#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.

# 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/

# 6850-52 / kitchen life • landscape ~ something out of some thng

Season’s Greetings ~ all photos (embiggenable)

Photography is simultaneously and instantaneously the recognition of a fact and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms* that express and signify that fact.
~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

* aka: “…. the pattern created by the pointer….” ~ John Szarkowsk

I AM ACTUALLY THINKING THAT I WANT TO write a book about composition expressly for the purpose of emphatically stating that, iMo, in the realm of photographic picture making, there is no such thing.

Much has been written, most of it worthy only of the trash bin, about “how to master composition” (or words to that effect), albeit never giving a thought to the fact that to compose something means, to form or make up a whole from parts (dic. def.). That activity, unless one is arranging objects for the purpose of making a still life or staged photograph, is not available to a photographer. Rather, the ability to arrange things to create a pleasing form is afforded primarily to those toiling in visual arts such as painting, illustration, and graphic design. Ya know … those who start with a blank canvas.

Photographers, on the other hand, start with the real world. Their so-called composition making choices are limited to the pointing–from a particular POV (an act of selection)–of a light-recording device in the direction of an arrangement of real world elements which the pointer perceives to be rich visual material for use in the creation of a pleasing / interesting visual pattern, especially so when isolated within the boundaries imposed by the pointer.

ASIDE another way of thinking of the difference: painters (and the like) can make something out of nothing whereas photographers can only make something out of some thing END ASIDE

Operating under the assumption that the preceding activity of pointing + perceiving has yielded up a satisfactory result–aka: a good picture–I would agree with Cartier-Bresson’s idea that the co-joined act was employed “simultaneously and instantaneously”. Or, in other words, a moment was experienced when the pointer made a decision that it had all come together–a decisive moment, if you will. It is my considered opinion that that moment arrived when the pointer recognized it in the fraction of a second when he/she saw / felt it-through the viewfinder, or on the focusing / viewing screen of their picture making device …. as opposed to mentally checking off items on a list of composition “rules” / guidelines.

All of the above written, the question remains, is it possible to learn how to point and perceive simultaneously and instantaneously? That is, to recognize a fact and the form to express that fact simultaneously and instantaneously? …. all in the cause of creating a pleasing / interesting/ compelling composition pattern / structure across the flat surface of a print.

I have doubts about that but let me quote Edward Weston on the matter of composition:

Good composition is merely the strongest way of seeing.”

…. to which I would add, Some people see better (different?) than others.

# 6838-43 / in situ • common places • common things ~

all photos ~ (embigenable)

AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY I OCCASIONALLY SUBMIT photos to the PhotoPlace Gallery for a themed call for entry. Occasionally I get a photo accepted for exhibition, occasionally I do not (my batting average is about .500). The latest call is for “images that reflect the beauty, humor, tension, and humanity found in everyday moments. Whether shot in a bustling city, a small-town fair, or a quiet rural intersection, we’re looking for photographs that tell stories of people, places, and the pulse of the street.” Displayed above are my submissions for this call for entry.

While I submit photos only on occasion, I do visit the site frequently to peruse their library of photo selections for various themed exhibitions. I do so cuz, for a number of years, the gallery has requested that photo submit-ers include their website address in case viewers wish to see more of their work. I find that feature to be a valuable addition to the site.

ALERT pay attention cuz here’s where I fulfill my last entry promise to provide you with a source for finding some damn good straight photography END ALERT

For each exhibition the selected juror–they select a solo juror for each exhibition from a wide pool of persons in the photo world–chooses 35 photos for exhibition in the gallery–in Middlebury, VT.–and online plus 40 more photos for an additional online exhibition. That allows a viewer to view 75 curated photos. And I repeat, curated photos; photos that have survived some sort of judgement and been determined to be suitable to be presented for viewer consideration.

The reason I find this to be a valuable source for discovering some interesting photography practitioners and their work is that most of the calls for submissions are calls for very specific, succinctly themed subject matter that tends to encourage submissions that are created in the straight photography vernacular. It’s rare that I do not find a couple “keepers”–I copy and past the site links in a folder so I can check in on them now and again–in each and every exhibit.

Give it a try and let me know what you think. Ya know, actually leave a comment.

# 6834-37 / around the house • common things • landscape ~ THE IN-BETWEEN WORLD

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

A WELL KNOWN ART-WORLD PHOTOGRAPHER, WHEN DISCUSSING his formative years, stated:

…. at that time [ed. late 60s] photography was separated from the art world …. there were these 2 worlds …. 1.) the old photography world, a place described as a somewhat geeky realm of camera clubs and group critiques …. 2.) the art photography world, relegated mostly to photography galleries where people with different degrees of aesthetic interests, different intensionalities, and very different styles were all lumped together.

This past-history tidbit is indicative of the idea that the more things change. the more they stay the same, or, on other words, the same as it ever was inasmuch as I would suggest that; a.) the geeky camera club / group critique world still exists albeit floating around in the ethereal digital domain rather than in actual, physical meeting places, and, b.) the art photography world still exists in galleries albeit as an adjunct to its formative residency in academia.

iMo, the bedrock difference that distinguishes one world from the other is how each handles the idea of content; the camera club world considers content to be–in my mind, to a fault–the actual, literally depicted subject to be seen in a photograph whereas, in the art photography world paradigm, content is the concept, aka: meaning, behind a photograph. Or, think of it this way; one manner of picture making wants a viewer to see a literally documented something whereas the other picture making crowd wants you think about a visually intangible something.

DISCLOSURE if it ain’t clear to anyone who follows this blog, let me restate my position; I think the current Academic Lunatic Fringe fine art photography world is a batch of hooey, aka: flapdoodle and green paint. However, I am willing to concede to it the idea of different strokes for different folks (as long as no innocents are harmed in the making) END OF DISCLOSURE

In any event and all of that written, here’s the point of this entry; in my current pursuit of gallery exhibition possibilities I find myself betwixt and between the 2 photography worlds inasmuch as my photographs are about more than what is literally depicted–YIKES, sounds suspiciously like a concept–but, on the other hand, the intensionality behind their making is not about any mental idea / concept. Point in fact, my photographs are about extracting form from the quotidian world so that it can create a visual experience that can actually been seen*.

The difference between the camera club and art photography worlds creates a dilemma for me; the camera club world cannot begin to comprehend why I would take a picture of the “mess” in my kitchen sink. They look at me as if I had lobsters crawling out my ears. On the other hand, the ALF world looks at me and my photographs with a where’s the beef? expression on its face–hey you simple-minded twit, where’s the 5,000 word artist statement cuz we know it’s a picture of your kitchen sink but what does it mean?

OK, OK, that’s my problem but here’s a more universal consideration, re: how the ALF is fucking up your photography life; until about 15-50 years ago, one could go to NYC, Chelsea district, and within a 4 block area visit 30-40 photo galleries–mostly small to medium sized with a couple large ones–located in the 4-5 story buildings that lined the streets. Most of those galleries displayed straight / straight-ish photography. Long story short, that is all gone now.

Part of the reason they are gone is due to real estate reality–gentrification–in The Big City, . But, that granted, as support for gallery display of straight photography waned under the onslaught of the ALF wave, most “old photography” world galleries just flat-out disappeared–not just in NYC but throughout the country. In my experience, I can not remember when was the last time I viewed an exhibition of straight photography that was not a collection of either camera club cliches or a retrospective exhibition of the work of various greats from the last century.

More’s the pity.

PS don’t despair cuz next entry I’ll provide a source for locating–cutting through all the digital world clutter–some damn good straight photography.

*ya know, “seen”, cuz photography is a visual art.