# 6326-28 / sink •common things • common places ~ it ain't got no zing if it ain't got that thing

November 15, 2022

OVER THE PAST WEEK I HAVE SAT DOWN QUITE A NUMBER of times to write a new entry and failed to do so. That’s cuz, inasmuch as I try to stay on topic, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus (apparatus = conventions and practices), I realize that over the past nearly 2 decades, I have touched upon so many related subjects that most days I feel that I have written everything there is to write about. But nevertheless, I have managed to list a few topics about which I will write over the next week or so…

…one such topic: my idea on how to make a visually interesting picture.

Most “serious” amateur picture makers believe the answer to the question of how to make a visually interesting picture is simple - make a picture of an “interesting” thing (with a dollop of art sauce). That is, q thing and effect that everyone knows about and likes to look at. The result: pictures that are easy to “understand” - the concept of Captain Obvious comes to mind. Or, how about the idea of the mindless pursuit of pleasure, cuz the mind need not get involved in the viewing of such pictures.

That written, while I would highly recommend the pursuit of picturing “common” things in an interesting manner, aka: how one’s own vision sees the world, the single most important “thing” one should pursue is creating the instigation for a viewer of your picture(s) to ask the question, “Why did he/she make this picture?”

That’s cuz, if why a picture was made is easily apparent (pretty is as pretty does), iMo, that picture lacks any reason to get involved with it and, ultimately, has no staying power. In other words, an “interesting” referent, in and of itself, is not enough to sustain extended consideration and contemplation, especially so in the Fine Art World. Rather, it is the printed picture, in and of itself, which must be visually interesting, independent of the illustrated referent.

And what is it that makes a picture visually interesting, independent of the illustrated referent? Answer: Form. That is, how the picture maker has “arranged”-by means of his/her framing and POV-line, shape, space, tone (value), and color across the 2D visual field of a print. The result is a thing, AKA: the print, which not only illustrates, in a literal sense, referents found in the real world, but also illuminates, by means of visually interesting form, visual properties of sections of the real world that lie beyond their mere physical appearance.

So, there you have it. Easy, Peasy. Go forth and make interesting pictures.

# 6324-25 / flora • common places • landscape • kitchen sink ~ why I like using the iPhone as a picture making device

November 7, 2022

RIGHT OUTA THE GATE, LET ME CRYSTAL CLEAR, re: the iPhone as a “perfect” picture making device. It is not. What it is is an amazingly good all-around picture making device. However, if the pursuit of technical so-called “perfection“ is your picture making goal, this device ain’t the one for you.

That written, the reason why I start this topic, re: why I like using the iPhone as a picture making device, with the fact that the iPhone camera module does not produce files with what is currently considered to be bleeding edge technical perfection is cuz that fact is at, or very near the top, on the list of reasons-what the hell, let’s call it Reason #1-why I like using this picture device.

To wit, ever since the dawn of my picture making life, it is quite accurate to write that, in my personal photographs-as-Art making life, I have never been in pursuit of pictures which exhibited “perfect” technical characteristics. That’s cuz, as a matter of course, I was-and still am-in pursuit of making pictures, on the technical level, that look like, as much as the medium and its apparatus allows, what the world looks like to the human eye.

Back in the day of analog, aka: film, picture making, I thought that, with the judicious selection of a color negative film type, photographs did a pretty damn good job of looking like what the world looked like. That’s cuz the human eye does not see the world in ultra high-def, saturated colors (unless the referent itself exhibited saturated color), or extreme dynamic range. Consequently, with my very first use of my very first digital camera, I set out, image file processing wise, to “soften” what I considered to be the “harsh” visual effects of digital picture making. And that pursuit continues to this day inasmuch as what, to my eye and sensibilities, appears to be ever increasingly “harsh” visual artifacts seems to be what the CCSoP crowd desires the most and what the camera makers are delivering to them in spades.

Reason #2 - While the iPhone does not deliver current state-of-the-art image files, its superior to that which any traditional camera maker offers AI-like it or hate it-does a remarkable job of delivering really good files in a variety of “difficult” picture making situations. Which not to write that most files do not need some degree of corrective surgery.

Reason #3 - the iPhone is the all-time leader in the convenient to have with you at times camera category. Not to mention, its ease of use and the fact that it’s virtually always at the ready. And, for the purist in me, it’s a 3 prime lens kit that I can hold in my hand or slip into a pocket.

Reason #4 - with the iPhone Pro Max, the viewing screen allow me to see not only an accurate view of my crop of a section of the real world but also how the arrangement of the visual elemts within the crop will look like on the flat, 2D field of a print.

Reason #5 - herein lies a guilty pleasure. I like the feeling I get-just like as if I were to be giving the finger to the CCSoP and gear loving crowd-every time I click the shutter. Or, to be more accurate, every time I touch the virtual shutter release “button” on the iPhone viewing screen.

ASIDE I have to wonder, does that make me a shallow person? END OF ASIDE

# 6321-23 / common things • common places • flora ~ knickers in a twist

November 6, 2022

OK. LET ME GET RIGHT TO THE POINT, re: my tit in a wringer wise - as I was engaged in this morning’s cumbobulation routine-coffee, morning sweet, newspaper, and cruising my regular rota of websites-I came across this:

“…the iPhone makes decent photographs for the Web and for texting to friends. It doesn't even do too badly for small prints…” ~ Mike Johnston

Johnston is a long-time diss-er of the iPhone as a picture making device. He believes it to be a device for “note-taking, immediate sharing, pretty colors”. “Serious” photography, not so much, if at all. OK. Fine. To each his own kettle of bias.

Re: Johnston’s bias: Johnston comes from the Camera Club School of Photography. That is, the critical mass of picture makers who believe that a picture is all about the depicted referent (re: the “right” kind of referent), with an occasional nod to “composition”, and, in the current picture making zeitgeist, that picture must be eye-bleedingly sharp, color saturated, with dynamic range to the max and made with a very “nice” gear.

While the preceding paragraph describes a top-tier characteristic of the CCSoP crowd, in this paragraph, is the characteristic that I believe to be the most defining propensity of the typical CCSoP picture viewer. As strange as it may sound / read, it is all about what your feet do when viewing a picture on a wall…it has been my experience, during gallery exhibitions of my pictures and that of others, that picture viewers fall into 2 categories - those whose feet propel them closer to a picture and those whose feet propel them backward from a picture.

The forward movers get closer in order to inspect a picture for its technical qualities, while the backward movers are more likely to be wanting a more complete overview of a picture in order to get a feel for what the picture is about. That is, That “something” that is beyond the depicted referent.

iMo, as simple as it might be, therein is the difference between the CCSoP crowd and the FASoP (Fine Art School of Photography) crowd. It illustrates the difference in what each crowd seeks / looks for in determining what is, iTo, a good photograph. Once, again let me write, to each their own. However…

…what gets my knickers in a twist, is the fact that Johnston, acting in his role as President of his camera club-preaching to the CCSoP faithful-actively dismisses the iPhone as a “serious” picture making device> a practice which, no matter how you choose to read it, must have the effect of discouraging those who are exploring the iPhone capabilities as a picture making device useful for more than just “note-taking, immediate sharing, pretty colors”.

Hint for those whose intention is to be part of, or be hovering around the edges of the FASoP. ANY picture making device that suits one’s vision is 100% perfect for the making of one’s pictures.

And, re: the iPhone and the absolute and misleading nonsense of “It doesn't even do too badly for small prints”. I print my iPhone made files at 24”x24”. Quite a number of those prints have hung on gallery walls-photo and Fine Art galleries-and homes. And, especially so in FA galleries, nobody gives / gave a crap about what device was used in their making. And, on few occasions when it was known that the pictures were made with an iPhone, the viewer thereof was quite simply amazed.

# 6318-20 / common places • common things ~ assuaging my guilt

November 2, 2022

SINCE MY ACQUISITION OF THE FIRST iPHONE WITH THE 0.5 lens setting-14mm equivalent-I have been, making pictures with that setting with no conscious directive of creating body of work focused upon the optical characteristics of that lens. As a matter of fact, when using that lens, I continually experience a guilt-driven suspicion that I am employing the lens to create a photographic cheap trick / effect.

Nevertheless, I plunged ahead cuz, as stated in the a wider view of things gallery on my WORK page, I use this lens, not for its extended field of view, but rather for the emphasis it creates on the visual elements of line, shape, and space as seen across the 2D plane of a photographic print. And, cuz I boldly went where no one has gone before (ha), I find myself with yet another uninitentionally made “found” body of work comprised of 55 pictures made with the 0.5 / 1.5 (14mm-e) lens.

And, much to my relief, cheap trick guilt wise, I have validation that I was making these pictures for all the “right”reasons / intentions (ok, ok, albeit unconsciously):

“Clement Greenberg’s dictate that each art ought to “determine through the operations peculiar to itself, the effects peculiar and exclusive to itself.”…Numerous photographers have made photographs about photography-enlisting, even embracing, the visual peculiarities of the medium that capable professionals once avoided or indirectly acknowledged….[they] purposely court and coax the perceptual ambiguities and accident visual excesses typically found in unselfconscious amateur snapshots. When imaginatively enlisted to achieve fastidiously formal and/or provocatively narrative images, such effects become crucial elements in a vivid and vital vernacular.” ~ Sally Eauclaire / the new color photography

FYI, one of the photographers Eauclaire calls out in chapter 3: THE VIVID VERNACULAR is Harry Callahan, about whose work she writes:

“While color photographs produced with relatively conventional lenses feature flattened spaces, Callahan/s extreme wide-angle lens imposes the reverse, so exaggerating near/far disparities that buildings lean away diagonally, gesturing anthropomorphically…Because the disorienting diagonals obviate stability and tranquility, Callahan has devised a spatial choreography in which rollicking voids and solids are equal, counteractive compositional partners. The result: photographs that burst into view, the color-dense sections discharging energy as they collide, giving the images a peculiarly photographic verve and pizazz.”

So, given all of the above, here’s the deal - Does it matter, re: making (Fine) Art wise, that all of the aforementioned pictures were made in a manner sans the conscious intent of what might be labeled as the above artsy-fartsy speak? No. Cuz it is not the intent that matters, it is the pictures that matter.* However, it is worth noting that as I continue to make pictures in this 0.5/1.5(14mm-e) manner, with confidence buoyed by artsy-fartsy speak, I will shed my “cheap trick” guilt and strive to, in fact, maximize this specific peculiar visual effect of the medium thus turning the traditional and derisive visual effect proscriptive, re: wide angle “distortion, on its head.

PS another the medium’s visual “peculiarity” that I am mining is lens+aperture based effect of limited DOF - see my AROUND THE HOUSE work / gallery on my WORK page.

* rationalization is more important than sex. Just try getting through a day without a juicy rationalization.

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.

# 6296-6304 / discurcive promiscuity ~ setting Henri Cartier-Bresson a-spinning like a high-speed drill press in his grave

October 27, 2022

A FEW DAYS AGO I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MY ADOPTION of the iPhone as my primary picture making device has changed my picture making habits. To be certain it has not changed or altered my vision in any manner but it has changed the promiscuity quotient in my discursive promiscuity manner of making pictures inasmuch as I am now more promiscuous* than ever. Add to that, an extra dollop-or is it a cherry on top?-to my joy of photography.

Fast forward to this morning when I came across a New Yorker article, Candid Camera ~ The cult of Leica, written in 2007. The article is a good read. It even added a few new words to my vocabulary-a. “Leicaweenies”. A word used by Leica user Ralph Gibson to describe Leica addicts who are prone to writing scholarly papers on certain discrepancies in the serial numbers of Leica lens caps, and, b. “Visualus interruptus,” the brief viewfinder black-out caused by the flap of the mirror in a (D)SLR, a “malady” with which the Leica is not afflicted.

In any event, the article chord-struck me with a number of topics:

[Leica is] “a machine constructed with such skill that it renders every user—from the pro to the banana-fingered fumbler—more skillful as a result. We need it to refine and lubricate, rather than block or coarsen, our means of engagement with the world: we want to look not just at it, however admiringly, but through it. In that case, we need a Leica”…

…”the simplicity of the design made the Leica an infinitely more friendly proposition, for the novice, than one of the digital monsters from Nikon and Canon. Those need an instruction manual only slightly smaller than the Old Testament, whereas the Leica II sat in my palms like a puppy, begging to be taken out on the streets.”

“You could tuck it into a jacket pocket, wander around the Thuringer woods all weekend, and never gasp for breath.”

If you were to substitute iPhone for Leica, Fuji / Sony for Nikon / Canon, and Adirondack for Thuringer in these excerpts, it would, iMo, pretty well describe the iPhone as a picture making device. Which leads me directly to the question (ludicrous for some):

“Is the iPhone the new Leica?”

Answer:

let the caterwauling commence.

I would try to answer the question but my puppy [is] begging to be taken out on the streets.

*the pictures in this entry are but a mere handful culled from those that I have made over the past couple weeks.