civilized ku # 3596-98 ~ mish-mashing around

3200K + 5200K ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THIS ENTRY'S PICTURES ARE A PRETTY GOOD ILLUSTRATION of my discursive promiscuity manner of picture making. Pictures wherein a consistent vision, aka: way of seeing, combines pattern and color to create a feeling of visual energy which holds a series of pictures together as all of a whole. And, FYI, visual energy is a visual characteristic that I prize, not only in pictures made with the medium of photography and its apparatus but also in any of the other visual arts.

civilized ku # 3588 ~ something I just learned about photography

(embiggenable) • iPhone

STRANGE FACT - I WAS BORN LESS THAN 10 hours after the feast day of St. Veronica, aka: the Patron Saint of Photographers*. Coincidence or a harbinger of my fate?

*Veronica is also the Patron of Laundry Workers which makes me happy that my relationship with her is about photography not laundry. It is also worth noting that Veronica is not an official saint but is, nevertheless, afforded the honor of being a Patron.

civilized ku # 3583-85 ~ let it be what it is

all pictures ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT THE PRIMARY CHARACTERISTIC of the Medium of Photography and Its Apparatus which most distinguishes it from the other visual arts is its intrinsic relationship with the real. Or in simple terms, its ability to record the real world in a manner which is a very accurate representation of that world (emphasis on the word "representation"). That written, because of that belief, I make pictures of the real world-using the medium and its apparatus-with the intent of those pictures being as accurate a representation of the real world as the medium and its apparatus are capable of achieving .... a picture making practice which is often labeled as straight photography.

While I believe that unique charateristic is the medium and its apparatus' greatest asset / strength, I believe that it is also its greatest impediment / weakness, re: the medium and its appparatus' accceptance as an art (as opposed to a craft). Consider the oft heard comment, anyone can take a picture, or, the ever popular, it's "just" a picture of (insert referent discription here).

I certainly believe there is a difference between taking a picture and making a picture. However, I do believe that a picture is, indeed, just a picture ....

.... that is to write, to my eye and sensibilities, a picture is not a document to be read, a picture is not an interpretation to be deciphered, and (amongst many other things it is not), a picture is not-other than pure propaganda-capable of having a fixed / singular meaning.

I understand that a picture-and the making thereof-can be / mean anything anyone wants it to be / mean. I believe that to be true of all of the visual arts. However, to my eye and sensibilities, a picture and/or any other visual arts object is a thing to be enjoyed in and of itself. A thing which tempts and teases my visual sensory apparatus. A thing which I want to feel as opposed to a thing I want to think about. A thing I want to look at and feel something.

Or, when looking at pictures (or any art), I want to experience, as Susan Sontag wrote: ....

.... the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are.

All of that written, the thing that caused me to write this entry can be found here. And, I swear to you, if I had to follow this prescription to look at pictures, I would never make or look at a picture again.

civilized ku # 3578 ~ The mystery of the world is the visible

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IN YESTERDAY'S ENTRY GARET MUNGER wrote:

"I would, if I may, disagree with your conclusion and your encouragement to "get on with the act of seeing what you want to see". It may be a fine point but I would be concerned if you go about looking for what you want to see, there is a risk that you will miss an awful lot of what there is to see and react to. One manner of reacting is using a camera to make a selection from all the possibilities in front of you, of just part to make into a picture.

Peter Turnley writes and is quoted in today's (January 1, 2020) TOP blog: "In the midst of all of this—among the daily blessings and joys that offer so much amazing life in the present moment—is the opportunity to go out, and use one's eyes, heart, movement, and presence to not only see, but to feel, and respond by registering with a camera, our very personal now."

my response: First, let me write a grateful thanks to Garet for the comment. Makes me feel like someone's reading this blog. And, as a general rule, my postion on that is the more comments the merrier.

AN ASIDE Garet wrote, "I would, if I may, disagree..." NOTE TO ALL: no permission needed to disagree with my thoughts and opinions. The only requirement is to disagree with civility. Ad hominen comments will be deleted. END OF ASIDE

I agree with Garet, re: about going out and about, when making pictures, with eyes and mind wide open simply because there is so much to see. However, in yesterday's entry I was writing about looking at pictures. That written, when I am looking at pictures, I do so with the same open eyes and mind. We are in complete agreement in either case.

So, perhaps I should have been more definitive, re: my get on with the act of seeing what you want to see statement. I could have been more defintive if I had just wrote, get on with the act of seeing END OF SENTENCE.

Or, in other words, just look at any given picture-I was writing about viewing, not making, pictures-with an open mind and listen to what your gut feeling tells you .... or as I am forever writing / saying, see if a given picture pricks your eye and sensitivities. However, therein is a "problem".

Photographs are a visual art form. A photograph is meant to be seen, aka: a visual experience. And, like all art (at least iMo), good art is meant to be affective-dictionary definition: to touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally*.

Hence, the problem .... even with a so-called "open mind", not everyone is affected in the same manner when confronted with the same stimulus. They draw / experience their own conclusions. Inasmuch as most art afficionados are drawn to art which stimulates their own personal "tastes"-in my words, that which pricks their own very personal eye and sensibilities-they do, in fact (consciously or sub-consciously), see what they want to see.

ANOTHER ASIDE Perhaps the word "want" is the wrong word. Maybe the words "compelled" or "driven" might be better. As in, what they are compelled / driven to see by their inner voice, aka: vision.END OF ASIDE

That written, it should not be understood to mean that an art afficionado does not seek out new and/or unexpected pleasures. In fact, he/she does. In a very real sense, he/she is always looking for the next big thing. Or, at the very least, the next big thing for him/her-self even if it only pricks his/her eye and sensibilities.

Dn't know if this entry clarifies are muddies my previous entry. Feel free to let me know either way.

*can good art affect the intellect as well as the emotions? My only answer to that question is to suggest that you read Susan Sontag's essay, Against Interpretion and decide for yourself. You might also keep in mind the words of Oscar Wilde:

"The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."

Which I read to mean that, when viewing a picture, the mystery is the visible, aka: the picture itself and how it makes you feel, and not the invisible, aka: the interpretation thereof and what it makes you think the picture is about.

civilized ku # 3577 ~ on blurbing

(embiggenable) • iPhone

HAVING JUST MADE AND "PUBLISHED" MY first blurb book, I have a few thoughts on the subject.

At the top of my thoughts list, let me write that, after receiving the book, it is a good quality product. Is it the best online sourced printed photo book quality I have seen? No, it is not. While the color is spot on correct, the printing is a little bit light with the black ink. Although, only ever so slightly noticeable on pictures with large areas of dark tonal values when viewed under bright light. Nevertheless, overall it is a good quality piece.

CAVEAT: I did not choose blurb's best paper for this book. It is very possible that the paper I chose is the reason that the black ink appears to be a bit on the light side. To find out the answer to that possibity, I will re-order the book using blurb's best paper. It is also worth noting that the covers-printed on a heavy gloss paper (almost a card weight stock) look excellent. END CAVEAT

Even if my next blurb "test" photo book with their best paper turns out to be of excellent quality, blurb will not be my online POD (print on demand) source. That will not be because of quality, it will be based on my opinion that the only reason for me to use blurb is if I want to "publish" a book using their store as my distribution point. Otherwise, I will stick to my tried and true source.

You may have noticed that I put the word published in quotes. That's because so-called publishing in blurb's store is, iMo, bound to be a rather fruitless endevour.

My reasoning for that conclusion is actually quite simple. If you were to go to blurb's bookstore and select the section for photography, you would link to a section with, as of this AM, 114,193 books. Imagine walking into an actual bookstore (devoted to photography) and encountering 114,193 books. Now imagine that the books are displayed on one shelf that is 114,193 books long. And if that is not enough to discourage browsing, imagine that the books are displayed 1 thru 114,193 based on the date published. In effect, that's what the blurb bookstore is.

My book, which was on the first page on the day it was "published", is slowly, but surely, sinking into the abyss. As are all the books "published" on that date. Eventually, they will end up well beyond the browsing endurance range of most users. While you can search for books by the author's name, that's no help at all if one is just wanting to see what's out there with the idea of finding something new.

If I wanted to go all in on the blurb bookstore, I could blurb print and publish photobooks for some of the picture categories on the WORK page on my site. Then post a link to that book on each of my category gallery pages. If I were to do so, I might sell a few books but the real "winner" in that endevour would be blurb inasmuch as to sell a book on blurb you need to print and buy a book on blurb.

Which is exactly how a vanity press operates.

In my next entry, I'll explain why I make photo books and why I think every picture maker should make photo books.

civilized ku # 3576 ~ what's the point?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I CAN NOT HELP BUT CONTINUE TO wonder about the question, what is a photograph? Maybe a better question is why wonder about the question, what is a photograph? And just maybe the answer to both questions is "I don't know."

WIthout a doubt, any given photograph can be anything the maker wants it to be. Just as any given photograph can be anything to any viewer to any given photograph. In either case, any given photograph can be akin to an ink blot. It is exactly what it is and nothing more or it can funtion like a rorschach "test" and instigate a host of intellectual / emotional responses.

All of that seems to suggest that a photograph has no intrinsic point (aka: meaning)-a property that an object or a thing has of itself .... which does not mean that a photograph can not have an extrinsic property-a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. The "thing" being a photograph and the "other things" being the viewer and his/her relationship to and with "real" world.

It would be very easy to go down a pyscho-analytical / Academic Lunatic Fringe rabbit hole on this topic but the fact is that I have closed that trap door a long time ago. I have no interest in getting hopelessly lost in that rat's nest / labyrinth. No, I would rather keep it simple.

Which brings me to the movie The Point* ....

.... if a photograph has no intrinsic point other than myriad possibilities deduced by viewers thereof, the Pointless Man (from the movie) has a point:

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

However, the Rock Man (from the movie) has a point as well:

"Say babe, ain't nuthin' pointless about this gig. The thing is, you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?"

So, all of that written, I would venture that the point of my answer to my question, what is a photograph?, is that, other than the undeniable fact that a photograph, when printed, is a thing, it would seem to be rather pointless to be concerned about what a photograph is other than recognizing the fact of its tangible existence. And then get on with the act seeing what you want to see.

*hey, wisdom can be found in the most unlikely of places.

civilized ku # 3537 ~ simple is as simple does, which is not so simple

kitchen stool ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

IN MY LAST ENTRY, IN A COMMENT BY JULIAN BEHRISCH ELCE, he wrote:

I wonder if the latest phone still represents simple or minimal equipment, or if it’s actually another form or format of advanced camera now.

my response: I believe, without a doubt, that Apple ( and other smartphone makers) knows its audience quite well. And, in the case of a device's picture making capabilities, they are aiming to make picture making as simple and, ITh(eir)O, "picture-perfect" as it can be. In essence, they seem to be walking in KODAK's footsteps, re: KODAK's first slogan, You push the button, we do the rest."

In my experience with the iPhone camera module (various editions), I find no evidence that Apple is trying to make an "advanced camera". That is, from the user POV. Of course, the camera module is, behind the scenes, a very advanced device inasmuch as its AI is working overtime-almost completely independent of user input-to get things "right". The only picture making control I am aware of is lens selection, turning HDR on or off and tapping the screen to select focus and adjust and lock the exposure.

ASIDE: of course there are a number of camera apps which can give a picture maker a great deal of control-almost "real" camera like-over the camera module, to include the ability to make RAW files. I have a couple of those apps but I rarely use them because I am committed to, with my use of the iPhone for picture making, picture making simplicity. If I want lots of control, I have 19 "real" cameras I can use.END OF ASIDE

All of that written, just because the picture making is "easy", the story, for me, doesn't end there, as I am certain it does for the majority of smartphone picture makers. That is, for me, just as I do after making pictures with a "real" camera, I process my image files. As near to "perfect" as the out-of-the-iPhone files might be, I always do some fine tuning and, on rare occasions, a lot of "fine" tuning on my files.

In most cases, I perform that tuning either on the phone or the iPad (I like the bigger screen), primarily with Snapseed or some other processing app. In some cases, I download a file from iCloud and do the tuning in Photoshop. And, FYI, all file prep (not tuning) for display on this blog are performed in Photoshop. BTW, the picture editing function in the new 11-series iPhones is now quite robust. Not Snapseed robust but good for a number of image adjustment needs.

IN CONCLUSION: Apple sees its picture making audience as easy-peasy snapshooters and has designed the iPhone camera module to appeal / service that market. Consequently, it is not an "advanced" camera in the sense of user control over the picture making process. That written, have no doubt about it, it is fully capable of producing "advanced" image files / pictures.

As mentioned, if one wants to have more picture making control when using the iPhone (or other smartphone), there are camera apps for that. I am somewhat surprised by the fact that Apple does not have an "advanced" camera app of their own making. Although, why bother when the overwhelming number of iPhone-using picture makers would have no interest in such an app, making the market for it so small that, for the Apple Behemoth, it would not worth the development time, effort and money investment.

civilized ku # 3667-75 ~ a weekend haul o' pictures

see them all in one file ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

all pictures ~ (embiggenable)

Picture making gear is rarely mentioned on this blog other than to re-enforce my oft written idea that gear doesn't matter (it's all about the pictures, stupid). However, there is one piece of picture making equipment for which I am a fanatical advocate ... a photo printer.

It is my strongly held belief that, to my eye and sensiblities, you can make as many image files with a camera as you like, but, they are not pictures until they are made into a thing. That is, a physical / tangible object, in and of itself. If ya ain't makin' prints, y'all have left the party before the fat lady sings.

That written, iMo (and I am most definitely not alone), the only manner in which to truly appreciate a photograph is by viewing a photographic print. Every other viewing platform, with the exception of well printed photo books, is merely a comprimised facsimile of the real thing.

This is especially true of viewing images online. No matter how expertly the file may have been prepared for online viewing, a viewer's impression of it is determined by the calibration, or lack thereof, and quality of his/her device's screen. Even if a device is cailbrated to within an inch of its life, it can never convey a sense of or characteristics of the surface of a print ... something to which persnickety picture print makers devote a lot of attention.

Amongst aother differences, perceptually / emotionally a computer / device screen creates a cool viewing experience whereas a print is perceived by most as a warm viewing experience. Whether a viewers consciously feels it or not, cool is off putting, warm is inviting. In the total viewing scheme of things, to my eye and sensibilities, this maters a lot.

While I could brattle on about the, to me, significant differences between screen and print viewing, what really matters most to me is how an image file, which I may have spent considerable time viewing on my monitior (during the editing / processing thereof), figuratively comes alive when it emerges from my printer. The sensation is rather like I am viewing a different image.

It is my belief that the sensation / feeling of an image "coming alive" is due to the fact that I am looking at a real thing. I can hold it, touch it and appreciate the qualities of its surface. My eyes can move over the image on the surface of a print in a manner they can not on a screen. Then there is the perception of an inky richness and depth which no screen presentation can effect.

All of the above written, my love affair with prints has created something of a problem ... I make a lot of prints. Many more prints than I have wall space to accomodate. A problem which has suggested a solution to which I am not immune ... might be time to convert 2/3s of the space in our 2-car garage into a full-fledged gallery space. Or, alternately, rent a store front space and open a gallery.