#6881-85 / around the house • common things • landscape ~ let us now praise artlessness

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I ACTUALLY CONSIDERED converting all of my photographs into the snapshot look. That idea sprang from my thoughts, re: the pomposity of many practitioners / critics / academics toiling under the banner of “fine art” photography–sorta my gut reaction to blurt out, “Get over it. They’re just f–––ing pictures.” Needless to write, I got over the impulse but, when rooting around in my image files–10K +– while prepping materials for my gallery presentation, a snapshot related thought re-emerged from the past re: longevity.

Estimating that there are approximately 200-300 really good fine art “keepers” in my library of the hang-them-on-a-wall quality, I was given to wondering how many of them would be around, say, 5-10 years after my departure from the planet.

While I have had some modest success selling my work–prints and POD photo books–those photographs might have a longer longevity life span than my keeper image files which might not be so lucky. One exception are the significant number of POD photo books I have created inasmuch as they are easier objects to hang on to. That written, perhaps it’s time to write an end-of-life directive stating what I would like to be preserved / passed on to family.

Be all of that as it may, the snapshot thought that recently occurred to me was about a very large Tupperware-like storage container sitting in our attic that contains 300+ (or more, who’s counting) Polaroid family-oriented snapshots that have survived for close to 60 years. I have very little doubt that they will continue to survive for a very long time, perhaps even multi-generation wise. Those photographs–unlike my most fine art work–are apt to be cherished memento.

That written, I truly believe that the best photographs ever made are those made by the “nameless picture makers” cuz, when you come right down to it, they are just f…king pictures .….

Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder who desires only to “have a camera around the house” and to “get a picture of Dolores in her graduation gown.” He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips, picnics, and family outings of all sorts. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. He often has trouble loading his camera, even after owning it for twenty years. Emulsion speeds, f-stops, meter readings, shutter speeds have absolutely no meaning to him, except as a language he hears spoken when, by mistake, he wanders into a real camera store to buy film instead of his usual drugstore. His product is almost always people- or possession-oriented. 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. What artistic results he obtains are almost inevitably accidental and totally without self-consciousness. Perhaps because of his very artlessness, and his very numbers, the nameless picture maker may in the end be the truest and most valuable recorder of our times. He never edits; he never editorializes; he just snaps away and sends the film off to be developed, all the while innocently freezing forever the plain people of his time in all their lumpishness, their humanity, and their universality. ~ Jean Shepherd

# 6878-80 / sink • winter • polaroid ~ getting back in the saddle

al photos ~ (embiggenable)

HAVE NOT POSTED IN A WHILE CUZ I have been very focused upon prepping my folio + book presentation to a gallery. Then there was also the engulf half the USofA snowmageddon storm–we got 18” in 24 hrs, seen much worse but the media played it up biggly–together with 10 days of below 0ºF temps.

BTW, most of the falling snow was, rare for these parts, champagne powder–a term for exceptionally light, dry, and fluffy snow with a very low water content (around 6%), making it airy and soft, creating very fine crystals. The 18” of snow was practically weightless which meant virtually no downed trees / limbs or power lines which, in turn, meant few power outages. And, I would assume, very few snow shoveling heart attacks.

In any event, the presentation work is nearly completed so, round about this coming Tuesday things should be back to “normal”, or, whatever passes for normal these days.

6874-77 / common places-things • winter ~ a return to yester-year?

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS (OR MORE) WHILE ACCESSING ONLINE sites such as Facebook, Instagram, et al, and clicking on photo-related posts, I have noticed an increasing number of ads popping up that feature so labeled film-like apps–i.e. apps that give your digital files a film-like look. One can only assume that this flood of film-like apps is in response to a demand for such a thing.

That written the first thought that springs my mind is simply, define the nomenclature, film-like. Trying to do so seems like a bit of a conundrum inasmuch as back in the color film analog days there were a myriad of film stocks each with their own look. First and foremost there was the very different look of an image made with color negative film vs with color transparency film. Add to that distinction the fact that, even within individual film maker’s line up, there could be considerable variations in looks. Taking that into account, many film-like apps offer film-look variations based on popular film stocks …. which brings to my mind 2nd thought ….

…. let us consider, as just one example, Kodak’s Kodacolor color negative film–how many of today’s picture makers have even the faintest clue as to how a C print made from Kodacolor–or any other color negative film–looks? My answer to that question would be, precious few. For the most part, one would have to be an avid visitor to art institutions–museums–which present exhibitions of past masters works to see what a photographic print made with color negative film looks like. Or ….

…. that written, it is possible today to make an image with color negative film, have the negative scanned and then make an inkjet print from it which will display a made-with-film look. To be certain, that is an picture making M.O. that is being pursued by a fair number of serious amateur –and I might, younger–photographers. And, iMo, that pursuit is the only way to create an authentic film-look cuz, duh, the image is made with film. All the film-like apps are, for all intents and purposes, little more than special effect art sauce.

All of the above written, this subject (the film-like look) rose to the fore in my picture making brain as a result of a photo printing binge I am on–22x22”paper (see trim line on in 24”paper) with17x17” image–for presentation to a gallery, consisting of 4 images from 4 different bodies of work. What caught my attention as I was/am making these prints is how film-like looking the printed images are.

To be certain, this not a surprise inasmuch as, since my adoption of digital photography, I have pursued the idea of making my photographs look like they were made with film …. which is to state, to emulate the, dare I write, “soft” / “creamy” look of film-based images as opposed to the, re: to my eye and sensibilities, harsh / garish look of digital-based images. Let me explain ….

…. first, my qualifications: I, personally, with my own 2 hands have made approximately 1,000 color prints–from color negative film– which is to write that I am intimately familiar with the look thereof. So much so that I can spot a print made from film from a mile away, or, at least so from a proper viewing distance on a gallery wall. That written, what is it that I like about the look of a film-based print that I try to emulate in my prints?

Basically, it all comes down to list of “no”s:

• no maximized sharpness / resolution applied

• no maximized color saturation applied

• no extended dynamic range applied, i.e. greater than the range in the original scene

• no excessive contrast in the highlights and shadows

• no out-of-wack color balance

In processing my RAW images I; 1. often apply just the very lowest amount of Gaussian Blur 2. reduce the color Saturation, 3. adjust the overall dynamic range to that of the original scene–example: a grey/overcast day has a much lower dynamic range than a bright/sunny day, 4. individually select highlight and shadow detail and reduce contrast therein 5. achieve a clean / neutral / natural color balance.

The result of these procedures is to create, to my eye and sensibilities, an image with smoother transitions between colors and tones than is found in a “straight” digital image. More film like, if you will. And, I might point out, I don’t need no stinkin’ film-like filters.

# 6866-70 / common places • landscape • in situ • sink • winter ~ Qu'est-ce que "great"

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

alpenglow

neon glo

Who are the great photographers–Famous / Leading / Ambitious, accomplished, rewarded–now?” ~ a question posed by Mike Johnston

JOHNSTON’S QUESTION IS ONE THAT HAS CROSSED MY mind a number of times over the past year or so. Although, to be more precise, I am not looking for a “great” photographer, per se (I’m not much for hero worship)–rather, what I am looking for is “great” photography, new or otherwise.

In either case, finding great stuff, photography wise–leaving aside the conundrum of what constitutes “great”–has become increasingly more difficult than it was in the past (pre-2000?) inasmuch, as Johnston mentions / laments, many of the guideposts–publications, influential art galleries (large and small), art institutions, et al–which directed our attention to great stuff have either disappeared or succumbed to the influence of the Academic Lunatic Fringe kind of flapdoodle. While there is quite a bit of very, very good stuff floating around in the cloud, identifying that stuff in tan ever-pulsing / shifting about mass is an exercise in the classic endeavor of finding the needle in a haystack.

That written, iMo, what I believe to be the overriding paradigm that formerly identified so many of the “greats”–pictures and picture makers–but no longer exists, is the simple fact that there is nothing new, photography wise, to get excited about …. ASIDE this idea should not–I repeat in all caps–SHOULD NOT be understood to mean that there is not very, very good / interesting photography being created today END ASIDE …. let me explain ….

I do not believe that it is any kind of a stretch to write that virtually all of the so-called greats–pictures and picture makers–of the last century emerged from medium-bending, picture making movements such as but not limited to; Steiglitz (et al)/Modernism, Eggleston (et al)/The New Color Photography, Robert Adams (et al)/the New Topographics. Operating within, and sometimes stretching, the aegis of those movements, theretofore unrecognized practitioners emerged to engage in a new way of seeing* which enabled them to create a new form–literally and figuratively–of work.

The cumulative result of those movements was that the medium of photography attained a maturation point which, amongst a number of other considerations**, it was established that any thing and every thing was/is fair game as a subject for picture making. Not to mention the fact that it could be pictured in whatever manner the picture maker felt was best for his/her intentions, “rules” be damned. Needless to write , new-ness was busting out all over the place like weeds in an untended garden … ya know, like, “Wait. You can make a picture of that? Who would have thought? What a great idea!”

So, what has all this led up to? iMo, the medium of photography has arrived at a point where nothing is truly new–ground-shaking, mind-bending, never-seen-before new …. ASIDE that idea does not mean that everything that can be photograph has been photographed inasmuch as there is always the vision and intention thing to consider END ASIDE …. and, that’s OK with me cuz I will never tire of viewing a well made, visually interesting / engaging photograph no matter who the maker is. That cuz I know how special / unique it is to create such a photograph:

Photography is the easiest thing in the world if one is willing to accept pictures that are flaccid, limp, bland, banal, indiscriminately informative, and pointless. But if one insists in a photograph that is both complex and vigorous it is almost impossible.” ~ John Szarkowski

*honest to Pete, unaffected–as opposed to artificial, pretentious, and designed to impress–seeing

**nor the least of which was acceptance into the ranks of the Fine Art World

#6860-65 / landscape • common plaves-things • winter ~ pleasure and shame

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

CONFESSION TIME: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY I HAVE CONTINUING DIFFICULTY coming to grips with the work of Christophe Jacrot as presented in his book WINTERLAND.

That written, I do believe that the source of my “difficulty” can be traced to my first viewing of the work inasmuch as, at that time, my eye and sensibilities apparatus sounded an alarm that sounded something like, “CAUTION: slick, sensationalized, ‘creativephotography ahead, do not get suckered in!” or words to that effect. In any event, with due caution and with an open mind, I proceeded to venture into Jacrot’s WINTERLAND world …. and, several viewings and initial impressions later, I have come to several well-considered opinions ….

1.) the book would be better served by the title WINTER STORMLAND since the photos–with only a very few exceptions–tell the viewer very little about the season known as winter other than the obvious fact that there are a lot of snow storms and ….

2.) …. re: those storms–they are relentlessly hammered home to the viewer in dramatic, romanticized, “grand” landscape tableaux (natural and urban)–straight outa the Grand Landscape Handbook. iMo, Jacrot has his schtik and he’s sticking to it, come hell or high water snow. There is absolutely no sense of intimacy to be seen. To my eye and sensibilities, the visual chord Jacrot has struck is one long and somewhat annoying, low-level visual shriek.

3.) the visual structure as seen in Jacrot’s photos seems very formulaic–very much in the “keep it simple” mode. Once again, straight outa the Amateur Photographer’s Handbook. There is very little visual energy to seen.

4.) despite all of what I consider to be the work’s limitations (in a Fine Art sense), the book itself, with some very thorough editing–maybe down to 30 photos–could present a reasonable example of high-level Decorative Art.

5.) re: my “difficulty”–I am not a fan of photographic Decorative Art. However, that written, every once in a while, I have been seduced by some high-level–but not quite Fine Art–Decorative Art. On those occasions I have been, almost reflexively, struck with a feeling of betrayal to the cause. Apparently, I have yet to accept the fact, photography wise, that an occasional guilty pleasure is … well … kinda, sorta acceptable.

All of that written, I am not consigning the book to the rubbish bin. And, in fact, I appreciate the fact that the book has instigated a motivation for me to get out to make more winter photographs as well as to harvest, from my photo library, a collection of my winterland photos–a sampling of which appear in this entry.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

OFF TOPIC ADDENDUM: I have 2 hobbies–golf and building LEGO kits. Santa left me the LEGO Hemeji Castle kit under the Xmas tree this year. Note also the LEGO Xmas wreath and the LGO Statue of Liberty which are very recent builds.

# 6857-59 / common places-things • winter ~ quick note and a couple FYIs

GONNA HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO SEE in Polaroid again cuz Santa left a Polaroid NOW camera for me under the Xmas tree. The most difficult adjustment, re: making Polaroid pictures, to be made is getting use to the idea that it costs just north of $2.00US per press of the shutter release.

FYI #1, I have had a bit of a rethink, re: the Winterland book. Or maybe think of it as a refinement on my thoughts about the work–stay tuned for my next entry.

FYI #2, One of my photographs made the cut for inclusion in the PhotoPlace On The Street gallery exhibition. See all the selections HERE

PhotoPlace Gallery juried selection

# 6854-56 / travel / snow ~ I had both knees on the steering wheel

The intellectual bar seems to be rising beyond the simplicity of well-seen images or, at least, the proverbial hand of funding that giveth and taketh away seems to have shifted its priorities in favor of strong intellectual foundations.” ~ written by an Academic Lunatic Fringe intellectual pinhead

“[in writing about photography] …. we tend to be interested only in intention, because it makes the enterprise feel more important.”~ John Szarkowski

People say they need to express their emotions. I’m sick of that. Photography doesn’t teach you to express your emotions, it teaches you to see.” ~ Berenice Abbott

LIKE ABBOTT I AM SICK TO DEATH of the dreck served up by the ALF crowd. That written, although I am more than willing to accept the fact that the medium of photography contains a multitude of iterations / genres / applications, I do draw an exclusionary line, re: its suitability for “expressing” / conveying intellectual content–especially “deep”, personal, narcissistic, emotional and psychological conflicts, and social / cultural constructs. That written, what really gets my goat–but to be honest, I don’t actually have a goat–is when I see / hear crap such as “the simplicity of well-seen images” and the ridiculous idea that a “strong intellectual foundation” is an requisite for making good pictures….

…. MOVING ON:

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

rainbow@ 79 mph

WHILE XMAS SHOPPING WITH THE WIFE, I pointed to a photo book that appeared to be potentionally interesting. Lo and behold, it appeared under our Xmas tree. The book, WINTERLAND ~ THE COLORS OF SNOW, showcases photography by Christophe Jacrot.

FIRST IMPRESSION: It’s a large book– 9.75x12 inches, 207 pages, 120 photographs. The printing quality and paper quality are very good,, one might even write “excellent”. That written and writing in my graphic designer / photographer mode, the layout of the photographs is, to my eye and sensibilities, rather disconcerting inasmuch as I am not a fan of photos that bleed into the gutter on one side and off the page on the other while leaving a substantial white border top and bottom.

Most of the spreads display a photo on the right hand page while leaving the facing page blank. The remaining 27 spreads have photos on both pages although the left hand page photos are printed at varying smaller sizes than the pictures on the right hand page. Although, inexplicably / for no apparent reason I can discern, the smaller left page pictures are placed at varying, off-center positions on the page. While this might not be a problem for most, it drives my aesthetic sensibilities into a state of distraction.

OK, OK, you might be thinking that this ain’t no graphic arts / book designer blog, it’s a photo blog so how about the pictures? OK, I understand so I’ll continue albeit still in the FIRST IMPRESSION mode….

…. at first glance–admittedly a quick glance–I was struck by the sheer number of photographs and the thought arose that maybe there might just be too many photographs. However, leaving that issue aside for the moment, I was also rather unsure whether I was viewing wall-worthy fine art work or, instead, being visually seduced by some very well-crafted, eye-catching camera club work. On that note, I set the book aside but packed it for my trip to New Jersey.

SECOND IMPRESSION: In New Jersey after escaping from a family gathering, I returned to our hotel room, poured 2 fingers of Bob Dylan’s Heaven’s Door Straight Rye Whiskey and settled in to a comfortable chair (with good lighting) for a long, leisurely look at the book front to back….

…. by the time I was finished looking I had slipped in to a stream-of-consciousness kinda thinking …. way too many photographs, in need of a good edit, no consistency of vision–primarily re: image structure compromised, perspective-wise, by the use of multiple focal length lenses (a true gear-head approach), a significant number of rule-of-thirds compositions, he single handedly reduces the single, lonely person motif to a cliche–single structure in the middle of nowhere is a close second.

After a good night’s sleep, I revisited the book and came to the conclusion that, iMo, Jacrot is, essentially, a camera club style photographer whose work appeals to viewers who salivate at the sight of craggy spires, dramatic light and atmosphere. For my eye and sensibilities, not so much.

However, that written, I do believe that I could cull out from the book about 20 photographs that I could live with on my wall for an extended period of time. And, I would buy a Jacrot calendar cuz there are plenty of his photographs that I could live with for 30 days as long as I could turn the page to the next month /picture.

see his website HERE. https://christophejacrot.com/