# 6337-41 / (common) people • places • things ~ if Dylan can do it, so can I

November 24, 2022

***people*** (***faces***) ~ (embiggenable)

*places* A (*hand of man*) ~ (embiggenable)

I HAVE BEEN DEVOTING SOME TIME TO reading-1 or 2 essays (of 66) at a time (in no particular order) the new Bob Dylan book, The Philosophy of Modern Song. In addition to reading the book, I have also been listening to the 66 songs-on a ready-made Spotify playlist-that Dylan writes about in the book. FYI, each essay is a about a particular song and the artist who performs it.

iMo, reading the essays without listening to the songs is really a dumb idea. But, then again, there are those who think whole endeavor is a dumb idea. While I am greatly enjoying the essays / songs-highly recommended-it is most definitely a roller coaster, fun house, hall of mirrors ride through the mind of Bob Dylan. And, no, there is not the slightest hint of any idea, re: philosophy, in the book.

In any event, Dylan’s creation has got me to a-thinkin’. The result of which is that Mr. Dylan has inspired me to undertake a similar project - a book, The Philosophy of Modern Pictures.

The book will not be a comprehensive overview of the wide, wide world of photography-it will be illustrated with my pictures and only my pictures. Nor will it be an attempt to put forth an academic-style theory about the medium and its practitioners-it will be about how I practice the medium and its apparatus. And, even though I am capable of writing like this…

Looking and seeing and learning and knowing. Coupled compartments speeding and lurching on cold-heart steel rails and sensuous shifting sands, pursuing the horizon, an illusive vanishing point shrouded in earthly moonrise mist and fog. Tour guides, tourists, back seat drivers, and card carrying fellow travelers, all in their place in a place blurred by memories, perceptions, and time. Each being exactly what they are and imprecisely what others make of them, all waiting to be found, to be seen, and to be known.

…I am going to keep it simple. More like this…

I want my photographs to function like a pool table / pinball machine inasmuch as I have no desire to give a viewer’s eye a place to land and relax on the 2D surface of my prints. Rather, I want to direct a viewer’s eye to careen around the surface of my prints, ricocheting off the hard-defined edges of the image, all the while chasing / tracing lines, colors, and shapes. Think of it as dancing, if you will. albeit more like Hip Hop than a Waltz.

And, you can be absolutely certain it will not be gear / how-to oriented.

My first task is to go back through my blog(s) and cull out written snippets that will form the baseline for the book’s writings. I will be very surprised if I do not find more excerpts than I might need. Then, after some judicious wordsmithing, it’s on to picking pictures.

The question, re: pictures, is not only how many to include in the book but also how to present them….organized in recognizable genre / themes (people, places, things) / bodies of work or simply as a run-on sentence / stream of consciousness, aka: discursive promiscuity, kinda way? Gotta think about that.

All of the above written, my intent is to create a picture book that, by twists and turns, is both serious and irreverent but, by all means, a very first-person, aka: me, expression of how I see and use the medium and its apparatus.

6313-17 / people ~ some people I know about whom you may care less

November 1, 2022

**medium format camera** - (embiggenable)

**µ4/3 camera** **with pinhole “lens”**- (embiggenable)

THE PICTURE MAKING IDEA OF PORTRAITS HAS been on my mind cuz there is a gallery group exhibition requesting submissions for consideration. Consequently, I have been rooting around in my photo iibrary for pictures which would be construed as portraits. That is, considered to be so per the submission guide lines:

A great portrait reveals something of the depth, history, and emotional state of the subject, at least as captured in a single moment in time. Although many portraits zero in on the face, many fine images don't show the face at all, instead using light, gesture, context, and other nuances of expression to create an informative portrait.

For this exhibit we seek portraits, self- or otherwise, that go beyond the surface to explore a deeper vision of the subject and, hopefully, draw an emotional response from the viewer.

To be certain, I have a number of issues with the idea that a portrait can reveal “something of the depth, history, and emotional state of the subject”, or that a portrait can “go beyond the surface to explore a deeper vision of the subject”. That’s cuz I am a firm believer in the idea the medium of photography has a problem with imbuing a photograph with definitive meaning, i.e. Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy~ Susan Sontag.

That written, a photograph which illustrates a reasonably accurate likeness of a person, when viewed by someone who possesses experiential knowledge and interaction with the depicted subject, may prick memories of and associations with that subject-Barthes’ punctum. But, iMo and experience, a viewer with no immediate connection to the depicted subject, not so much.

Re: the emotional state of the subject / an emotional response from the viewer. Without a doubt, photograph, in many examples, can convey a general sense of the emotional state of the subject. However, without some supporting evidence, visual or otherwise, that general sense will have little or no “depth”, the why? factor. And, also without a doubt, a photograph which conveys a sense of the subject’s emotional state may incite a simpatico response in the viewer thereof.

All of the above written, in my commercial picture making life, I was considered to be a top-tier people picture maker. My people pictures were on countless magazine covers and in magazine feature articles, in annual reports, and accent-on-people-like my Ray-Ban on models work-advertising / marketing campaigns.

I studiously avoided traditional studio portrait work other than for family and a few friends. The “portrait” pictures I enjoyed the making of the most were-and still is-my spontaneous, casual pictures of family, friends, and acquaintances. Usually made with no specific intent other than just fooling around in all kinds of situations while using all kinds of cameras and techniques.

In any event, I have yet to decide if I will be submitting work for the aforementioned exhibition. My time might be better spent putting together a nicely printed folio of my personal portrait work for submission to galleries in pursuit of a solo exhibition.

# 6311-12 / commonplaces • people ~ all hallows' eve

October 31, 2022

TOP: A HOUSE IN DOLGEVILLE, NY AS STUMBLED UPON during a self-impused detour drive just outside of the southern foothills of the Adirondacks along the Mohawk River Valley, aka: The Leatherstocking Region.

Bottom: Me in my Halloween costume-the porn photographer-c.1980.

Happy All Hallow’s Eve to one and all.

# 6305- 6310 / polaroids - people, places, things ~ more fun than a person can handle

October 30, 2022

CURRENTLY, I HAVE 19 CAMERAS IN MY LIFE (including the iPhone). Format wise they range from 8x10, 4x5, 120 format, 35mm format, and a widelux pano (all film cameras), plus 5 µ4/3 (digital) cameras + iPhone + 4 SX 70 cameras . My primary picture making device is the iPhone with the occasional use of one of my µ4/3 cameras (with a tele lens for sports / action pictures).

I can honestly attest that I have thoroughly enjoyed making pictures-commercial and personal-with each and every camera. That written, I can also attest that I never “loved” or fetish-ized any format or camera brand. To my way of thinking, they were all very nice tools which answered various picture making demands. In just about every case, switching brands would have never impacted my picture making results. …with one notable exception…

…that is the camera I would choose if I were forced to choose one camera to use for the rest of my life-the SX 70 Polaroid camera-with, of course, a lifetime supply of Time Zero film.

The enjoyment that came with the use of that camera knew no bounds, but, it was not just about the camera. Although…it must noted, who could not like the sleek folding design and the wonderful (and loud) slap of the mirror and the whirl of the motor as it ejected the print?…The camera itself was just a part the the picture making universe you entered when using it cuz the Time Zero film it used was something of a trip down the trip-the-shutter-and-who-knows-what-you will-get lane. And, of course, what you got was almost immediately available, and here’s the clincher, in the form of a print.

In addition to the unique look of the SX 70 / Time Zero prints, there was also the ability to play etch-a-sketch on the surface of the Time Zero print. I had a self-created kit of burnishing tools for use in pushing the Time Zero emulsion around as it developed. Countless hours were spent on this technique.

I used my SX 70s for both commercial-mainly editorial-and personal work. It was always a wonder to me how Polaroid went out of business cuz, as the photo gods must know, I thought that I used enough Time Zero film to keep the company going all by myself. I have 3 large poly bins loaded with what must be a couple thousand Time Zero prints. And, guess what, they are, literally, just tossed into the bins cuz, short of an encounter with a fire or a shredder, they are practically indestructible.

So, OK. Fine. I’ll admit it. I loved that camera(s) and the picture making universe it created and inhabited.

# 6191-94 / narrow depth of field ~ is it now an effect?

August 3, 2022

*from my* ***single women*** *series* ~ µ4/3 camera / 20mm (40e) / @ f1.7 (embiggenable)

***iPhone*** ~ Portrait setting (embiggenable)

BACK IN THE OLDEN DAYS OF PICTURE MAKING, aka: pre-digital, picture makers came by narrow depth-of-field “honestly” - camera+”fast” lens+shoot wide open = narrow depth-of-field. This technique was applied to many uses such as portraiture or drawing attention to a featured referent in a picture. But, in any case, it was derived from an intrinsic characteristic of the medium’s equipment.

In today’s digital picture making realm, narrow DOF is harder to come by given the typical smaller than so-called full-frame sensors + the laws / science of optics and image magnification (which I won’t get into here). For many picture makers who desire max DOF in their picture making , this a bonus.

As an example, in my picture making, wherein I am seeking out aesthetic form, I want every line, shape, texture, space, color, value, et al to be rendered with clarity and definition. That’s cuz every visual element with my imposed frame is an integral part of the aesthetic form I picture and hope to make perceivable to the viewers of my pictures.

For those who like narrow DOF, the options for obtaining it are limited and usually very expensive. Like, have you priced a (so-called) full-frame digital camera with a “fast “ high quality lens? While I like narrow DOF in some of my picture making, the expense versus small need-actually, it’s more like desire-does not justify the expensive. So….

….when the desire for narrow DOF strikes-I turn to my iPhone 13 Pro Max and its Portrait setting / feature. And, in case you haven/t noticed, over the past few months I have been using that setting-and,surprise for me, within a full-frame-much more than I ever imagined that I would. That’s cuz, best as I can tell at this point, I have been seduced by what my eye and sensibilities perceive as the soft, emotional warmth of pictures made with some significant degree of limited DOF. Which, again to my eye and sensibilities, stands in contrast to the hard, analytical, detached coolness of those pictures made with sharp definition and clarity from edge to edge.

ASIDE No. the iPhone Portrait setting does not accurately replicate the effect of the the old-timey film camera+fast lens combination. Yes. It can get confused, re: what to soften versus what to keep sharp, by small details. But, with some processing “corrections”, it does what I want it to do for my apparent narrow DOF picture making purposes. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I am ever so slightly conflicted with use of the iPhone Portrait setting. For the first time in my picture making life, I am using a filter to achieve a look / effect. OK, it'‘s not a filter. It is actually computational photography, Nevertheless, I can not help but feel that I am “cheating”, re: my sacred straight photography vow. Although, when picturing scenes / referents which are static, I do pre-select the aperture setting which creates the DOF look I am after and, 9 times out of 10, I print the file from that selection.

So, RATIONALIZATION ALERT, it’s kinda like straight photography, right?

# 6185-90 / the new snapshot • commonplaces ~ my precious stand-in

August 1, 2022

***this weekend past*** ~ (embiggenable)

“…it rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.” ~ Jean Shepherd

OVER THE YEARS, THE WIFE HAS PLAYED, DURING OUR TRAVELS, HER ROLE in my pictures, ala Jean Shepherd’s “loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.”, with the patience of a saint. And, this weekend past was no different.

Our travel this weekend past, a 260 mile (total) out-and-back run to the central Adirondacks in order to purchase a dozen of the planet’s best cinnamon sugar donuts, started with our first ever gas up at our hamlet’s rebuilt-from-scratch convenience store / gas station. After securing the donuts, we stopped for an early afternoon breakfast in the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake where we dined in a recently restored 1946 era diner that was moved-after its restoration-from Maryland to the Adirondacks.

I have been making travel pictures with the wife as a stand-in for quite some time. I began making them as a somewhat casual, satirical take on the classic tourist picture as described by Jean Shepherd. I continue to do so with the same intent but, as my collection of these pictures grow, I am now approaching the making of such pictures as a “serious” endeavor with the idea of creating a “serious”, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheeky, body of work.

My only regret about this undertaking is that it was not until quite recently that I started to this picture making seriously. Consequently, I am kicking myself in the butt-not easy to do at my age-for all of the stand-in picture making opportunities I have passed up over the years.

# 6166-70 / people . Common places ~ on the road agAin

July 21, 2022

FYI, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH ME, I am creating this entry on my iPad using the Squarespace app. Trying to see if I can go all mobile device and be happy with the results. Even the images files were processed on the iPad (Snapseed).

Best as I can tell, the contrarian in me is instigating me to do this “experiment” just so I am able to demonstrate to the commontaria ignoramicus that it is possible-in fact, if you know what you are doing, deceptively easy-to make good photographs with the simple-ist of gear and processing tools.

Of course, the preceding statement is dependent upon one’s understanding of what constitutes a good photograph. An understanding of “good” which most of the ignoramicus class confuse with things like max DR, max resolution, max color depth, max sensor size, the best glass, et al, as opposed to the tool that produces the best picture making results - the tool that, as Sir Ansel opined, is 12 inches behind the camera. I.E., the brain (+soul/heart) in which resides a picture maker’s vision.

To be certain, I would never suggest that anyone should chuck all the fancy stuff out the car at at 100 mph. However, I might suggest to someone just starting down the picture making trail that, as a variation on the OCOY practice, he/she use a mobile phone based “camera” and a simple mobile device based processing app as their tools for a year cuz…

…if one can not make a good picture with those simple tools, all the of “best” gear and processing tools will not get ya there.

# 6159-62 / family photos ~ no other picture makers were involved

July 17, 2022

“Take away this pudding! It has no theme.” ~ Winston Churchill

I SINCERELY HOPE I WAS NOT PERCEIVED AS BEING TOO CRITICAL of Mike Johnston in my last entry. My critique was intended to address the article and its content which, according to Johnston…

“…was two months in the making, and the process is highly collaborative…"Secret Art" went through multiple major edits and innumerable small ones, with input from many departments.”

Knowing that detail, it is no surprise to me that my primary criticism of the piece is that “it had no theme”. That is, for me (and maybe I’m being thick-headed), I had difficulty trying figure out what the article was about cuz it touched on a variety of topics-each topic treated in slap-dash / kiss and a promise fashion-A mish-mash of sorts. And, I keep waiting, to no avail, for the “secret” to be revealed.

That written, there is no question, in my estimation, why the article was a flop for me…apparently, it was created by “committee”. Hell, even Johnston noted (re: committee) , that, “I think you can tell it's me…I'm hoping the humor survived…”

So, the question arises, who “wrote” this article? If the answer is even knowable, that’s where my critique is intended to land.