# 6259-61 / common places • common things ~ on shooting up the place

September 28, 2022

THE TOPIC OF “WORKING THE SCENE” HAS COME UP ON TOP. My immediate inclination is to call BS. That’s cuz the idea of working a scene brings to (my) mind the notion of aimlessly firing a machine gun at a target in the hope that one of those bullets will hit the bullseye. Whereas I believe the best way to hit the bullseye is carefully considered aim, the bullseye firmly fixed in one’s sighting device, and a relaxed squeeze of the trigger.

OK. I apologize. Those last 2 sentences are a bit heavy on the metaphor scale but I think that, most likely, you get my point.

That written, I am not declaring BS on the idea of working the scene inasmuch as a little bit-a very little bit-of working the scene can be useful every now and then. FYI, by a very little bit of working the scene I mean a matter of inches as opposed to firing off shots while break-dancing around a scene. I can write, without reservation, that I have never utilized the making of pictures as part of my calisthenics routine.

All 3 of the pictures in this entry were made over the last 24 hours with but a single pull of the trigger (sorry, yet another metaphor). One shot wonders, all. That written, I did employ my idea of working the scene inasmuch as, before I pulled the trigger (sorry), I did move the camera (sorry, the iPhone) a little bit-inches-while viewing the scene on the iPhone screen in order to get the framing and placement of visual elements where I wanted in order to manage a direct hit on the bullseye with just 1 shot (sorry, sorry, sorry).

The reason that this picture making process works for me, most of time, is that I see with soft eyes which, when a referent pricks my eye and sensibilities, I am able to identify, in my peripheral vision (no eye movement), surrounding visual elements and subsequently (and quickly) recognize how I might use them to create an interesting visual form, the true “subject” that I am always trying to create. Consequently, I am able to get right to the “right” POV with very little wasted effort, cuz I am ”just” photographing what I see.

And, FYI, writing of picture making calisthenics, if I were to be using a tripod-which I no longer do-it would need only 2 head-height positions. 1 set to my standing eye level and the other to my sitting eye level. That’s cuz 99 of 100-or some very close number-pictures I make are made from my eye level. In the case of tripod use, the head might be tilted up or down to one degree or another but, cuz I photograph what I see and, literally, how I saw what I see, it’s all a eye level POV for me.

In any event, re: working the scene, my manner of working a scene works for me. It may not work for many others. Although, it is most likely how those who work with a view camera work. That written, I probably average 2 pulls of the trigger per picture. I do some exposure bracketing and, every once and a while, I move the iPhone an inch or so in order to get an ever so slightly different POV. That’s cuz I wanna be sure I hit the bullseye (sorry).

# 6256-58 / kitchen sink • common place • common things • civilized ku ~ what something will look like photographed

September 26, 2022

AS MIGHT SEEM OBVIOUS FROM THE PICTURES IN this entry, I am back home after our 1 month + at Rist Camp. Got some work to do sorting through the 141 finished pictures I made while at Rist. Shutterfly is having an unlimited free pages offer. Maybe it’s time for a really big book.

A recent entry contained a quote from Alfred Stieglitz…

“My aim is increasingly to make my photographs look so much like photographs…”

…which brings to (my) mind a quote from Garry Winogrand:

“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.”

Both of these quotes, iMo together with the way that I read them, suggest to me that a photograph is something different from what has been photographed. That is a concept that is not news to me inasmuch as I have writing / saying for years that ”a printed photograph is a thing in and of itself, independent of what is depicted.” You can quote me on that.

Re: the Stieglitz quote: I do not think that Stieglitz was suggesting that there is a specific manner in which a photograph should look other than it should not look like a painting, aka: in the manner of the Pictorialism school of picture making. A school from which Stieglitz had previously graduated and subsequently disparaged. In other words, to utilize, in an unadulterated manner, the inherent / intrinsic characteristics of the medium.

Re: the Winogrand quote: I do not think that Winogrand was suggesting that a referent would, in and of itself, look any different in a photograph than it does to the naked eye. Rather, that a referent, when photographed with judicious framing and attention to the “arrangement” of color, form, line, shape, space, texture, and value, might be perceived in a manner different from that of the unaided viewing of it in situ.

iMo, to understand these 2 quotes is to understand the “genius” of photography. That the camera, in the hands of photographer who can truly see, does not need “tricks”, flashy techniques, bigger sensors, lots of gear in order to supplant the inclination to indulge in habitual seeing. Habitual seeing, a manner of seeing that may illustrate much but illuminate little.

# 6246-55 / landscape • rist camp • common places • common things ~ hit rate much higher than zero

September 22, 2022

HIT RATE ZERO, OR SO MICHAEL JOHNSTON TITLED AN ENTRY, wherein he explained / lamented his failure-“I was cold and really didn’t get anything”-to harvest a few situations (aka: picture making opportunities?). After reading Johnston’s entry in its entirety, I was not surprised, for a number of reasons, that he came home with a “hit rate zero”.

item 1 - “…the magic can't happen unless you're out there with the camera” I believe that the idea of looking / waiting for“magic” to rear its head in the making of pictures is a rather bogus pursuit. That’s cuz I believe that if a picture maker has figured out / recognized in a conscious manner how he/she sees the world-literally and figuratively (in a style representing forms that are recognizably derived from life)-the so called (and, iMo, mis-labeled) picture making ”magic” can happen at any time, any where, for any referent.

item 2 - “…any time, any where, for any referent” (my words). The worst possible intent a picture maker can harbor is going out in pursuit of making a “greatest hit” pictures. I mention this in light of the fact of Johnston’s utterly, totally, completely ridiculous / nonsensical / statement that a “…picture works entirely or it doesn't work at all. Everything's a no that isn't a yes.”

iMo, that statement is one of the most destructive-to a picture maker’s “confidence-opinion I have ever heard/ read cuz, over a life time of viewing exhibitions / monographs of “big-name” picture makers’ work, it can be stated / written that not every picture in a given body of work is a “greatest hit” (whatever the hell that is). However, all of the pictures-some more so, some less so-are all working together in a given body of work to reinforce the visual idea the picture maker is striving to create. Think of it as a visual example of strength in numbers.

item 2A - I believe that going out to create pictures of a specific referent (people, places, things) causes most picture makers to miss all the picture making possibilities that surround them. That is, those possibilities that do not conform to what they are pursuing. Case in point, my picture making MO…

I rarely go out with the intention of making pictures. That written, I rarely go out without making pictures. That’s cuz I do not encumber my picture making activities with the inconvenience of carrying a “real” camera. Rather, I always have my picture making device-the iPhone-on my person so that when something-a people, a place, a thing-pricks my eye and sensibilities, I always have the means to make a picture.

The result of that MO is that I have a ginormous library / collection-some might say a grabasstic cluster f**k-of pictures of all kinds of referents-people, places, things. From this seemingly haphazard, random collection there has emerged-I might add, somewhat organically-a number of thematically coherent bodies of work. Bodies of work that I add to, over time, by the mere fact that I continue to make pictures of what I see as opposed to what I have been told-or even tell myself-what is a good picture.

So, the moral of this story is simple. Forget about making the”perfect” picture and realize that some “less-than-perfect”-aka: nearly perfect-pictures are perfectly suited for inclusion in a body of work. And, that bodies of work are what matters most. Plus, if you must concentrate a specific referent / theme in the act of creating a body of work, when you go out to make pictures, take off the blinders that obfuscate the joy of photography. That is, the simple act of just making pictures of any peoples, any places, and any things.

FYI, included in this entry are handfull of some the pictures I made over the past few days. Discursive promiscuity in action.

# 6243-45 / common places • common things • rist camp ~ defamiliarization and disorientation

September 17, 2022

“…By unhinging our customary perceptions of the world, the visual artist forces viewers to experience what has become habitual with renewed attention.” ~ Daniell Cornell

“Photography is a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing. The contest can be held anywhere.” ~ John Szarkowski

THE ABOVE EXCERPT WAS LIFTED FROM AN ESSAY which was written to accompany the 1999 Yale University Art Gallery exhibition, Alfred Stieglitz and the Equivalent, Reinventing the Nature of Photography. In the essay the author, Daniell Cornell, introduced an early-tewentieth-century linguistic theory in which a Russian university professor proposed that the function of poetic language was…

“…not to reflect reality but to make it strange…Russian Formalists called the disorientation created by such an estrangement from one’s usual perceptions defamiliarization, identifying it as the central characteristic shared by all artistic representations.”

While I have never spent much time over-thinking the idea of defamiliarization-or, to be honest, ever recognizing it as such-I can certainly write that one of the most common and oft-heard comments, re: my pictures, which i really appreciate is, “I don’t know why I like these pictures but, I do like them.” It now seems obvious, to me, that comment-or a variation thereof-is the result of my picturing making act of employing the concept of defamiliarization. That is, making pictures of referents which are not perceived as subjects for the making of what the great unwashed masses of the picture making world think is a suitable referent.

Most of those viewers of my pictures, when they realize that they like a picture(s), seem to become disoriented, aka: “I don’t know why it like it.” Of course, what they most often fail to realize* is that their liking is not incited by what is depicted but rather by the visual impression, the form, created by how it is depicted-my version of unhinging of customary perceptions of the world-aka: my vision thing…the vision thing which, seemingly, is the by-product of how I see.

*“My aim is increasingly to make my photographs look so much like photographs that unless one has eyes and sees, they won’t be seen.” ~ Alfred Stieglitz

# 6241-42 / landscape • common things ~ more important than sex

September 9, 2022

”Don't knock rationalization; where would we be without it? I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.” ~ from the movie, The Big Chill

BACK IN THE DAY WHEN I WAS BUYING “REAL” (DIGITAL) CAMERAS, I always acquired “last year’s” model . That is, soon after the introduction of the latest-and-greatest updated camera model variant, the market was usually flooded with the prior latest-and-greatest version. At that point, I would acquire a new-to-me “upgraded” camera.

I pursued this approach to camera buying for 2 reasons:

While I could afford the latest-and-greatest camera model upgrade, I thought it better to let the must-have-the-latest-and-greatest suckers-it’s an addiction-take the inevitable depreciation hit that would come soon enough with the next camera model upgrade.
To be honest, since my ability to create photographs that end up on gallery walls is not dependent upon the particular tools I use to make my photographs, I probably could still today be using my first -acquired digital camera with the same gallery wall quality success rate.

RE: back in the day when I was buying “real” cameras - “back in the day” ended about 7 years ago when I last purchased a new-to-me “real” camera. I believe I can write that that purchase will be my last “real” camera-actually 2 cameras-purchase. That’s cuz those cameras still work, on those increasing rare occasions when I feel the need to use them. A need dictated by the need to use my 50-200mm lens (my now “real”camera “normal” lens).

An additional reason, perhaps the most important reason, that I believes drives my never-again “real” camera buying is, quite obviously, the iPhone. Simply written, it meets, and most often exceeds, most of my picture making needs. And, to date, I have had a number of my iPhone made pictures-printed to 20x20 inches-on gallery walls (in juried) exhibitions. There is also the possibility of a solo exhibition of pictures made exclusively with the iPhone-although the gallery committee is unaware of that fact, which is a testament to the quality of the prints.

All of the above written, I must confess to the fact that I have become a victim of the latest-and-greatest camera upgrade affliction…enter the iPhone 14 Pro. While I did skip the iPhone 13 Pro upgrade, there are just enough improvements-most notably (but not exclusively), low light picture making-in the 14 to justify (see the above quote) the upgrade. And, I am reasonably certain, since it just another iPhone, that the wife will never notice the difference.

# 6238-40 / landscape • common places ~ b + w + some gray stuff in between

September 8, 2022

…”flat, leaden skies, intermittent rain. Damp and dark. And dull.” ~ Mike Johnston

IMO, IF YOU ARE GONNA DO MONOCHROME, you must embrace the world in all its weather glory cuz, to paraphrase Paul Simon, all the world's not a sunny day, oh yeah. And I might add, iMo, if you can’t make a rainy, cloudy day look like more than dull, maybe monochrome ain’t your calling.

Then again, I am not a monochrome guy, so what the hell do I know about it?

FYI, BW conversion in Photoshop / LAB Color Space.

# 6232-37 / commonplaces • landscape • rist camp ~ (pre) chimping

September 7, 2022

“CHIMPING”, aka: a colloquial term used in digital photography to describe the habit of checking every photo on the camera display (LCD) immediately after capture, is very often used as pejorative in the picture making world. A variety of reasons have been offered as to why chimping is considered to be a bad thing but, whatever the case may be, I bring the word to your attention to lead you to the fact that I consider myself to be, in my picture making manner, a practioner of pre-chimping. I.E., using an LCD screen to see how picture will look before making the picture.

However, it should be noted that I have been pre-chimping for decades, long before the advent of digital cameras with LCD screens. That chimping was performed-in my commercial picture making days-with the use of Polariod film in a variety of Polaroid film backs-different backs for different film camera formats (I even had a Polaroid back for my 35mm Nikon cameras). That chimping was done for the edification of clients-art directors, designers, and the like-in order for them to see and approve how the final picture would look.

Of course, I didn’t need no stinkin’ Polaroid prints to know how the finished picture would look cuz, for a significant majority of my commercial work, I used cameras-view cameras and medium format cameras-that had large-ish viewing screens, most often called ground glass and/or focusing screens. Whatever you choose to call them, the point is I was not looking through a viewfinder.

What I was looking at was an image on a flat “screen” which presented that image in a manner similar to how it would appear on the flat surface of a finished print. That is to write, more 2d-like. Therefore, a much better manner in which to see form-the visual characteristic I seek to create / capture in my pictures.

All of the above written, you could (and probably should) assume that I was never preoccupied with the development of the digital camera EVF. Even with those digital cameras I own that have an EVF, I always make pictures with the use of the LCD screen, the only exception being picture making situations which feature fast action. I am not at all bothered by the perception of some, especially “serious” amateur picture makers, that I appear to be, when holding a camera out in front of my face, a lame / clueless snapshooter. Or, much less how, on the other hand, I am perceived when holding my Phone in front of my face while making pictures.

Needless to write, one of the reasons I really enjoy using the iPhone is that very nice viewing screen where upon form hits my eye like a big pizza pie. My only wish is that Apple would put all of their iPhone picture making goodness into the iPad cuz using an iPad screen for picture making would take me straight back to my 8x10 view camera days. Plus, I would no longer look like a clueless / lame , sappy snapshooter cuz I would mount the iPad on a tripod and use / hide under a view camera darkcloth to make my pictures. So instead, I would be perceived as the big-time, hot-shot picture maker that I really am.

# 6228-31 / landscape (ku) • common places ~ the crux of the matter

September 3, 2022

HAD TO LEAVE RIST CAMP FOR A FAMILY 3-day wedding event in Vermont. Not my favorite thing to do but family duty calls. In any event, a comment or 2 (or more), re: M. Johnston’s recent post about his methodology for making a body of work.

Johnston’s method broken down to its bare bones requires a year of daily picture making (of a defined idea) to create 400-1500 keepers which, after serious editing, will produce “40–60 pictures that work together in sequence and express my take on my idea.” This method stands in rather stark contrast to my current methodology…

ASIDE it should be noted that my methodology is entirely dependent upon the fact that a picture maker intent upon making a coherent body of work has a firm understanding regarding how he/she sees the world. An understanding which results in a subsequent picture making vision which directs-in fact, mandates-the manner in which he/she makes pictures. That’s cuz-in the Fine Art world, Photograph Division-rare is the picture maker whose entire life-long body of work is not created with a single, finely focused picture making vision. END OF ASIDE

….just earlier this week, “equipped” with my long-standing picture making vision-walking along a plank, dock-like walkway through a very small bog / swamp-within the span of approximately 30-45 minutes I made (iMo) 20 gallery exhibition quality (especially so in my neck of the-literally-woods), intimate landscape “keepers” (one of which is in this entry-more to come when I get back to Rist and some “serious” image processing) which would-and will-make a very nice photo book.

Lest this read like bragging about my super-human picture making abilities, my point this…the most demanding requirement for making a body of work is the time and effort it takes to realize one’s picture making vision. In some cases, that might take years. That’s cuz, iMo and iMe(xperince), a picture making vision can not be manufactured (do not confuse vision with a “creative” technique). Rather, it must flow from within, i.e. one’s nativism-the philosophical theory that some ideas are innate. And, recognizing one’s “native” vision often requires a substantial amount of introspective time, effort and picture making.

To be certain, I am not suggesting that, even after “finding” one’s vision, the making of a coherent body of work is as easy as falling off a log (say, after drinking a pint of high-proof bourbon). There could be many reason’s for extending the time and effort it might require to refine what it is that one is trying to convey. I, for one, will be returning to the aforementioned bog / swamp within the next week to have another look at it. An “effort” that will most likely result in the making of a few more “keepers”.

FYI, there will more to come on the idea of why I believe 20 pictures-no matter the total number of keepers I might have in a body of work-is the upper limit I would ever have in an exhibition or a photo book.