# 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.

# 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.

6313-17 / people ~ some people I know about whom you may care less

medium format camera - (embiggenable)

SX 70 camera - (embiggenable)

iPhone camera - (embiggenable)

µ4/3 camera with pinhole “lens”- (embiggenable)

µ4/3 camera - (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.

civilized ku # 5168 / pinhole # 18-19 ~ oops

floor sweepings ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

me ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3 w pinhole lens

Mel ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3 w pinhole lens

One of the things I like most about visiting inlaws in North Jersey is the opportunity to visit with my fellow photo geezer and friend Mel Digiacomo.

This past weekend was one such opportunity. We sat and yakked, looked at my the new snapshot work and I introduced Mel to pinhole picture making. He had no idea that such a thing as a pinhole lens was a thing. I had my pinhole lens with me so he insisted we make pictures of each other with the lens. Fun stuff and I'd be very surprised of hasn't ordered one with the lens mount for his camera.

RE; oops ... in order to make the pinhole pictures in relatively dim light with the effective pinhole aperture of approximatelyf96-f128, I set the ISO to 3200 (which still necessitated a 1.5sec shutter speed).

Fast forward to yesterday. As I was sweeping the kitchen floor I encounted the need - I might say "demand" - to make a picture of the sweeping. Picked up my Oly E-P5 and made the picture totally ignoring the ISO setting. Oops. However, to my surprise the resulting picture is quite good, even without any noise reduction.

civilized ku # 4044 / pinhole # 18 / what the camera sees # 8 ~ ground glass

bathroom objects ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

fruit, root veggies and might bulb in wooden bowl ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

apple and laptop 

re: photography is not a 3-Dimensional world.

The prints or images produced by camera are 2-Dimensional art. That means that the art has the dimensions of length and width (in the same plane) but that it does not possess depth. The idea that "leading lines" in a picture draw a viewer into a picture is ludicrous simply because there is no "in" in a print. Consequently, even though a print might suggest the idea of objects with depth, in fact, the flat 2-D surface of a print is comprised of shapes (to include lines).

In the creation of 2-Dimensional art, painters, since they start from a blank canvas, understand the importance of shapes and their relationship to one another with the confines of the edges of their canvas. A masterful painter places shapes on his/her canvas in relationships which help incite feelings of serenity, chaos, tension, placidity or any other emotion/feeling he/she desires to accentuate by means of his/her work. (since shapes can have color and tonal values, these properties of shapes are also employed as devices to incite the perceptions of the work in the eyes of a viewer of the work).

A picture maker with a camera does not have the luxury/ability to physically arrange the referents he/she wished to picture. However, he/she does have the ability to arrange/place those referents (aka, shapes, to include colors and tonal values), by means of his/her POV, within the flat field imposed by its frame. By doing so, the picture maker has the same ability as a painter in creating the visual feel/pereived emotion of his/her work.

I have always disliked the word "composition" when use to describe the picture maker's choice of where to place what in the making of a picture. The reason for that is simple inasmuch as the word "composition" is most often used together with the idea of the rules thereof. And "rules" indicate a predisposition to a manner of thinking which proscribes the adherence to proscribed dictates.

iMo, the organization of shapes (colors and tonal values) within the frame imposed by the picture maker's POV is not an activity dictated by thinking but rather should be directed by emotions and feelings. To wit, an somewhat intuitive sense of how and when a specific arrangement of shapes makes one feel.

If all of this approach to "composition" seems rather touchy feely, try this exercise: the next time you aim your camera a toward a referent in an attempt to "compose" a picture, put the field of view within your frame out of focus. This will reduce all of elements within the frame to "pure" shapes, colors and tonal values which, without the visual specificity of your referents, the relationship of those visual components to each other. If the relationships work well as out-of-focus components, iMo and experience, they will work equally well in focus and help you develop an intuitive "feel" for what works compositionally.

FYI, my best aid in seeing and feeling how my arrangment of visual elements within the frame is working is the use of the LCD screen on my cameras - even those with an EVF. That screen is a 2-D device and, consequently, is a step in the right direction, re: the translation of 3-D into 2-D. The LCD screen works much like the ground glass screen on the view cameras I used for decades. There is nothing like sticking your head under a focusing cloth and looking at a ground glass screen (on which the image is upside down and horizontally reversed) insulate you from and to reduce the real world in front of the camera to a 2-D representation thereof.