# 6946-50 / pinhole • common things • around the house ~ I needed a kick in the butt

1 ~ all photos - pinhole lens / (embiggenable)

2

3

4

5

OK, TRUTH BE TOLD, I HAVE A COUPLE ENTRIES ON deck ready for posting but, for one reason and some others, I have been reluctant to actually post. That written, with intention of avoiding any deep-dive self-analytical malarkey, I awoke this AM with a resolve to get off the schneid, posting wise.

FYI, that resolve was partially instigated by an entry on T.O.P., re: high mp / resolution picture making devices (in the form of FF digital cameras); a subject which has been known to tip me over the edge, re: resolution / sharpness as a component to making one’s pictures “better”. The topic always instigates flood of comments similar to those found on the T.O.P. entry:

“I believe resolution makes a huge difference in the quality of a photo …..” or, “I have no interest in ~24 MP sensors as they don't match my need for resolution …..”

So, rather than writing a 10K word scree on the subject, I thought that the best course of action for me would be to grab one of my µ4/3 cameras, slap on the pinhole “lens”, and make a bunch of res?what res? pictures (#2-4 above, #1 made earlier). Taking my own advice, I have, over the past few days, been making such pictures. And, FYI, it did, in fact, calm me down.

However, in closing (cuz I gotta get in some kind shot across the bow of that ship), let me write that, iMo, in all but a few examples, re: really good photographs, state-of-the-art sharpness / resolution has little or nothing to do with it. In fact, iMo, current state-of-the-art sharpness / resolution, in the trade aka: “perfection”, makes it nearly impossible–to my eye and sensibilities–to even look at, much less appreciate, such a photograph cuz I simply do not give a crap about technique. Pictures with visually obvious technical / technique “perfection” are an absolute non-starter to my eye and sensibilities.

# 6942-45 / common places • landscape-urban / nature • kitchen life ~ throw out the rule book

pinhole photo ~ all photos (embigenable)

IN THE LAST ENTRY WHEREIN I INTRODUCED THE idea of reducing the whole of the medium and its apparatus to a concise paragraph, there are 2 phrases–a rhythm in the world of real things / a precise organization of forms–which are commonly referred to as composition; a topic which has launched thousands of zillion word ships in an effect to codify / understand / “master” it. That written, here’s an example of an attempt to reduce the topic to a concise paragraph:

“In a photograph, composition is the result of a simultaneous coalition, the organic coordination of elements seen by the eye. One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material, since it is impossible to separate content from form…. one composes a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter, at the speed of a reflex action….. Composition must have its own inevitability about it.” HC-B

Once again–just like the HB-C quotes in the last entry–this notion, re: the idea of composition, makes perfect sense to me. And, once again (again), that’s cuz, when making pictures, what pricks my eye (and sensibilities), aka: what I actually see, is a rhythm / organization of forms as it exists in the world of real things. Which is another manner of writing that the content of my photographs and the form visible therein are one and same.

Consequently, I never give a thought to composition–iMo, a bourgeoisie concept if ever there was one–when making a photograph. That’s cuz the visual rhythm / organization to be seen in my photographs is the inevitable result of my vision, literally and figuratively.Ya know, how I actually see the world.

ASIDE FYI, the fact that my vision is organically attuned to rhythm and form explains another fact; I rarely, if ever, “work” a scene–95.8% of the time-leaving aside a few exposure brackets–it’s one and done. END OF ASIDE

And now, a bit of speculation and going out on a limb – I suspect that most of the medium’s “greats” approach the practice of composition in the same–or a reasonably close–manner as HB-C describes. That is to write, they trust what their eyes tell them and then photograph what they see. I believe that to be true whether they carry around a 35mm rangefinder camera with preset shutter speed / focus and aperture and a reflex-action attitude, or, whether they expend a great deal of effort to haul around an 8x10 view camera / film holders / light meter / tripod /et al and a very methodical attitude. In effect both are point and shoot picture makers inasmuch as they point their camera at what they see and make a picture.

With speculation taken care of let me climb a tree and hope the limb holds sure and true –I believe–no speculation about it in my mind–that the ability to compose a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter is nigh unto impossible to teach or learn. That is cuz it is not a technique nor a theory that can be plotted out in a book but rather a native recognition–some might say an intuitive feeling–that the visual organization / rhythm you have imposed on your subject utilizing your POV and framing, when viewed on your picture making device’s viewfinder / ground glass / screen, just plain and simple, flat-out looks and feels “right”.

And in the end, lo and behold, there is not a single rule of composition to be seen anywhere on the surface of your print.

# 6939-41 / pinhole • around the house • common things ~ the eyes have it

pinhole photo - all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I THINK THAT THE WHOLE of the medium and its apparatus can be summed up in a single sentence, or, at the very most, in a very concise paragraph. I believe that to be true cuz, getting down to the nub of it all, it really ain’t rocket science. Although…..when you think about it, maybe words ain’t needed inasmuch as, if a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe all one needs to do is spend considerable time making and looking at photographs in order to truly understand the medium and its apparatus.

Then again, here’s a radical idea; don’t think about it at all. Just, re: the medium and its apparatus, give in to the simple, pure philistine visual pleasures of making and looking at photographs.Ya know, just adopt an ignorance-is-bliss kinda attitude–simple is as simple does–about it all and move on.

All of that written, here’s my first pick for a concise paragraph addressing the nub of it all:

“Photography implies the recognition of a rhythm in the world of real things. What the eye does is to find and focus on the particular subject within the mass of reality; what the camera does is simply to register upon film the decision made by the eye.” ~ HC-B

Now, to be perfectly clear, that concise nob of the matter needs no additional words in order to make complete sense for me. That’s cuz it describes, since the day I began making pictures, exactly my making picture MO; my eye directs me to the what (and the how) to photograph what I see. Or, if you will, another HB-C quote:

“… the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event [ed. aka: a particular subject within the mass of reality] as well as of a precise organization of forms [ed. aka: a rhythm in the world of real things] which give that event its proper expression.”

iMo, if you want to make good photographs, always remember that the eyes have it – it ain’t got diddly squat to do with the brain.

# 6935-37 / common places-things • kitchen life ~ OT but with OnT pictures

all photos (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS OUR WINTERS HAVE been rather erratic, weather wise. It comes and goes in cycles; light snow–2-3 inches–followed by balmy temps and the snow melts down to bare ground. Throw in a little freezing rain here and there and it gets downright odd for this time of year. This is quite a different scenario from 12-15 years ago (and before) when it was quite common to be buried under 60 inches of snow even in the month of March.

That written, I live in a tiny area in the Adirondack Mountains known in some quarters as The Banana Belt. That moniker derives from the fact that, quite often during winter, our little hamlet is much warmer–with less snow–than the village of Lake Placid which is only 25 miles away, albeit 1600-1700 feet higher in elevation. Travel another 6 miles beyond Lake Placid to the village of Saranac Lake and, more often than not, on many winter days it records the lowest temp on planet earth.

And, writing, re: cold temps and odd scenarios, yesterday’s pre-dawn temp here in The Forks was -12˚F. Today’s noon-time temp is 40˙F. That’s a 52˚ change in temp in 18 hours. There was a dusting of snow on top of 2-3 inches on the ground yesterday but, true to form, it’s all melting away today.

All of this is part of so-called weather weirding, a product of planet warming. But, I’m not worried inasmuch as I am certain that our Destructor-In-Chief will come to the rescue by burning more fossil fuels. Everything will be great once again. Not to worry, and, the price of eggs will go down.

#6709-16 / zines ~ paging all photographers

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE LONG PONDERED THE IDEA OF WHY anyone would engage in picture making and not make physical / tactile objects-aka: prints, books, et al-of the results of that pursuit. The absence of such objects, leaves me perplexed, re: what’s the point? The only answer I can come up with is the old adage of “different strokes for different folks”, or, “whatever floats your boat”.

I, of course, am the poster boy for the making of printed photographs in one form or another; the current count of displayed photographs on the walls of my house is 124 (some prints display multiple photographs of my travels “snapshot” work). In addition there are 25 photo books laying around the place. And now, to add to the “clutter”, there is a growing body of zines.

FYI:

The word “zine” is a shortened form of the term fanzine, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Fanzines emerged as early as the 1930s…A zine is most commonly a small circulation publication of original or appropriated texts and images. More broadly, the term encompasses any self-published unique work of minority interest…There are so many types of zines: art and photography zines, literary zines, social and political zines, music zines, perzines (personal zines), travel zines, health zines, food zines. And the list goes on and on. 

My interest in making zines is to: a) create easily made and economically inexpensive updates of my various bodies of work, b) make the zines available for distribution on an e-commerce component of this site, c) thereby getting my work, in printed form, in the hands of those who might be interested in it, and, d)duh, I like looking a prints of my work

My zines are printed by BLURB. BLURB zines are actually labeled as magazines on the site. The quality of their magazines is much better than typical zines-often hand-bound pages made on photocopiers-inasmuch as the paper and printing quality is very good. And, what I find amazing is the very low cost; typically a 20 page zine will cost about $10-12US (+ shipping*).

Re: the paper and printing quality is very good: I can write, without much reservation, that, if making zines on BLURB were to be the only method I could employ to print my work, I would be quite happy to cut pages out the zines and frame them for display on my walls. The print/paper quality is more than good enough for that use. Portfolio use or photo-”perfectionist” viewing, maybe not so much.

BTW, my current photo world fantasy is to create a curated site devoted to showcasing and selling photo zines. The biggest problem to doing that is finding a critical mass of zine-making photographers and, accomplishing that, getting the word out to a sizeable audience.

In any event, why not give it-making a zine-a try?

*BLURB shipping costs are, iMo, a bit high. So what I do, in addition to selecting the cheapest shipping cost, is to order at least 3 copies of a zine and split the shipping cost across the number of books)

# 6705-08 / in situ • common places-things ~ I contain multitudes

all photos (embiggenable)

LIFE IS BACK TO POST-HOLIDAY “NORMAL”. Been busy grinding out more SEEN magazine editions, most recently Issue No. 5, IN SITU. Also updated the IN SITU gallery on the WORK page. From the zine’s Artist Statement :

As I see it the medium of photography and its apparatus has as its primary capability making visible what something looks like when photographed. That characteristic is the impulse that drives my making photographs obsession….

…. Presented herein are photographs culled from my picture making oeuvre organized under the discriptor of in situ, aka: in the original place. They pay homage to the genre of street photography but not all are made on the street. My intent in the making of these photographs was to record, in a pictorially interesting manner, divine and sometimes quirky snippets of the human condition / comedy.

The other thing that has kept me somewhat busy is seeing-now 3 times-the A Complete Unknown movie. Wednesday evening I drove, to and from, a theater in Lake Placid during a moderate snow storm with 2˚F temps and a bitter, biting wind. Some might suggest that that certifies me as a Dylan fan-atic but, truth be told, I am not wrapped up, as so many others are, in the never-ending quest to unravel / decipher / understand the who and what of Bob Dylan.

In order to avoid going completely OT, I’ll bring it back around to photography, re: Paul Strand; who when asked about his work, simply stated that “the answer is on the wall”. Dylan has spent a lifetime of not answer any questions about his work and his private life. Which, in most people’s minds makes him enigmatic. I don’t think of him as enigmatic inasmuch as I believe the answer to Dylan is, simply stated, in the music cuz, after all, he was-and still is-aware that The Times They Are A-Changing, so consequently, he let it be know that (he) I Ain’t Gonna Work On Maggie’s Farm No More, and, he was-and still is-not afraid to tell his fans that It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue (..take what you need You think will last But whatever you wish to keep You better grab it fast). And, of course, if you still can’t figure it out, you might wanna remember that The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind.

What I appreciate / respect about any artist is their authenticity-true to one's own personality, spirit, or character-and an unrelenting commitment to their art. iMo, that’s true of many photographers, musicians, et al. Also iMo, I do not believe that in that regard Dylan has ever changed inasmuch as, no matter the musical “notes” / rhythms he pairs with his lyrics, his lyrics are always amazingly lyrical-think Nobel Prize for Literature.

All of that written, it’s back to photography, specifically, my photography. Like Dylan, I contain, photography wise, multitudes. Consider this from the In Situ Artist Statement:

During my 60 year picture making life, I have adopted no allegiance to any one photographic genre-landscape / nature, still life, people, street, et al. Rather, whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities is impetus for my discursively promiscuous picture making endeavors.

As I am creating multiple SEEN magazines representing many of my separate bodies of work-kitchen sink, in situ, life without the APA, picture windows, art reflects, poles, decay, autumn color / urban + nature, tangles scrub / thicket / trees, single women, all of which reside under the umbrella of discursive promiscuity-that endeavor serves to reinforce my understanding that ordinary life is my source of artistic inspiration, aka: my muse*. And, it should be made obvious that, like Dylan and his work, I refuse to be put in a box, referent wise.

Although, it should be made plain that I am not consciously “refusing” to do anything; rather, simply put, I am being true to myself and my muse, aka: being authentic. What others may think about what I create is of little concern to me** cuz I am doing just what it is I have to do.

*Some common synonyms of muse are meditate, ponder, and ruminate…. all these words mean "to consider or examine attentively or deliberately which describes precisely my picture making M.O.

**but, of course, I do appreciate that others may appreciate my work.

# 6585-88 / pinhole * common places-things ~ pin perfect

all photos (embiggenable)

WOKE UP THIS MORNING AND DECIDED I NEEDED TO make some new pinhole photographs for my pinhole collection. That meant hauling out the µ4/3 camera and mounting the pinhole “lens” in place of the regular lens. It also meant setting the ISO to 1250>2000 cuz the actual pinhole opening is the equivalent of an f125 aperture. FYI, the effective focal length is 22mm.

Yet another adjustment must be made to regular picturing routines; the camera’s viewing screen is basically a blank black screen making framing essentially a guessing game. That written, I kinda like that aspect of pinhole picture making cuz there is always a surprise or two along the way.

In any event, I would emphatically recommend giving it a try. There are many pinhole “lens” available for most cameras and they are not expensive. And, it is as “loose”-there ain’t a lot to shuffle and fret about-a way to make photographs as there is. Just let go of all the its-gotta-be-”perfect” crap and be open to surprises. You may actually learn a few things and grow as a picture maker.

# 6459-62 / people • foilage • sink • picture window ~ philistinish pleasures

645 medium format camera / transparency film ~ all photos ~ (embiggenable)

µ4/3 / square format

iPhone / square format

iPhone / full frame

8x10 view camera / color negative film

IN A RECENT T.O.P. ENTRY MIKE JOHNSTON prattles on (and on and on and on), re: that whatever a picture maker’s intent, meaning-wise, a viewer will make of it whatever they want, influenced by what mental / emotional makeup he/she brings to the viewing. A postulation which is totally dependent upon the idea that a photograph is capable of possessing / communicating a meaning. An idea that I-and many others-reject.

Unfortunately, iMo, the art world has, over time, reached a point wherein content-what a piece of art “says”-is valued over form-what a piece of art looks like. Me?… I subscribe to K. B. Dixon’s idea that:

“The contemporary fine-art establishment is a coalition of vested interests. They are not doing the medium any favors by relegating the idea of “visual interest” to the scrap-heap of philistinish pleasures. In a photograph, as in a painting, the photographer wants to see something he wants to look at. He does not want some ancillary item—some half-baked idea of intellectual profundity.”

Call me a philistine but I much prefer visual interest in a photograph-or any art form-over “intellectual profundity”. Or, to put in another way, I believe a photograph is meant to be seen, not “read”. I want a photograph to hit me in the eye like big pizza pie cuz that’s amore. If you wanna read, get a book.

I believe Susan Sontag got it right when she wrote:

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy… the very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness.” ~ Susan Sontag

I also think she got right again when she wrote:

“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art. ”

That’s cuz I believe that, if you want to suck the life out of a photograph-or any piece of art-try turning it into words instead of letting it seduce and captivate your visual senses.

FYI the pictures in this entry are meant to represent the fact that there is no “magic” format for creating interesting form. No cropping was employed in processing / editing these photos - full frame only.