landscape / sky / # 3603-05 ~ question and answer

my kind of sunset picture ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone (FYI, made with the “ultra-wide” lens (14mm-equiv)

(embiggenable) • CANON Powershot G series camera

entre chien et loup ~ (embiggenable) • CANON Powershot G series camera

ON MY LAST ENTRY, Thomas Rink left a comment:

Mark, did you intend to use the phone camera for this work, too? I'm curious since for my own intimate landscapes, I find wide-angle lenses often too short to extract small parts of a scene. A "normal" focal length and longer works better for this purpose as far as I'm concerned. Probably a small sensor camera with a zoom would work best due to flexibility and depth of field.

my response: re:...did you intend to use the phone camera for this work? The devil, aka: contrarian, in me says I should use the iPhone just so I can give the finger to the "perfectionists". However, since I often print my usually highly detailed intimate landscape pictures large-up to 24x24"-I will make a few comparison pictures-iPhone v. "real" camera- to be certain iPhone pictures would compare favorably with "real" camera made pictures at the large size. From my experience making large prints from iPhone image files, I believe they will fill the bill.

re: lens selection. By my estimate, approximately 90% of my landscape / nature pictures were made with a 40mm-µ4/3-equivalent-lens. In fact, it might be accurate to write that 90% of all of my "real"-camera pictures were / are made with the same lens. I am a 1-lens/1-camera kinda guy.

Were I to use the iPhone for this undertaking, I would most likely use the "wide" lens which I believe is a 26mm-ish-equivalent lens. That is the lens I use-my iPhone 1-lens/1-camera equivalent-for approximately 90% of my iPhone-made pictures. With 18 months of iPhone picture making using that lens, I have had no problems getting the results I want and the pictures hold up well when paired with "real"-camera with 40mm(equiv) made pictures. That written, when I make some comparison pictures, I will make a few using the iPhone "tele" lens which is actually a 52mm-equivalent lens, aka: a "normal" lens equivalent.

It is worth noting that after I lent, to my grandson, one of my Olympus PEN cameras with my 20mm lens-the 40mm-equivalent-I have been using my 24mm-equivalent lens in my 1-lens/1-camera set up. In my analog 35mm camera days, my 24mm Nikkor lens was my favorite lens. As I sit here writng this entry, that lens is mounted on one of my Nikon F3s on a shelf right next to me (it makes a nice paperweight). Consequently, I have a long and happy relationship with the 24mm field of view.

intimate landscape / # 3598-3602 ~ daddy needs a new pair of shoes

(embiggenable) • early CANON G series Powershot camera

(embiggenable) • early CANON G series Powershot camera

(embiggenable) • early CANON G series Powershot camera

(embiggenable) • early CANON G series Powershot camera

(embiggenable) • early CANON G series Powershot camera

GOING BACK TO THE EARLIEST-CIRCA 2003-SAVED DIGITAL PICTURE FILES in my 7,766 finished picture file library, I have been pulling out what might be considered as the "best of" my ku, aka: nature / landscape, pictures. My reason for doing so is 2-fold.

First, I have been contemplating the purchase of new hiking boots. Second, I consider it kinda like a refresher course, re: how I made pictures of the Adirondack landscape / natural world. The first and second reasons are intrinsically connected inasmuch as I want new hiking boots because I want to get into the woods much more consistently to, once again, start making Adirondack landscape / natural world pictures. Somehow, for some reason, I feel as if I have to do so.

However, that written, while going through my landscape /nature pictures (which number in the high triple digits), I have begun to question whether or not I have anything more to say about that specific referent. Inasmuch as my vision, aka: what pricks my eye and sensibilities and how that dictates how I picture it, has not changed in any significant manner from what it was 40 years ago, I am concerned that the best I could do returning to landscape / nature picture making is to repeat myself.

On the other hand, while I believe that I have made some really good, even outstanding, landscape / nature pictures, especially intimate landscape / nature pictures, maybe, sine qua non wise, the object is to create a new 20-30 picture body of work that represents the ne plus ultra of my concept of landscape / nature photography. That idea seems like a worthy and doable undertaking.

In any case, I am getting a new pair of hiking boots.

intimate landscape / # 3594-98 ~ a step back in time

(embiggenabe) • early CANON Powershot camera

(embiggenabe) • early CANON Powershot camera

(embiggenabe) • early CANON Powershot camera

(embiggenabe) • early CANON Powershot camera

(embiggenabe) • early CANON Powershot camera

ONCE UPON A TIME, 20 YEARS AGO, AFTER MOVING TO THE ADIRONDACKS, I began to make pictures of the place. For a number of years, most of those pictures where of the natural world, aka: ku. And, until I felt it to be time-when digital cameras reached a point of at least somewhat maturity-to step up to a "serious" digital camera (circa 2008), I was using one CANON Powershot G series camera or another (I kept upgrading from one generation to the next). They were all quite capable cameras.

The pictures in this entry are from very early in my post-2000 Adirondack picture making and they are very representative of my-to this day-intimate landscape approach to picturing the Adirondacks. That approach is, to my eye and sensibilities, ideally suited to the place itself.

That is, the Adirondack "Park" is actually not designated as NYS park. It is, and always has been, the Adirondack Forest Preserve. And, as you might assume, most of the Adirondacks is a dense, northeastern US forest. Which is to write that, unless one hikes to above tree-line on a mountain top in the HIGH PEAKS region or visits one of the larger lakes, there are precious few grand, sweeping landscapes.

Based upon my 65 years of experience walking / hiking in the Adirondacks, I can write that, of the 2,300 miles of wilderness hiking trails, 95% of those miles are in the forest. Consequently, what one sees / encounters on a typical Adirondack hike are trees, undergrowth and bracken and more trees. Which is why I make a lot of pictures of trees, undergrowth and bracken.

That written, and to be accurate, on a typical Adirondack hike one will definitely encounter one or more of the 2,800 lakes and ponds and or stretches on some of the 1,500 rivers fed by 30,000 miles (estimated) of brooks and streams. And, waterfalls, bogs and marshes abound. So, yes, I have pictures of that stuff too.

However, my Adirondacks is defined by the seemingly endless intimate landscape tableaux to be found in the forest. And, if I may be so bold as to suggest, my inimate landscape pictures are kissing cousins to my other work, especially my kitchen sink and kitchen life pictures.

lanscapes / # 3587-89 ~ real-ism or escape-ism

(embiggenable) ~ iPhone

(embiggenable) ~ iPhone

(embiggenable) ~ iPhone

I HAVE LONG THOUGHT AND BELIEVED THAT ONE of the medium of photography and its apparatus' "problem":, re: acceptance and appreciation as an art form, is also its raison d'etre or its unique characteristic as a visual art. That is, its inherent / intrinsic relationship with/to the real.

From its very inception, the medium has had to deal with the perception that pictures made with a machine were the result of little more than a machanistic-i.e., determined by physical processes alone-activiity which was devoid of any evidence of the "hand of the artist". Therefore, according to a number of national art academies (European) at the time, photography was most certainly not an art. A "craft" perhaps, but most emphatically not an art.

The response from many photo practioners of the era-primarily, 1885 to 1915-to that academic prejudice was the practice of Pictorialism. An approach to the medium which emphasised "the beauty of subject matter and the perfection of composition...", not to mention the physical manipulation of the negative and print, "...rather than the documentation of the world as it is .... [an attempt] to infuse a certain otherworldly feel into the previously non-romantic and starkly objective medium of photography."

Eventually-around the very early 20th century-some photographs began to exhibit photographs which sought to picture the world as it is without "artistic" contrivance. That movement came to prominence in the form of a 1932 exhibition which presented the work of 11 photographers who announced themselves as the F.64 group. A group which "embodied a Modernism aesthetic for straight photography, based on precisely exposed images of natural forms and found objects."

I could continue on the path of writing about the current movement(s)-such neo-pictorialism-in the medium of photography and its apparatus but that's not my objective in this entry. So...back on point, re: the problem with the medium's its inherent / intrinsic relationship with/to the real.

Consider the 3 pictures in this entry. Independent of their artistic merit-whatever that might be-imagine them as paintings-watercolor, oils, et al. Now imagine the photographs on a gallery wall, side-by-side with the paintings of the exact same referent. In fact, paintings made using the photographs as a referential basis for the paintings.

In this imagined scenario, a viewer can choose one version-painting or photograph-of the scene for free. iMo, most viewers would choose the painting based in large part because it looked more like "art" than the photograph. You know the logic... the photograph is "just a picture" / "I could have made that picture", etc. Although, it could be more of a horse race if the photographer had added a lot more art sauce-effect filters, exaggerated sauration / contrast, et al-to the photograph to make it more "art-like", aka: a return to Pictorialism practices.

In my next entry, I venture a ways down the rabbit of perceptual / cultural reasons for why I believe this imagined experiment is true. Aslo, does it matter? / Who cares? And, remember, your thoughts and comments are alway welcomed.

landscape / # 3579-81 + coronavirus book ~ appearances can be deceiving

Vermont ,through a dirty window ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

tee and green, severe dog-leg left ~ # 6 / Whiteface Golf Club (embiggenable) • iPhone

coronavirus ~ pandemic pictures ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

RECEIVED MY coronavirus pandemic pictures PHOTO BOOK AND I AM quite pleased with it. The softcover book, made by PARABO.PRESS is 8x8" with 20 pages + covers, containing 32 pictures. In all respects, the quality of the book is first rate.

My next entry will delve into my ideas and "secrets" regarding photo book making. However, I will spill one "secret" in this entry ...

While I don't make a lot of BW / monochrome pictures, when I do, the last processing step in my prep for printing-photo print or photo book-is to convert the Grayscale image file to RGB. Which, on the face of it, might seem rather counter-productive inasmuch as, in most cases, the first step to a creating a digital BW / monochrome image file is to convert an image file from RGB to Grayscale. However ....

... back in the day, in the world of the printing press, if one wanted a truly "rich" printed-on-paper BW / monochrome image, converting a Grayscale image to color space-CMYK for the printing press-was the way to go. The difference between a picture printed with just black ink-the "K" in CMYK-and the same picture printed with CMYK-C(yan)M(agenta)Y(ellow)K(black) was VERY significant. Consequently, high-end fine art BW / monochrome photography books were almost always printed with color inks.

And, I can atest that the same holds true today in the online POD photo book world. I always, to include the coronavirus book, send RGB files to the printer. Additionally, all of my BW / monochrome photographic prints are made with RGB files.

FYI, unless you look at the printed page in a photo book with a high magnification lupe, the picture will appear to the eye as a "pure", color-neutral Grayscale image. And, BTW, if you are into making warm or cool tinted Grayscale images, the best way to do it is with a Grayscale image file converted to RGB using CURVES in Photoshop.

PS I made the putt for a par on # 6 and went on to finish my 9-hole round-the first of the season-at even par.

landscape / # 3576-78 ~ taking a drive and trying to keep it simple # 3

looking at Vermont across Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

on a drive along Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

on a drive along Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

MOVING RIGHT ALONG, RE: TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, to Step 3, making a "proof" print. And, similar to the use of CURVES as part of the process of creating a good quality image file, the making of a proof print could be presented in a very complex / detailed manner. Nevertheless, I am trying to keep it simple, so.....

Making a so called proof print is no different from making a print. Making a print requires: 1st) a decent photo printer, and, 2nd) installing the print software that comes with it. No big deal. The bigger deal is understanding how to create a simple and repeatable printing flow. Which, actually, is not that big a deal.

When I have an image ready for printing, I print directly from Photoshop by selecting PRINT from the dropdown EDIT Menu (I use a keyboard shortcut). Selecting PRINT opens up the Photoshop Print Settings dialogue panel in which I select the name of the printer + the paper profile (installed in your system by the printer software) in the Printer Profile dropdown menu and also select Photoshop Manages Colors in the Color Handling dropdown menu. There are other parameters to set in Print Setting-paper size, etc.-but the important settings are Printer Profile and Color Handling.

After making the settings, hit PRINT and you are off to the races. The resultant print-assuming you have created a good quality image file and entered the correct settings in the Photoshop Print Settings -will be a proof print which very closely simulates what the picture will look like in a printed photo book.

The reason for that outcome is, to put it VERY simply, saving images file to ABODE RGB (1998) + calibration (of your monitor which allows for reasonable WYSIWYG image file processing) + the use of the proper color profiles when making a print will produce a print that will look like the picture will look like when printed on virtually any other calibrated device. Meaning, any device from drugstore printers to a photo book printing press. The simple fact is that, in the digital photography domain, almost every device is fully capable of "talking" to any other device in a "language", aka: calibration+profiles, that they all understand.

CAVEAT Understand that by trying to keep it simple, there a quite a number of variables in the chain-from camera to print-which can't be covered here. None of those variables should be difficult to recognize and deal with.

ku / landscape / coronavirus life # 3558-60 ~ out and about

the wife / social distancing ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

social distancing / Asgaard Farm ~ Au Sable Forks, NY (embiggenable) • iPhone

river rocks ~ Au Sable River / West Branch (embiggenable) • iPhone

blog note: SINCE I MISTAKENLY DELETED MY LAST ENTRY, I'll mention again that there is a new gallery, CORONAVIRUS LIFE, on my WORK page.

ALSO WORTH A MENTION IS THE FACT that I have made a photo book with the pictures in the CORONAVIRUS LIFE gallery. The original intention was to make the book on Shutterfly, which I did, but when I put it in my checkout cart, the discounted price for 8x8", 38 page book was over $100USD. Admittedly, the book had a number of "premium" add-ons such 6-color printing, lay-flat pages, matte cover and the deletion of the Shutterfly logo page but...at that price, I decided to wait for one of their 50% off everything sales, which, btw, come along quite frequently.

In any event, I still wanted a photo book so went to PARABO.PRESS and set up a similar book-8x8" with 38 pages and a soft cover-which priced out at $18USD. So, I ordered 2.

FYI, without actually counting, I have about 12 8x8" photo books + about 10 5x5" photo books from PARABO. Those books are all soft cover and the pages are a heavy-weight matte paper. The print quality is quite good and I especially like the matte paper look for my "snapshot" pictures.

One of these days, if enough of you out there are interested, I will do an entry in which I give away all of photo book making "secrets".

civilized ku # 3554-55 ~ just doin' it

Vermont across Lake Champlain ~ near where I live (embiggenable) • iPhone

running errands ~ Plattsburgh, NY. (embiggenable) • iPhone

ONE OF THE PHOTO BLOGS / SITES I VISIT EVERY DAY, even though on most days it features Academic Lunatic Fringe photography, is LENSCRATCH. However, every once and awhile it features that which might be labeled as straight photography. Today's featured work is one such occasion.

It is no secret that I believe that amateur snapshots might just be at the top of the heap, re: what the medium of photography and its apparatus is capable of achieving. That is, pure and honest, un-affected seeing. And, the work featured on LENSCRATCH today is a perfect example of such.

Two items in the LENSCRATCH entry caught my attention: first was the comment by the site's founder / editor, Aline Smithson, which stated:

...There is a glorious authenticity to the photographs...

That statement fairly concisely sums up my feeling about snapshots. Which is precisely the reason I could be labeled as a casual collector of snapshots.

The second item that captured my attention was a statement by the snapshot maker:

I began scanning the negatives, cleaning them up, and making archival digital prints. I was flooded with memories, but more importantly, to my surprise, I found that they show a remarkable consistency of vision as a body of work .... The images provide clues to how I looked at the world as a child. I realize there are many similarities to how I view the world today.

The reason that statement struck a chord with me is that I can write, without any doubt, that if I were to put together a random assortment of my personal "fine art" work, which included a couple prints made during the first 6 months of my picture making, no one would, if challenged to do so, be able to identify those pictures as much older examples of my work.

I believe that to be true because I see the world and picture it today in exactly the same manner I did back then (c. 1968). That is, I simply make pictures of what I see. Not, as Brook Jensen has written, of what I have been told is a good picture.

I did not pickup a camera until during my 18th year on the planet. Prior to that time I had no paricualar interest in making or viewing photographs (other than as seen in general interest magazines or other publications). I was mercifully free of any knowledge of or expections to conform to conventional picture making norms. My M.O. was, literally, have camera, see something, don't think, just point and shoot. Which is exactly how I make pictures today.

To be a bit more precise, that M.O. is baked into my seeing-and always has been-and picture making pysche. I picture by "feel". That is, I see something that picks my eye, point my picture making device and "organize" the visual elements of that something within the frame I impose on my chosen segnment of the world in a manner that just "feels" right to my eye and sensibilities.

That M.O., from picture making day one, is what earned me the position to be a full-time photographer-in the US Army without any training-within 6 months of picking up a camera. It earned me a career of making advertising / marketing pictures for Fortune 500 corporations (and others) and editorial pictures for magazines and professional publications. And, throughout my life (especially the past 20 years), making personal "fine art" pictures which have been accepted / exhibited in group gallery shows (many worldwide "competitions") and in at least 10 solo gallery exhibitions.

All of that written, here's the thing ... I am fortunate to have been "given" what seems to me to be a preternatural "gift" for "seeing". A "gift" that I can't really explain. It just is. Consequently, I can, as the NIKE slogan states, just do it.