civilized ku # 3645-46 ~ scratching an iTch

evening light ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

cameras w polaroid cheese slicer ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

recent sketches ~ trying to get back in the groove

recent sketches ~ trying to get back in the groove

A comment / question was written on a recent entry:

"How did you afford 8x10 color photography for personal work? The cost of materials must have been significant. And not exactly convenient for spontaneity of inspiration ... From 8x10 to iPhone is quite a journey.

The question is easy to answer - quite obviously, during my 30+ year career in commercial advertising photography, a whole lot of film passed through the film refrigerator in my studio. The percentage, relative to the whole, of film used for my personal work was miniscule. So, to use a common accounting saying, the cost of that film (and the cost color paper used to make prints from it) was little more than a rounding error in the business deductibles expense column on my long form.

A response to the commenter's reference to "spontaneity of inspiration" and "From 8x10 to iPhone is quite a journey." requires a bit more elucidation.

During my professional photography career, I owned and used a plethora of cameras covering a pethora of formats ... 110, 35mm (including a Widelux rotating lens panoramic camera), 120 (medium format), 4x5, 8x10 and polaroid. All of which got plenty of professional assignment use dependent upon the demands of any given project. And, I can guarantee that, had the iPhone camera format been available, I would have used it as well.

As result of that multi-format useage, I can honestly write that I never really developed a preference for one particular format/camera. Although, I can write that using the SX-70 polaroid camera and the tiny Pentax 110 camera (used 110 film cartridges) was a fun thing to do. And, together with my 8x10 field view camera (different from my 8x10 studio camera), those cameras were my choice for personal work (snapshots and "serious" stuff).

So, relative to "a journey", the simple response is that my journey was/is always about making pictures irrespective of the equipment used in their making. Or, give me a camera, any camera, and I'll make pictures. It's what I do ....

.... no "inspiration required ...

... since a very early single-digit age, I have always been making pictures. At first it was drawing and later-age 18-it turned to photography and later than that to graphic design. And, right up to this time in my life, I can write that I have never been much in need, if at all, of inspiration. Making pictures is just what I do and it might not be much of an exaggeration to write that it is a somewhat obsessive activity inasmuch as I do a lot of it.

Although, in fact, I do not consider my desire to create something an obsessive activity. It feels more like a preternatural / inherent characteristic of my personhood. If I were to visit a therapist about this desire / need and it were to be declared an obsessive compulsive behavior, I would say, after a life-long expressing of that desire / need, professional and personal, bring it on!. The more the merrier.

civilized ku # 3643-44 ~ exacting specificity is highly overrated

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

In my last entry I mentioned C prints made from color negatives. I described the visual characteristics of the prints made from such a combination as having smooth tonal and color transistions. I also mentioned I would introduce, in this entry, another characteristic I especially liked. That visual characteristic was the impression that the print was not overwhelmingly sharp.

In fact, the prints were sharp, or, as sharp as was possible given the materials at that time (enhanced by the fact that I printed with a condenser enlarger and a superb Nikkor enlarger lens). That written, the prints were certainly less sharp than today's digital standard.

Lest I am giving the wrong impression that the print substrate was responsible for the aforementioned visual characteristics, it should be made clear that those qualities were the product of the color negative film. Film which had many more emulsion layers (primarily masking layers) than transparency film. A slight but noticeable loss of sharpness (compared to that of transparency film) was one of the by-products of that film trait.

Along with the slight loss of macro sharpness was a corresponding loss of micro contrast, all of which contributed to that easy-on-the-eye smoothness that was possible with the use of color negative film. A visual characteristic which pleasantly pricks my eye and sensibities.

In the digital domain, very good to outstandingly good micro contrast is the norm for lens and sensors. And this is where I part ways with many things digital, picture making wise ...

Simply written, I am not a fan of what I consider to be the hyper reality look of much of today's visual imagery. Most of the hyper reality look is the result of an endless pursuit-by picture makers and sensor/lens makers-of what, to my eye and sensibilities, is rather excessive sharpness. And, that is why I have never been desirous of using "state-of-the-art" photo gear and viewing the prints which are the result of such use.

To understand that notion, it is necessary to write that my picture making pursuit is not about a quest for visual / technical "perfection". Rather, it is about creating and exhibiting visual impressions of what I see in the world around me. It is most definitely not about creating a highly detailed road map of that world. It is not about creating a seemingly exacting visual specificity as it is about the idea of simulacrum - a slight or superficial semblance of what I see in the world.

iMo, it would be acccurate to write that I do not want my pictures to appear to be highly technical but rather to appear to be more sensual.

civilized ku # 3640-42 ~ a kinda there and back again thing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • iPhone

After posting a few of my 8x10 view camera pictures, the picture making part of my brain began to think about film-based picture making. Film-based describes my picture making-professional and personal-from 1966>2004. Not only did I make pictures using film-color negative for personal work, transparency for commercial work-but I also processed and printed most of that film. I especially enjoyed printing my personal color work (there was almost no BW personal work). *

Consequently, after printing hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds more) of color prints, I developed a, some might say "extreme", fondness for the look of C prints. C prints made from color negatives-most of my "serious" personal work was created using 8x10 color negative film-displayed a smoothness of tone and color that was unmatched by transparency film.

To this day, I can walk into a gallery and know, upon viewing just one print, whether or not a picture was made with color negative film (even though the print is a not a C print). That is possible because that beloved smoothness of tone and color is captured-and readily apparent to my eye-in the digital conversion-scanning and printing.

In any event, I am seriously considering returning to the use of film for some of my picture making. That film will most likely be 4x5 color negative film because I have one the most compact and lightest 4x5 field cameras-made of wood-ever made. That camera is a Nagaoka view camera, one that was bequeathed to me in a will. A camera made of cherrywood and chrome-plated brass.

I never used the camera very much inasmuch as 8x10 view cameras were my "thing" for my "serious" personal work. Nevertheless, it was always on display in my studio and eventually in my home simply because it is thing of hand-crafted beauty.

Assuming that I succumb to the allure-perhaps nostalgia-of film-based picture making, several tasks will fall to hand ... finding a good source for the film, the processing and hi-res scanning. That should be easy enough but then comes the hard part ... where in my house to load film holders in a totally dark and dust free (extremely important place. Building a film loading (and unloading) closet in my basement might be the only solution.

Stay tuned. In the next entry I'll write about the other film/print characteristic of film-based picture making that I really like.

*the lone exception being snapshot picture making. That film processing and printing ("standard" 4x6 prints) were left to Kodak via a camera store.

Nagaoka 4x5 view camera with 90mm Schneider Super-Angulon lens

Nagaoka 4x5 view camera with 90mm Schneider Super-Angulon lens

ku # 1425 / civilized ku # 3639 (ku-ish) ~ entre chien et loup and a sunrise

Blue Mountain and fog at sunrise ~ (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera w color negative film

sailboats on Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

Theblue mountain sunrise fog picture is a companion picture to the from Castle Rock picture in my last entry. It was created, after climbing up to Castle Rock and camping the previous evening, next the morning. The fog that blanketed the entire landscape can be seen rolling in the from Castle Rock picture. Both pictures can accurately be described as f8 and be there. or, more precisely, f64 and be there pictures inasmuch as the fog was an unanticipated atmospheric event.

It is also fine example of luck rewarding the prepared. In this case, prepared meant not only an 8x10 view camera, 8x10 film holders, tripod and light meter but also a backpacking stove for a lite supper and breakfast, lantern, sleeping pads and sleeping bags (2 of each as I had my assistant along with me). The luck also included the fact that the fog fell below our perch on Castle Rock.

AN ASIDE: A gallery-crafts + a small room for photography-in Blue Mountain Lake was interested in selling the pictures. I had framed 8x10 contact prints of the pictures which I priced at $250/print. When the gallery owner heard the price, she had second thoughts about hanging them inasmuch at that time, c.1981, the price was quite a bit high for the market.

I convinced her to hang 1 of each. Much to her surprise (and delight), they sold as a set on the first day they were displayed. Needless to write, she wanted more and over time 20>30 sets were sold. The guideboat picture also sold quite well. She was happy and so was I.

FYISome very slight color banding in the sky might be visible. This due to downsampling for the web. The original is silky smooth.

civilized ku # 3637-38 / ku # 1424 ~ let there be light

from Castle Rock ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss w 8x10 color negative film

guideboat ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss w 8x10 color negative film

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

George Eastman opined:

"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography."

iMo, this quote, coming from a guy who employed hundreds of research scientists who knew light and how to make outstanding light sensitive emulsions, can be understood in a number of ways .... Eastman's research department certainly understood, from a technical point of view, that "light makes photography". Those who make pictures came to understand it from an aesthetic point of view and worked to "embrace light" as a pictorial meme employed to enhance a picture's visual impact in ways both subtle and dramatic.

Numbered amongst the light from an aesthethic POV picture makers, there is a subgroup of landscape picture makers who, to my eye and sensibilities, "admire" and "love" the light to the point of being a fetish. These picture makers often describe their picture making activitiy as "chasing the light" and by their definition, the light is that which is both dramatic and colorful or which emphasizes the sturm und drang of the natural world. I have never been a member of this club.

That written, there was a time when I did pursue a particular type of light .... the soft and color subtle light found during the time of day called the gloaming or as-using my favorite descriptor-entre chien et loup (between the dog and the wolf). That picture making time was during the late 70s>mid-80s when I toted one of my 8x10 view cameras about my hometown and the Adirondacks. I did so because, at that time, that was what "serious" fine art color picture makers did.

In order to capture the subtle quality of the light and color, my film of choice was 8x10 Type L (long exposure) color negative film. Even though Type L film was manufactured to compensate for the color reciprocity failure due to long exposures (60-120 seconds), I was pushing the envelope out to 10>20 minute exposure times* due to my use of an f64 aperture setting.

Although I still have my 8x10/4x5 view cameras and lenses, for a variety of reasons those days are gone. Over the last 2 decades, I have increasingly let "the light" chase me and, when it catches me, I make pictures of it. To be honest, I subscribe to a picture making idea best described by Brooks Jensen:

"There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light. There is just light."

*FYI, something I did from time to time, during a 20 minute exposure, was to walk through the scene I was picturing. I never detected any impact on the negative of such activity. I just did it to be a wise ass.

civilized ku # 3634 ~ photography is not dead

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

DON'T TAKE PICTURES is a site I visited on regular basis. The site's ABOUT statement Is to my liking:

...The title, Don’t Take Pictures, references the language of modern photography. Over the years, the term “taking pictures” has begun to be replaced with “making photographs.” The change signifies a distinction between the widespread use of cameras in the modern world and the more systematic, thoughtful process of creating photographic art. At Don’t Take Pictures, we strive to celebrate the creativity involved with the making of photographs.

In particular, I appreciate the fact that most of the featured pictures-those that appear it a variety of regular catagories-are made without a heavy layering of art sauce. That is, the pictures are primarily made without the application of visual effects.

In a video in today's entry, filmmaker Wim Wenders stated, “I do believe that everybody’s a photographer. We’re all taking billions of pictures, so photography is more alive than ever, and at the same time, it’s more dead than ever.”

In the process of explaining his position-re:Mobile phones have killed photography-Wenders stated:

"...The troublee with iPhone pictures is nobody sees them. Even the people who take them don't look at them any more and they certainly don't make prints.:

IMo, that idea is simply not accurate-if not out-right wrong on so many points-if for other reason that I have made multiple-100s of prints / 10 photo books (and counting) of my iPhone pictures-either from online POD sources or on my wide-format printer. And, I am certain that I am not alone in that undertaking inasmuch as there are quite a number of online sites that are devoted to the making of POD mobile phone pictures and photo books. In most cases, prints can be ordered / photo books can be made directly from a mobile device.

Are the majority of mobile phone picture makers making prints / photo books? Probably not. On the other hand, it's quite probable more prints are being made in today's digital world than in the the analog picture making era. I believe that to be the case inasmuch as the current estimate of pictures uploaded every day (somebody is seeing them) is 1.8 billion (657 billion a year).

Another statistic claims that, of those 657 billion pictures, 36 billion prints are made a year. That is a hell of a lot of prints. And, as to Wenders' "nobody sees them" (pictures) idea, a hell of a lot more than 36 billion people are looking at them.

On a personal basis, it's also worth noting that my blog is curently averaging 3,800+ page views a month. Every page on this blog has at least 1 picture. That number of picture views is most likely more-in just one month-than the number of views my pictures have had in all of my many exhibitions over the years.

Civilized ku # 3632-33 ~ day to day

All pictures made near Boston, Mass. (embiggenable) • iPhone

While I thought time would drag during this hockey showcase event-only 1 game a day-in fact there have been a number of activities such as college tours which have made time fly. Consequently, I haven't had an opportunity to post. That and the fact that I haven't experienced much which has pricked my eye and sensibilities.

Nevertheless, there have been a few life-in-a-residence-suite with 2 teenage hockey players which have caught my eye. nothing grand and glorious, just everday moments.

FYI, one of the pluses of being near the border of New Hampshire is access to interstate highway rest stop liquor stores. The stores are huge with a great selection of bourbon and single malt scotch and the prices are a good bit below where I live.

civilized ku # 3627-29 ~ don't forget to remember to forget

1957 Cadillac Eldorado Seville ~ at the Essex Ferry / Lake Champlain (embiggenable) • iPhone

Westport Yacht Club ~ Westport, NY / Lake Champlain (embiggenable) • iPhone

Westport Yacht Club ~ Westport, NY / Lake Champlain (embiggenable) • iPhone

All pictures made last evening in the Adirondack PARK

Without trying to put too fine a point on the word (but doing it nevertheless), in yesterday's entry on TOP, How Do You Become a Photographer?, Mike Johnston wrote about "work[ing] out your style." While my featured comment on that entry did not (deliberately) address the idea of style, I would like to address the idea that, iM(considered)o, style and vision are very different concepts.

Style is a signature look that commercial photographers adopt in order to stand out from the crowd. Most often the style is developed as means to market oneself. And, if a photographer has a style which appeals to clients-ad agncies and their clients)-then he/she elevates themselves to a position in the marketplace that takes them out of the bid-for-assignment fray ... if an agency creative / art director sells a photographer's style to a client, then he/she will have to submit a job estimate but not a bid against other competing bids. The job is theirs from the start. I know this for a fact inasmuch as that's the horse I rode across the finish line during my 30 year career in comercial photography.

True vision is a signature look that is developed / recognized without any commercial / marketing / business intent. It's emergence is entirely individual personhood driven inasmuch as true vision is the outward manifestation of an (seemingly) innate / preternatural manner of looking and seeing the world. In the photography world, it is independent of rules, conventions and theories. I believe it is accurate to write that true vision is felt rather than thought. That true vision is there-internal, within the confines of an individual's pysche-for the artist to find and recognize. CAVEAT: not everyone is or can be an artist.

And, as I wrote in my TOP featured comment, I truly believe that the only way to find one's true vision, is to start making pictures, lots of picture, with absolutely no intent in mind. In other words, an almost mindless pursuit of point and shoot picture making .... point a picture making device at whatever-independent of what you have been told is suitable to be photographed-strikes your fancy, pricks your eye or artistic sensibilities and then shoot it.

In the act of shooting pictures, banish all thoughts of rules and photography conventions. Just trip the shutter (real or virtual) when your framing and the arrngement of the referent(s) within the frame look "right" to your eye. Don't think about it. Just do it.

Then make a boat load of proof prints and just look at them. Don't think about them. Just try to be open-minded in order to recognize those pictures which feel "right" to your eye and sensibilities. Not perfectly right but close enough to "speak" to your innate vision. Therein is the seed of your vision.

At that point, it is time to think. To think in order to recognize what it is in those prints that pricks your eye and sensibilities. Once you can identify, however loosely, those characteristics-visual + emotional + intellectual-you, most likely, will never have to think about again.