# 5793-95 / around the house•kitchen life ~ on the road again

May 25, 2021

LATER TODAY THE WIFE AND I BEGIN our 13 day moving about the country trip. First stop, flying to California for our son's wedding then driving (1,000 miles) to Santa Fe, New Mexico and environs for some leisure time hanging around.

So, for the immediate future there will be no entries, re: kitchen life, kitchen sink or around the house. Although, we will be staying in 2 different houses so....

In any event, my picture making intention is to use only the iPhone. Nevertheless, I am taking a full compliment of µ4/3 gear for some reason that is not clear to me other than the fact that old habits die hard.

#5768-70 / (ku) landscape•kitchen life ~ on discursive promiscuity

May 15, 2021

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE, picture making wise:

"Photography is a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing. The contest can be held anywhere...One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others." ~ John Szarkowski

Which is why I am a practitioner of what I call discursive promiscuity. Consequently, my picture making contest, as Szarkowski suggests, can be held anywhere. And, it can be the focus of any given referent. That is cuz my eye and sensibilities can be pricked by, seemingly, the most unconventionable referents. That is, referents outside of the box of what is considered to be referents appropriate for the making of a picture. However, no matter the referent, my pictures are most always about form. In a way, kinda like Robert Adams:

"By Interstate 70: a dog skeleton, a vacuum cleaner, TV dinners, a doll, a pie, rolls of carpet....Later, next to the South Platte River: algae, broken concrete, jet contrails, the smell of crude oil.... What I hope to document, though not at the expense of surface detail, is the form that underlies this apparent chaos."~ Robert Adams

All of the above written, coming back to Scarkowski's idea of "more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations", it took a comment from a gallery director who said, upon the viewing of my porfolio-which at the time was not divided into separate bodies of work-that no matter the diverse subject matter seen in my work, he would have no trouble identifying any of the pictures (when viewed as a stand-alone picture) as a product of my vision, which caused me to understand that the manner in which I pictured the world-that is, the identifiable configuration seen in all of my pictures-was the link which held all of the diverse referents together as a unified body of work. (My thanks to Hemingway for introducing the idea of run-on sentences as a writing divice)

That realization caused me to understand that promiscuous picture making was the way to go. After all, it would always be possible, long after the picture making fact, to harvest like-minded referent pictures from my total body of work and organize them, by specific referents, into separate bodies of work.

I recognize that this manner of picture making flies in the face of the conventional wisdom about picking a single subject / referent and concentrate on it, and it alone, for a protracted period of time in order to create a unified body of work. However, for me, when attempted, that mode of picturing leads me to a kind of picture making boredom which leads to a premature end of what I might have wanted to accomplish. What I have found from pursuing discursive promiscuity picture making is that I can add pictures, ad infinitum, to any number of separate bodies of work over a very long period of time.

In any event, I guess what I am suggesting in this entry is for giving it a try for a couple of months. Just picture anything and every thing and see what happens.

# 5756-58 / around the house•kitchen life ~ nice and easy does it

May 6, 2021

ONE OF THE VERY FIRST PHOTO-BOOK MONOLOGUES I ever purchased was a photo book of pictures made by Gordon Parks. I do not remember which of his pictures that, at the time, pricked my eye and sensenbilities and caused me to purchase that book.

However, what I do know is that many of his pictures, especially his color work, exhibit a quality that I would label as delicate and lyrical. A quality, no doubt, enhanced by a narrow depth of field which was most likely the result of, in his square pictures, his use of a 120 film camera (a twin lens reflex?) and that era's slow color film speed.

In any event, I mention Gordon Park's work as an intro of sorts to an explanation of my attraction to pictures with narrow dof...

...suffice it to write that I never have been a fan of "sharpness". To be more accurate, the excessive sharpness which is now approaching the status of a photo fetish. In fact, since my day 1 of digital picture making, I have been adding a tiny dash of global Gaussian Blur to all of my pictures as well as corner vignetting. I am also prone to reducing the color saturation in many of my pictures as well. All done in an effort to reduce the digital "look". And, iMo, making pictures with a narrow dof contributes to the same idea of reducing the digitial look.

Quite obviously, making pictures with a skosh of blur, corner vignette and narrow dof softens the image. And, I'm willing to admit that I do such things in order to create a, some might say, nostalgic look, albeit subtle, to my prints. A look that mimics how pictures use to look back in the pre-digital era of picture making.

However, it is not just a trip down memory lane which drives my picture making and print making proceedure / technique. My eye and sensibilities are drawn to pictures which exhibit a sense of "softness"...not soft in the blurry sense, but soft, as in, with the digital edge ground down.

To my eye and sensibilities, pictures which exhibit such "soft" qualities tend to be more lyrical, poetic and I might even opinion as more visually seductive than those straight out of the digital box. One might even write, picture that softly hum rather than emitting a screeching-finger nails on a chalkboard-shout.

# 5751-55 / around the house (full frame) ~ beyond the square

May 2, 2021

A SOMEWHAT STRANGE THING HAPPENED yesterday, after making a picture of wilted flowers in a vase using the iPhone PORTRAIT setting, I opened the file for processing and, seemingly for the first time-actually most probably the second time-I noticed that the picture look very good as shot. That is, as an iPhone "full-frame" picture.

To clarify, when using the PORTRAIT picture making setting on the iPhone, there is no setting for the square picture format-as there is when using the PHOTO setting-so you end up with an uncropped-to-square, full-frame image file. Consequently, my standard processing procedure is to open such a file and, without even considering it as full-frame picture, I immediately crop to the square format. An almost Pavlovian, don't even-think-about-it response, aka: square, it's what I do.

In any event, yesterday, the seed was planted in my head as I was making the picture that, due to the way it looked in the iPhone screen, it looked damn good as a full-frame picture. So, upon openning it for processing, I did pay attention to its full-frame possibility. And, I liked it. Which lead to...

... my wondering how many PORTRAiT setting image files I might have let slip through the processing procedure without considering or even noticing their full-frame possibilities.

After combing through my un-processed image file library, for my original un-cropped, un-processed PORTRAIT image files-only 2 of which were actual portraits-I now know the answer to that question...25 image files.

That came as quite a surprise cuz, when making a picture with the PORTRAIT setting, I first compose the picture with the PHOTO setting set to square. Then I switch to PORTRAIT and, without considering the on-screen, full-frame image, I make the picture. The surprise was the result of the fact that most of the un-cropped image files worked really well as full-frame pictures without my paying any attention at all to that possibility at the moment those pictures were made.

To be certain, I do not think that the full-frame picture variants are any better (or worse) than their square variant counterparts. iMo, and to my eye and sensibilities, they are just different.

All of the above written, stay tuned for my next entry when I with attempt to explain why I have been a fan of narrow DOF since nearly the beginning of my picture making life. And, why I will be more frequently using the iPhone PORTRAIT setting-did I mention how much I really like the ability to adjust, for all time, the amount of DOF in a picture after its making?-in my future picture making.

# 5747-49 / still life•sink•around the house ~ familiar things made new

April 29, 2021

THREE OF MY CARVED-IN-STONE, BEDROCK BELIEFS, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus:

"If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest." ~ Berenice Abbott

"To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place.... I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them." ~ Elliott Erwitt

"The two most engaging powers of a photograph are to make new things familiar and familiar things new." ~ William Thackeray

I also have a "warning"-a reminder of sorts-belief that I keep tucked in my back pocket for use in those occasions when I might be tempted to partake in the never ending prattling and nattering-re: gear, technicals and technique...

"Of what use are lens and light
To those who lack mind and sight?"

...a quote often used in in the context of photography conversations. It is derived from an inscription-written in Old German-on a Brunswick Thaler (coin) in 1589- which reads: ""Torch and glasses will not help the old man who will not help and know himself."

In any event, if a picture maker has "mind and sight", there is no need to get involved with stuff that is best left to those who would not recognize a good picture-or what it takes to make one-even if they were to walk face-first into it on a wall.

# 5742-46 / kitchen life ~ it's about the eye, not the brain

April 27, 2021

THE PAST FEW DAYS HAVE YIELDED UP A WEALTH of picture making opportunities in my kitchen.

Amongst many things, the light has been nice and interesting (iMo) serendipitous arrangements of things have been popping up here and there. The picturing results, to my eye and sensibilities, are visually very interesting and rather captivating.

That written, I am well aware that, for any number of reasons, these pictures may not be interesting and captivating to many viewers. That's fine with me cuz I am making pictures that suit my eye and sensibilities. Which, unless one has to pander to the masses for the sake of profit (not at all a bad thing), making pictures that suit one's personal vision should be how one goes about making pictures.

In any event, from time to time I do question the idea of what my vision dictates, art sensibility wise, as a good picture. That is, my vision dictates that a good picture (or any art) must, first and foremost, be visually interesting and captivating (regardless of what the depicted referent might be).

That dictate is cuz I believe the best pictures (or any art) should prick the eye, the viewer's visual apparatus, rather than the brain, the viewer's thinking apparatus. Which is to write that I believe that the best art is directed toward sight, aka: seeing, as opposed to "thought", aka thinking.

Or, to break it down even further, when making/ viewing pictures (or any art), I want to "feel" something rather than "think" something.

That doesn't make me a shallow person, does it?

ADDENDUM "Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts." ~ Walker Evans

# 5733-35 / kitchen sink•around the house•civilized ku ~ a truly fuzzy concept

April 20, 2021

NOT LONG AGO THERE WAS A SPATE OF JIBBER JABBER-minus the rapidity-about lenses...the "perfect" portrait lens, corner sharpness, Leica lenses vs every other lens maker in the known photo universe, the ever popular debate about the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image (aka:bokeh), etc./etc....true gearhead / fan boy stuff. However there was one statement*-made by the Mother-Of-All-Gearheads-which caught my attention:

"...the powerful lure of Leica legend always makes me wonder if their lens will supply just that tiny bit more 'edge' or 'magic' that will elevate images and make each image sweeter." ~ he/she who shall remain nameless

To my way of picture making thinking, if a picture maker is wishing for a lens that gives his/her pictures a "bit more edge or magic"/ "sweatness", then, iMo (and experience), that picture maker must be making some pretty lame pictures. Or, as Sir Ansel was said to state:

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

All of that written, that is not write that (portraiture as an example) there are lenses that might be better suited than other lenses for a given use. But even that idea is predicated upon the picture maker's picturing intent. As in, the intent to depict a subject as he/she really is or depict him/her in an idyllic representational manner.

In any event, if one is depending upon lens "magic" to make one's picture(s) "sweeter", iMo, one is relying on a "gimmick" rather than unique personal vision to float his/her boat.

*I use this example, not to denigrate the maker thereof, but rather as an excellent example of lens "magic" thinking.

# 5726-29 / kitchen sink•around the house ~ a little mystification as a relief

April 16, 2021

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED BY MIKE JOHNSTON ON TOP, under the heading of The Way Photographs Should Look, "What way do you like a photograph to look?"

My answer is in 2 parts, albeit in 1 sentence. (1)Since there is no way photographs should look, (2)who gives a rat's ass how anyone but the picture maker cares about how his/her photographs look.

Although it is worth noting that many a viewer of photographs have expressed how he/she would like another picture maker's photographs to look. You know what I mean ... the ubiquitous statement, "I wish he/she _______ " (insert directive of your choice, as in, cropped the scene differently, added more/less saturation or more/less contrast, etc.).

If you really want to know how someone thinks a picture should look, ask him/her to show you some of their pictures. And, if he/she does so but also starts to explain with words how they think a picture should look, tell him/her to shut the f... up cuz his/her pictures should "say" all there is to "say" about the subject.

In the 3 picture panel below, aka: triptych, there are 2 pictures which reflect my straight approach to making picture and how I like them to look. The 3rd picture has a bit of art sauce applied, which is not normally my cup o' tea. However....

"We got tired of the sameness of the exquisiteness of the photograph . . . [referring to the exact rendition of detail which is all-revealing.] Why? Because the photograph told us everything about the facts of nature and left out the mystery. Now, however hard-headed a man may be, he cannot stand too many facts; it is easy to get a surfeit of realities, and he wants a little mystification as a relief..." ~ Henry Peach Robinson