# 5538 / natrual world•flora ~ sorta same as it ever was

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ON A RECENT ENTRY, # 5532 / Here we go again, A COMMENT WAS LEFT by Markus Spring...

"Hmm, AI in image processing doesn't really attract me..."

Markus went on to explain why AI image processing does not attract him. ASIDE my rsponse to Markus is in no way to be considered as a rejoinder / contrarian response cuz it is not.END OF ASIDE.

Since my dawn of picture making time, I have avoided any thing that might be considered as an "automatic", aka: not controlled by me, function or accoutrement. As an example, from day one, I always used a handheld light meter, normally with a spot metering attachment. None of that who-knows-what-it's-doing in-camera metering for me.

When I adopted digital picture making, I continued to be a control freak ... RAW format only (none of those crappy JPEGS for me). As I worked my way up the ever-improving sensor capability's ladder, I worked my ass off processing my image files to obtained my desired result. Not because I wanted to but cuz, given the shifting state of the art, I had to.

So, my embrace of Ai-based picture making-together with an, at first, skeptical embrace of JPEG image files-could be considered by some who know my history as a rather strange development (might be a pun there).

But here's the thing. I have come full-circle to a point of same-as-it-ever-was, picture making wise. To wit, back in the analogue days,you chose your poison (color film / paper), made an exposure, took the result into the darkroom and made a print, using the very limited range of control available to do so, and lived with the result. Which is not to write that the result could not be a very nice color print cuz, most often it was.

Compare that to my current picture making M.O. I have picked my poison (an iPhone), make an exposure (Ai hard at work), open the jpeg in my "darkroom", make a few minor adjustments (work-arounds, side-steps, "tricks", flat out ignoring some conventional processing wisdom), make a print and live with the result. Which is not to write that the result could not be a very nice color print cuz the result is always> remarkably close, if not not perfectly matched, to my desired result.

And, have no doubt about it. My desired result, print wise, conforms to a very high standard. Back in the analogue days, my C prints were very often perceived to be dye transfer prints-in large part due the fact I printed with condenser-head enlargers, not diffusion-head enlargers.

My digital era prints are produced to mimic the best qualities of analogue era C prints. Soft detailed highlights and deep but detailed shadows with smooth tonal transitions and "clean" natural color. Prints are sharp but not state-of-the-art (so called) eye-bleeding sharp. In short, a pleasing / easy to look at picture.

CAVEAT All of the above written, it should be understood that, while it might seem that I just breeze my way through some quick and easy picture making steps, especially at the prcessing stage, that is simply not the case. I bring 30 years of Photoshop image processing skills and experience to every image file I process.

There is no question that the iPhone Ai gets me remarkedly close to where I want to be (90% of the time), it still requires a significant amount of applied skill and knowledge, Photoshop image file processing wise, to achieve my desired end result. To be sure, it is not rocket science level wise but most certainly it is not click the button / move the slider wise simple.END OF CAVEAT

# 5484 / Rist Camp•natural world ~ dead, lifeless pictures

(embiggenable) • iPhone

OK, OK. I JUST MAY HAVE GONE OFF A LITTLE BIT OVER THE TOP on Mssr.Johnston in yesterday's entry. However, the fact is that I do not feel very bad about doing so cuz...

...yesterday's ire, while it may seem to have been primarily directed toward the stupidity of Johnston's assumptive and un-informed pronouncements, it was also directed toward the long-held but gradually overcome idea that the making of a picture is "just" a mechanical process. To wit, the camera makes the picture. All the human does is press the shutter.

Now this idea was dismissed in the higher levels of the art world quite a while ago. So, it distresses me to encouter, in this day and age, a substantial cadre of "serious" picture makers who seem to be intent on turning back the clock. They are obessed by the idea of technical / mechanical "perfection" in both gear and processing. And, by extension, the only good picture is one made with the most perfect of picture making instruments and processed to highest technical standards-an obesession with the "numbers"-attainable.

The result of the pursuit of perfection is pictures with no soul, Cold, clinical and lifeless pictures. But, of course, never let it written that they are not "perfect".

natural world / week of... / # 3695-96 ~ adaptability

(embiggenable) • iPhone

week of 8.3.20 ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

FYI, JUST THOUGHT I WOULD MENTION THAT most pictures posted on this blog were made on theday of the entry or within 24-48 hours thereof. However, not every picture made within that time frame gets posted. So, that being the case, I thought I would start making and posting a week of picture collage comprised of all the pictures made that week.

And, yes, I have posted a picture-as shot-made within the frame of a rectangle. That's cuz I picture what I see and that's how I saw it. Never let it be stated that I am so anal-retentive, re: the square format, that I can not adapt to a given picture making situation. After all, as I say every time I repeat the Possum Lodge Man's Pledge...

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."

One last thought ... here is another quote/excerpt from Sally Eauclaire. She was writing about Stephen Shore's pictures ....

"He is engaged not with any thing’s knowable identity, but with its visual mystique, its potential for being turned into a picture."

Change "He is" to "I am" and it describes my picture making MO to a T.

natural world / around the house / # 3660-62 ~ for your eyes only

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ART DOESN'T NEED A SUBJECT. iMconsideredO, content is antithetical to the art aesthetic and it is form that opens the gateway to the rapture of the art experience. Consequently, I would rather view a piece of art that makes me want to puke than one which makes me want to think* about it, i.e. to discern meaning (aka: content). However...

....lest I get carried away, I can not ignore the fact that, inasmuch as I navigate the art-waters of the medium of photography, my art making endevours are inexorably liked to real-world referents. That is the intrinsic nature of the beast. And, especially so with the medium of photography, what is depicted is most often linked to a picture's content, aka: meaning.

Fortuntely for me and my picture making, I am (seemingly) preternaturally drawn to making pictures of 'nothing" or, more accurately, nothing of any great visual significance. That is fortunate inasmuch as the depicted referent is unlikely, for those atuned to it, to get in the way of seeing the artistic sensibility / characteristics, the intended content of my pictures, employed in the making of my pictures.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, that is just the way I see it.

* which does not mean that a picture I view might not incite thoughts. Although, most of those thoughts are descriptive of the emotion(s) which the picture might have incited in me.

# 3570-72 ~ trying to keep it simple

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

STEPs 1 / 2 ARE ARGUABLY THE SECOND-MOST IMPORTANT STEPS, not only for photo book making, but for all of picture making. The first-most, of course, being one's personally unique vision.

That written, there are a zillion and a half words, books, websites, et al devoted to the subject of the techincal aspects, aka: techniques / mechanics, of making good image files. Making good image files is, in fact, a 2-step procedure involving what one does with his/her picture making device and how the resulting image is processed. There are thousands of ideas regarding how to best manage that 2-step procedure. There are some-those who would like to be your (paid) instructor-who try to make the procedure seem as complicated as possible.

I am not one of those "masters-of-(whatever)". My M.O. is to keep it simple, stupid. So, my intention in giving away my "secrets" (for free, no less) is to keep it as simple as possible. So....

ASIDE....here's where I might lose some of you. I have one single tool-other than the careful use of my picture making device-for making good image files. That is the CURVES tool in Photoshop (and I might add in Snapseed which I use for processing on my iPhone / iPad). The reason I might lose some of you is that I know not everyone has Photoshop or image editing software that has a CURVES tool. END OF ASIDE

STEP 1: using the picture making device. a) The primary consideration in making an image file, aka: a picture, is to protect the highlights. That is, use an exposure setting which keeps detail in the highlights. There is nothing worse, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, than a picture with "blown-out" highlights. Don't worry about the shadows at this point cuz' they can be "rescued" in the processing step.

b) with my real "camera", I set my picture making values to as neutral as possible ... "normal" contrast, neutral color, etc. Although, when making RAW files (which is what I always do), one has the option at the processing step to apply whatever values suits one's vision.

And that's all there is to it. Really. When I use a "real" camera to make a picture, all I ever do is set the aperture and shutter speed, focus and activate the shutter release. When using my iPhone, I touch the screen to select focus point and exposure (adjust if needed) and then activate the shutter. In either case, my M.O. thought is, why make it more complicated than that?

STEP 2: processing the image file. When making RAW files, this is a 2-atep procedure. First, one needs to use a RAW Conversion software to convert the file to a "standard" file format. At this point, drawing upon all of the raw data the picture making device sensor captures, one can adjust exposure, contrast, color balance, sharpening, saturation, rescue highlight / shadow detail and more (most, if not all, conversion software have a CURVES tool). Shooting RAW and converting to a standard format is considered to be, rightfully so, the absolute best way to make the best possible image file.

That written, I use a RAW conversion software for "broad"-strokes adjustments. After conversion, I do my "fine-tuning" adjustments in Photoshop. Most of my fine-tuning is done with the CURVES tool and most of the CURVES use (as well as any application of the SHARPEN tool) is performed in LAB color space . Convert back to RGB and save.

When I use my iPhone, my processing is also a 2-step procedure....typically, on my iPhone, I use Snapseed to recover / enhance highlight detail and open up the shadows if needed. Save the file and then download to my desktop machine and fine-tune in Photoshop using CURVES and LAB color space. Convert back to RGB and save. FYI, all of my image files are saved with Adobe RGB (1998) color profile which is has a wider color gaumet than sRGB IEC61966-2.1.

Processing addendum: processing image files is best performed on a calibrated monitor / screen. Since I am Mac-based, I keep it simple and use the Color Calibration tool found in DISPLAYS in the System Preferences window. I then use the calibration profile to be the RGB Working Space in Photoshop's Color Settings. end of Addendum

The above screen grab depicts a CURVES dialogue graph-derived from the accompanying picture-which has my "typical" after processing image file profile. Note that neither the shadow end (bottom left) nor the highlight end (bottom right) of image content bump up against-but come close to-the sides of the graph box. In very simple terms, what this indicates is that the image files contains tonal information that ranges from about a 10% black value to about a 95% white value. That means that the printed image will have will have a tonal range that is about as broad as the medium allows.

TIP: the dialogue box for a picture made on a foggy day whould be very different from the one depicted here. If one were to want a picture / print which accurately depicted the foggy day, the graph content of the image file would mostly likely have highlight detail limited to 230 on the scale and 40 or 50 on the shadow end. That would be because the actual scene had no high value higlights or deep, dark shadow tonal values.

From a technical viewpoint .... a digital image file's content is depicted in the CURVES dialogue box on a scale which goes from 0 (pure black - no detail) to 255 (pure white - no detail). In an ideal world a processed image file would have content which ranges from 10-250 which indicates that both the shadow and highlight content have some detail. Such a file will print-photo print or printed page in a photo book-as a rich, full range picture.

All of the above written, I have tried to keep it as simple as possible to make it easy to understand. Nevertheless, you may have questions which I will try to answer.