# 6105-07 / around the house • roadside attractions (common places) • watch update ~ no $6000 cameras were used in the making of these pictures

June 4, 2022

“The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it.” ~ Weston

I THOUGHT IT WAS TIME FOR MY FIRST EVER WATCH UPDATE. You will be happy to know Mickey is still tapping his foot, one tap /second. And, he never tires of calling me “pal” when I inquire about the time. At the moment of this picture’s making, it was 11:35AM, 73F outside, and my heart was beating along at 66 BPM (6 minutes prior). It also should go without writing that I can live, any time I wish, my Dick Tracy fantasies when I talk to family, friends, or junk call recordings on my watch. Not to mention, how much joy I experience when reviewing, on my watch, my pictures from my iPhone picture library. And sometimes when I’m bored, I make an ECG using my watch and sent it to my cardiologist just cuz I can.

I pity the poor suckers who have a watch that only tells time.

That written, I also want to assure you that no pictures on this blog were made with a $6000 camera, or, for that matter, with a classic medium-format film camera.

# 6046-48 / around the house ~ toilets that don't need to flush

April 21, 2022

“It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” ~ Henry David Thoreau

SPENT ALL OF TUESDAY AND PART OF WEDNESDAY-36 HOURS-without electricity and, consequently, without heat. All due to a freakish Spring snowstorm which dropped a foot or more of very heavy, wet snow. Throw in a bit of wind and trees, tree limbs, and power lines were down all over the place.

I had no internet access, my laptop battery was dead, my iPad was about to be dead, and I put my iPhone in the low-power mode in order to have cell service for the duration. Cuz the iPad was sinking fast, I could not read the book I was in the process of reading. So, I spent a fair amount of time sitting on the made bed-the position from which I made today’s pictures-reading…gasp… real books that were made out of paper and such.

The books were photo books with text-interviews, photo critiques, and photo theory. I came across some interesting quotes. Consider this from Robert Adams, re: the notion of what is art?…

“…Few people will venture now to try to say, even in the broadest terms, what art is, and thus there is no way to set standards for success. If everything a so-called artist makes is art, then, as some wit has observed, pencils don’t need erasers and toilets that don’t need to flush…”

In any event, I am off to New England-near Boston-today for 3 days of hockey. Will be making pictures and posts.

# 6044-45 / landscape (civilized ku)•around the house ~ to illustrate and illuminate

April 18, 2022

“What we hope for from the artist is help in discovering the significance of a place. In this sense we would choose in most respects for thirty minutes with Edward Hopper’s painting Sunday Morning to thirty minutes on the street that was his subject; with Hopper’s vision we see more. “ ~ Robert Adams

I HAVE ALWAYS FOUND IT ANNOYING WHEN I READ A COMMENT that, in one fashion or another, links photography to painting. Re: Robert Adams’ statement - don’t know why he, a photographer, would use a painter’s work to illustrate a point that could be made equally well by using a photographer’s work to make the same point. As an example….

What we hope for from the artist is help in discovering the significance of a place. In this sense we would choose in most respects for thirty minutes with Stephen Shore’s photograph Beverly Boulevard and LaBrea Avenue to thirty minutes on the street that was his subject; with Shore’s vision we see more. - Robert Adams

That written, the point of this entry is not to belabor Adams’ choice of an artist’s work to make his point. Rather my point in this entry is to comment on Adam’s’ point.

Throughout the course of my picture making life, increasingly so as I have aged, is an awareness of the fact that I am very frequently unable to “be fully in the moment” when making a picture. That is, to be more exact , that, when I encounter something that pricks my eye and sensibilities, my reaction is to make a picture as opposed to “being in the moment”, i.e. pausing to contemplate and appreciate that which caught my attention. In most cases, I make a picture and move on.

It is only when I have in hand the result of a picture making moment-a print-that I am able to more fully contemplate and appreciate what it was that pricked my eye and sensibilities in the picture making moment. And, it is worth noting that I can can contemplate and appreciate the depiction / representation-if not the actuality-of what I pictured for an extended period of time over an extended period of time (that is, time and time again).

In other words, I would choose in most respects for thirty minutes with one of my photographs to thirty minutes in the place where I viewed my subject; with the printed manifestation of my vision I see more.

I attribute my manner of delayed contemplation and appreciation to the fact that the medium of photography and its apparatus extract a precise moment in time-described and defined by a precise frame imposed by the picture maker-from the on-going flow of time. That moment is isolated, aka: “frozen”, on the 2D surface of a photographic print where it can contemplated and appreciated for as long as a viewer chooses to view it, without the “distraction” of the flow of time.

FYI, while my contemplation and appreciation of my pictures-and those made by others-are influenced by my appreciation of the form found in a picture, a visual experience, I also appreciate the potential derivation to be had of the feeling of being there. That is, the feeling of pleasure and surprise of discovering subtle beauty in the most simple and unlikely places and things.

# 6041-43 / around the house•kitchen sink ~ the small and the unexpected

April 15, 2022

“If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely that most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.“ ~ John Rosenthal

# 6023-24 / around the house•landscape (ku) ~ OT

April 9, 2022

SOME THINGS ARE HARD TO EXPLAIN. LIKE, SAY, WHO thinks paying $9,295US for a Leica SL2 with 24-70mm f2.8 lens make any sense at all? On the other hand, why do I have 4 bottles of whiskey that together have a retail price of $2,629US?

That written, one of the bourbons, the Van WInkle 12 Year Old, actually has a retail price of $80US. Although, good luck trying to find a bottle at that price cuz, currently, the least expensive bottle I can find is priced at $1,499US. Which, makes it rather amazing that a few years back I acquired 2 bottles for which I paid retail (don’t ask). And, I could have included in the picture my bottle of nearly empty-2 pours left-20 Year Old Van Winkle which has a current price of $4,500. FYI, for which I paid $200US (retail) about 8 years ago cuz I got the bottle as a favor from my US Congressman who got the bottle from a US Congressman from Kentucky.

The other high-priced whiskey in the bunch is the bottle of Bob Dylan’s limited release Bootleg Series II-15 Year Old bourbon finished in Jamaican pot still rum casks. Bottled at cask strength with a proof of 104.6-the white bottle with one of Dylan’s paintings, Sunset, Monument Valley, on it. Current retail, $550-650US. I paid retail but here’s the crazy thing - the Bootleg Series I is sold out but, on the secondary market, it sells for $1,200-1,400US. So, to drink or not to drink? That is the question.

Next in line, descending price wise, is Bob Dylan’s Heaven’s Door 10 Year Old bourbon finished in Redbreast single pot still whiskey casks ( before the casks held Redbreast ‘s single pot Irish whiskey, the casks held Spanish sherry). It’s a limited release bourbon that currently sells for $120-280US.

Last, but not least, is the Takamine 8 Year Old Japanese Whiskey which sells for a modest $100US. The unusual thing about this whiskey is that it does not use the standard mash process-the mixture of grain, water, and yeast that is initially fermented to produce alcohol. Instead, it carefully cultivates koji-Japan’s national mold (used in the making of in sake, soy sauce, and miso)-on barley grain to make amylase enzymes to convert starch into sugar. In layman’s terms, it amplifies fermentation. That written, Takamine is an amazingly good whiskey which can, iMo, hang in there with the big boys.

In any event, the moral of the story is that, with the expenditure of $9,295, you get something that can last a lifetime. On the other hand, $2,629US gets you, if you acquire the whiskey to drink (which I do), the fleeting pleasure of a good drink and a bunch of empty bottles to remind you of that pleasure. Although, an empty bottle of 20 Year Old Van Winkle-with the cork and red velvet pouch-is worth about $300-400US on ebay.

# 6003-05 / around the house ~ casting about

April 5, 2022

ON MY LAST ENTRY THOMAS RINK WROTE A COMMENT IN WHICH he describes a picture making project he is working on. A project that bears a working premise that is somewhat similar to the project I wish to undertake.

“I'm currently pursueing a similar project, for about a year now. It's "about" a place where I've grown up….[T]he photographs are not about particular subject matter….but what I try to achieve is to "tell the story" what the place means to me, i.e. how I see it….[I] employ something like a "scatter gun" approach….I'll photograph anything that arouses my interest…”

Thomas’ picture making approach to his project is pretty close to how I will pursue my project. For that matter, his M.O. mirrors my M.O. in today’s making of the 4 pictures in this entry.

# 5998-6002 / around the house•(civilized) landscape ~ going fishing

April 4, 2022

OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS I HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT I want to explore the possibility of a new way of picture making. Specifically, to create a new, themed body of work that is different from those bodies of work that have emerged from my discursively promiscuous manner of making pictures.

The big question, re: that desire, is, different in what way? Other than the fact that I would like to create pictures that represent something about the place where I live-in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, aka the Adirondack Park-is a new approach about subject matter? technique? a combination of subject matter and technique together? In any case, in thinking about this, I find that I keep bumping with into the walls of the box into which I have locked myself, picture making wise.

Re: the problem with subject matter - simply written, in my pursuit of making pictures, fine-art wise, I have rarely focused on specific referents. That written, my eye and sensibilities have been pricked by repetitive references-my kitchen sink as one example (of many)-but, not because I seek out those specific referents. Rather, what pricks my eye and sensibilities are sections of the real world which evidence potential as photographs which create interesting visual form.

Consequently, I have a problem with pursuing a specific referent cuz of my fear that placing my emphasis on chasing a specific referent will lead to the loss of my feel for seeing and picturing form.

Re: technique - I have no interest in making any kind of pictures other than straight pictures. I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than to add any thing to my pictures that I consider to be effects or cheap tricks. However, that written…the medium of photography and its apparatus does have a handful of native picture making mechanics with which I have always had an interest.

There is one mechanics in particular that I have tinkered with over the years-that of Depth-Of-Field, aka DOF. My “tinkering” has run the gamut of trying to achieve, in some cases, maximum DOF, or, in other cases, minimal DOF. It all depended-and still does-on what i was intending to achieve, picture making wise.

Virtually all of my discursive promiscuity pictures depend upon maximum DOF to elucidate the form I create. I want the lines, shapes, tones, colors, texture, et al in my pictures to be clearly delineated across the 2D plain of my pictures. However, it has come to my attention in experimenting with the iPhone full-frame format-using the Portrait Mode-that a bit of limited DOF can still accomplish my picture making intentions, form wise.

Literal referent wise, I have always liked limited DOF for its ability to lend a bit of “mystery” to a picture. And, I will readily admit, the contrarian in me wise, that I like it even more considering the current picture making obsession with sharpness and definition to the eye-searing max.

In any event, wherever all of this picture making casting about might end up, I think it will include a bit of limited DOF. And, thank you, thank you to the iPhone for giving me the capability of fine tuning the apparent DOF after the picture making fact.

# 5995-97 / around the house (life without color)•kitchen sink ~ therefore I see

April 1, 2022

STILL MESSIN’ AROUND WITH BW CONVERSION ON SOME OF my pictures. Some of which are converting quite well, by which I mean that they “work” as very good (iMo) photographs. That written, as much as I am pleased with the converted results, the idea of making in-camera monochrome pictures, that is, seeing in monochrome, is, for me, a non-starter.

The primary reason for that consideration is the fact that, in the digital darkroom, the control one can access in the color>bw conversion process is quite formitable-excluding cheesy canned “looks”-especially the capability to accentuate / de-centuate individual colors during the conversion. A capability which mirrors the use of making pictures with bw film using color filters to achieve the same effect. The significant analog/digital difference being that, shooting with film, the use of only 1 filter is possible, whereas in the digital darkroom, one can use as many “filters” during the conversion process as one wants on a single image file.

The other significant reason I do not want to learn to see in monochrome is the fact that I see in color. That is, from an art-making POV, I see color as an individual and integral visual component of the form I wish to create on the 2D plain of a print. From a real-world descriptive POV, the world is full of color. Therefore, picture making wise, I see in color.

All of that written, I do enjoy the visual experience of viewing a rich, well made monochrome print. So, I will be converting to monochrome and printing some of my pictures for display on the soon-to-be constructed, free-standing, 2-sided gallery wall (in my house).