iPhone reach. At which point, I mount up my 50>200mm f2.8-100>400mm eq.-Zuiko lens on my E-P5 and snap away. FYI, that large lens on the small E-P5 is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog.

That written. my E-P5 is getting rather long in the tooth and prudence dictates that it just might be time for a replacement. At this stage of my life it would most likely be my forever camera. However, replacement wise, I have been far less than enamored with the available candidates.

I have no interest in the multi-thousand dollar Olympus wunderbar cameras. That’s cuz, in large part, I don’t want a DSLR form-factor camera. I much prefer a rangefinder-like form-factor. But that’s a form-factor that the Olympus Systems camera maker has seemingly abandoned.

So imagine my surprise and delight upon discovering that a new rangefinder-like Olympus Systems camera, the E-P7, has been introduced. It is, essentially, an E-P5 upgrade or, depending on your perspective, an Oly PEN downgrade (Oly PEN minus a few that-I-don’t-care-about features).

The only problem is that it is not available in the US. However, it is showing up for order on some e-bay and used camera sites. And, at a very reasonable price - $600-700USD range. On the other hand, my son is currently in Japan for a 2 week vacation…hhmmmm.

# 6688-90 / landscape • common things • kitchen sink ~ too much of a "good" thing?

August 28, 2023

***ode to Oppenheimer*** ~ (embiggenable)

AS I PLUMB DEEPER INTO THE WORLD OF INSTAX print making, taken together with my current-while away from my desktop-loss of PS processing capabilities, I have come to an amended interpretation of the adage:

A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. ~ so said Lord Darlington in Oscar Wilde’s Lady Windemere’s Fan

In my amended interpretation, a man is a picture making people (man, woman, or child) whose pictures reveal everything (max detail, resolution, dynamic range, et al) but capture the value (feeling) of nothing. That is to write, to my eye and sensibilities, such pictures project the impression of a coldly analytical, surreal / hyper real, tour de force of technical “perfection” which, once again to my eye and sensibilities, have no “soul” or visual mystery /mystique.

SO, how does INSTAX prints and loss of PS capabilities factor into my price of everything / value of nothing picture making state of mind? Simply put, looking for extreme or small detail(s) in an INSTAX print is a fool’s errand. However, in my experience, the nearly universal reaction to the viewing of such prints is an immediate connection to the feeling the picture is intended to convey. There are few or no distracting details to get in the way of that perception.

And, re: PS capabilities, now that I have been “surviving” for a couple weeks without PS-using PS Express + Snapseed for my photo editing-I have begun to question my pursuit of “perfection” - things such as creating a high degree of shadow and highlight detail, optimizing color balance by differentiating color balance between shadows and mid-tones, and the like. Processing adjustments that I try to perform with a deft / subtle hand so as to be natural looking / not obvious.

Nevertheless, the question being, do I need to tone it down? The answer to that question can only be answered when I get back to my desktop system-with a working PS-and make a few prints from “toned down” files and in order to see what’s what.