# 6713-17 / landscape • common things ~ the end is nigh

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

TODAY IS THE LAST DAY AND NIGHT AT Rist Camp. Here are a few pictures made over the last couple days - my total picture output, INSTAX print wise, is hovering around the 75 print number.

One highlight of our time at Rist was just yesterday. The wife and I had planned a walk in the woods at nearby nature center-miles of trails through a variety of lake, bog / marsh / forest habits-only to discover the trails were closed due to damage from a severe rain event. So instead, we headed off to the Adirondack Experience, formerly known as the Adirondack Museum - a campus-like layout of buildings that includes a very large Art exhibition facility.

After a recent renovation, the facility is not divided into four galleries - Light, Forest, Water, Mountains. Each gallery displays Adirondack inspired paintings-they have a magnificent collection of Hudson River School masters’work-photography (primarily old-timey era), and crafts (emphasis on rustic furnishings) that fall under the gallery theme.

In any event, there was one photo by the reigning dean of Adirondack photography-albeit that he hasn’t made of photograph in 20 years. The print-most likely made on his wide format epson printer (which I helped him set up)-was approximately 3’x4’. The photograph was very much to my liking inasmuch as he primarily made photographs of the “overlooked” natural world and, in the case of this print, just screamed to my eye and sensibilities that it was a film based photograph.

That written, I was never a fan of his prints; garish, ultra contrasty and unplesantly sharp-to my eye and sensibilities-Cibachrome prints made directly from his Ektachrome 8x10 transparencies. He was enamored of the Cibachrome process because of its extreme archival properties.

All of that written, the print in question had the look and feel of a traditional C print. That is, natural color and smooth tonal transitions - a “creamy”-different from “soft”-somewhat seductive representation of the natural world. A look and feel that, by not conveying ultra-fine, extremely-sharp micro detail and contrast, exhibits, to me, a vague hint of hidden mystery that really suits my eye and sensibilities. It is a look and feel I rarely experience with the viewing of ultra-everything - detail, resolution / sharpness, dynamic range, micro-contrast - super hi-res digital-capture prints.

To be certain, I am not pining for the good ol’ days of wet darkroom, film, and C prints. I am quite happy using less than state-of-the-art sensors together with a bit of post picture capture processing with which I can simulate a film-like quality that comes through to the eye on my prints.

# 6709-12 / landscape • kitchen life • people ~ a time for reckoning?

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

RECENTLY A GREAT DEAL OF INK HAS BEEN SPILLED (or keyboards pounded) on TOP and VSL, re: what am I doing here? That is, the respective authors thereof seem to very concerned about their very raison d’etre, blogging wise. So I thought I might chime in on that topic but not on the comments section on those sites cuz, in both cases, the comments are fan-boy inspired I-love-everything-you-do, don’t change anything, I think you are absolutely fabulous.

Right off the top / outa the gate let me write that I do not consider either of these sites as to be about the medium of photography and its apparatus (conventions and practices, not gear).

In the case of VSL, there is never any content about the medium itself. Rather, it is all about-elevated to the level of fetish-the tools of the medium. The author seems to think that he can show us-literally, with pictures-the rather subtle difference in sensors and lenses even though he readily admits that the medium of the interweb, image display wise, pretty much obliviates those differences. Sounds to me a lot like a fools errand.

In the case of TOP, while there is a reasonable amount of content, re: the medium and its apparatus, there is an ever-increasing amount of off-topic content that strays pretty far afield from that of photography. Add to that situation the fact that the blogging platform used by TOP is absolutely unsuited to the display of photographs and what you end up with is a very compromised photography experience. But…

…iMo, the real problem with TOP-for me-is the fact that the author’s first love is the act of writing, not the act of making of photographs. In a sense, he loves to”hear” himself write. Not to mean that he does not enjoy the making of photographs but, I suspect that, if he were to be required to choose between writing or picture making, all his photo gear would be listed for sale on ebay in a NY minute.

I also believe that the author is hindered from creating a more photography-centric blog by his self-professed doubts that; a.) is photography…ending? and, b.) everything to be written about photography has already been written. 2 ideas that I believe are; a.) ridiculous and, b.) even more ridiculous.

In any event, to certain extent, I believe that both authors are old coot hidebound and therefore rather unimaginative, re: how to carry on in the blogging sphere. In a very real sense, they are trapped in a blogging paradigm of their own makings. Nevertheless, it might be interesting to follow where this all ends up inasmuch as it can be amusing to watch a potential train wreck in the making.

BONUS CONTENT - Re: is photography…ending?

(embbigenable)

(embiggenable)

FIRDAY EVENING THE WIFE AND I WENT DOWN the driveway to a restaurant / tavern for dinner only to discover that it was OPEN MIKE NIGHT. Except , quite fortunately, the hitch was that is was open mike for musicians, not for any drunk wanting to sing.

As it turned out it was a lot of fun and very entertaining. The musicians performed individually, in pairs and, eventually all jamming together. As is often the case, I had my INSTAX printer with me so I commenced to making pictures (and prints). Primarily of the musicians but also of the audience.

Just for fun, I had a waitress hand the pictures out, as I made them, to the person pictured. The point was to create a sense of confusion about where the hell these pictures were coming from. Eventually the cat was out of the bag and, when, at the end of the night, the crowd was applauding the various musicians, one musician suggested a round of applause for the guy making the pictures. The crowd turned to me and gave gave a rousing all hail and hardy applause and a few tips of the hat.

I am certain they did that only cuz, ya know, photography is…ending.

# 6671-74 / common things / places • landscape • people ~ TMI

from the Mountain Course 1st tee ~ (embiggenable)

Hugo + Maggie ~ (embiggenable)

weekend activities ~ (embiggenable)

SOMETHING I DO NOT UNDERSTAND…why would anyone interested in the medium of photography bother to follow a (obstensibly) photo site / blog wherein the author constantly loads it up with chit-chat about swimming / pool / other non-photo activities, coffee, broken refrigerators, audio equipment..hell…even the weather. Reminds me of the few times I was the speaker at some camera club events-do actual go-to-meetin’ camera clubs even still exist?-where the assembled crowd mingled about (pre-speechifying) sipping wine and chit-chatting about all kinds of things other than photography. The exception being, of course, showing off and or talking about a new camera or piece of gear.

Now I’m not suggesting that a camera club meet up should be all photo-talk / business and no play. It is, in fact, a social gathering and it’s normal (almost natural) that people might want to talk-faceo a faceo-about their recent skid into a snowbank, how they got right with their maker or some such conversion before they get down to the business at hand. I get it cuz, unlike visiting a blog, it’s an actual face-to-face gathering / event. I been there, done that.

That written and at least for me, when I am on the interweb looking for interesting photography or interesting writing about the medium and its apparatus (aka: conventions, traditions, and practices), I have no use for those sites that are little more than a (chit) chatroom wherein it becomes all about the author and the inconsequential (photo wise) minutia-verbal, not visual-of his/her daily life.

Quite a while back-3-4 years?-when I was contemplating the direction I wanted to pursue, re: this blog, the one thing I promised my self and readers was that I would never turn it into a my-life chatroom. So far, mission accomplished.

And that is why, as an example, I could write all about my weekend…

…like how the wife and had breakfast in Lake Placid with our daughter and soon-to-depart for college (where he will play college hockey) grandson and describe in detail the bloody mary with pickle I had with breakfast after which I picked up some meds and then went to the framing shop to order a frame for an INSTAX picture a local craft gallery wants to display for sale OR like how on Saturday evening the wife and I went to a newly opened, renovated former ski lodge for a drink and live music and write about the sangria I had and how it compared to the sangria(s) I had in Portugal OR like how on Sunday I played golf on the Lake Placid Club Links Course with the aforementioned about-to-depart grandson and give a detailed account of the course conditions (to include the weather), my score (and how it might effect my USGA handicap index) vs my grandson’s score and whine and complain some more about the idiot 4-some in front of us who refused to let us play through even though there was no one on the course ahead of them…

..but I won’t.

# 6665-70 / landscape (ku) ~ a mistake was made

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

WHILE GETTING THROUGH THE PUSH TO THE FINISH LINE, re: An Adirondack Survey ~ in plain sight project, it occurred to me that I had made a rather grievous omission, picture wise.

That is, in my desire to keep the subject matter focused on the quotidian landscape as seen here in the Adirondacks, I deliberately did not include any pictures of the natural world, grand scenic genre wise. My thinking was based on the fact that I did not want the work to bear any resemblance to the typical cliche-ridden, sappy Adirondack ain’t-nature-grand books, calendars, post cards, and the like. However…

…quite fortunately, my brain kicked me in my butt when I realized that, in fact, ain’t nature grand is very much a part of everyday life in the Adirondacks. More accurately, what I realized was that while all of the hand-of-man picture evidence in the body of work was made over time during my daily just moving about the place-as opposed to heading out for the purpose of making pictures-I had made quite a number of ain’t-nature-grand pictures in exactly the same manner. That is, just driving / walking around the place and being “confronted” with such a picture making opportunity. Ya know, just a part of everyday life here in the Adirondacks-as opposed to going out and chasing the light.

So, I am now faced with a dilemma of sorts…my submission of the work to galleries / art institutions is 2-fold; a 12x12inch, 50 picture book (sans ain’t-nature-grand pictures) and a companion 15 print folio of additional pictures from the body of work (to illustrate the print quality of the work). I have printed a few ain’t-nature-grand pictures for the folio, but…the question is, should I re-edit the book to sprinkle about some ain’t-nature-grand pictures?

That idea gives me stomach cramps cuz getting the book just right required quite an effort-original editing, a first book that didn’t feel right, a second editing, a second book that looked right but had a couple pictures that needed color corrections, a third book that was, thankfully, “ perfect”. The idea of yet another go-around has little appeal but, it all has to be “perfect” so…

All of the above written, I have asked myself how in the hell did I make this mistake? What was I thinking? Well, the answer is quite simple - I have very low esteem-some might even say, extreme dislike-for camera-club, calendar “aesthetic” grand landscape photography. Or, as Sally Eauclaire wrote in her the new color photography book:

[work in which] the lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than recreates on-site observations. Playing to the multitude of viewers who salivate at the sight of nature (in the belief that good and and God are immanent), such photographers choose such picturesque subject matter as prodigious crags, rippling sands, or flaming sunsets…they burden it with ever coarser effects effects. Rather than humbly seek out the “spirit of fact” they assume the role of God’s art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive.

Consequently, I did not want to “pollute” the book with anything even remotely resembling camera-club, calendar “aesthetic” grand landscape photography. However, the fact of the matter is, here in the Adirondacks the natural world is fully capable of getting in your face with some very sublime visage(s) that are difficult to ignore, picture making wise. Visage(s) that require no technical wizardry / coarse effects to amplify its (their) ain’t-nature-grand appearance. And, since I always strive for the “spirit of fact”, I should feel no guilt / have no qualms about including some un-effected ain’t-nature-grand pictures in the body of work.

FYI, I have added an ADIRONDACK SCENICS gallery to the WORKS page.

# 6415-17 / landscape (ku / civilized ku) • common places ~ is it or isn't it?

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY I AM CONVERTING, on a regular basis, some of my color pictures to monochrome variants of those same pictures. Short of going into psychoanalysis, it might be due just to fact of a lot of recent online carrying on, re: monochrome pictures / camera conversions wise.

That written, I have made-over time in my picture making life-a fair number of color pictures that appear to be monochrome-made pictures but in fact have a little bit of color. Those pictures are not software / art filter created monochrome pictures with color thrown in for effect. They are actually straight out-of-the-camera pictures with no effects added.

That is to write, the overall scene or primary referent is, by its nature, monochromatic but I let a tiny color element sneak into the frame. Consequently, I do not need to cheat in order to obtain the visual result I desire.

Don’t believe I have enough such pictures buried in my library to constitute a body of work. However, that written, I will make a note in the file drawer I keep in my head to be on the lookout for such picture making possibilities.

# 6412-14 / windshields • landscape • (un)common places ~ throwing stones

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

TRUE TO MY PLEDGE IN MY LAST ENTRY, during my time out and about yesterday, I kept my eye open for the making of additional windshield series pictures. While I made a straight picture of the scene, I have to admit that I am becoming even more enamored of the windshield-type views.

Last evening during my 40 mile drive to Saranac Lake-through a driving snowfall-for the World University Games curling semi-finals, I did not make any windshield pictures. The event- GBR v. CAN / USA v. SUI, won by USA and GBR, who will play for the gold medal-was a great example of cowbell madness. What a riotous racket.

After the games, the drive home was even more adventurous than the drive in. So, no more windshield pictures were made. However, today’s drive in to Lake Placid for the Short Track Speed Skating event might be windshield productive.

# 6362-65 / nature • kitchen sink • kitchen life ~ confined to quarters

3 feet of snow ~ (embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

YESTERDAY AT APPROXIMATELY 3:12PM-9 hours into a 24 hour snowstorm-I was a couple minutes away from hitting the SAVE icon on an entry when, off went the electricity (town wide) and, poof, went the entry.

Happens on a regular basis when we have a heavy, wet snowfall. However, this time electricity was back in a few minutes but only as brown-out. Not enough juice for computer usage but, fortunately (and surprisingly), enough to operate our heating system (air-air heat pump). That situation lasted for a couple hours at which time we were plunged into heat-less darkness.

We lit candles all over the house and started a fire (in the fireplace) for warmth. That lasted for a couple hours and then the electricity returned at full strength. That lasted for 3 hours and then we were again light and heat-less for approximately 9 hours-midnight to10:30AM this morning.

All that written, I did not leave the house for approximately 30 hours so my picture making was confined to our kitchen.

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

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

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.