# 6210-13 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ qoutidian ubiquity

August 19, 2022

FORTUNATELY, RE; MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, IT SEEMS that no matter where I go are there is always a kitchen sink and kitchen garbage.

On a different topic, I have been avoiding getting caught up in the monochrome sensor GAS” discussion”. That’s primarily cuz I do not think that my thoughts on the matter would be all that well considered.

First and foremost, I admit to not being much of a BW-oops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making guy. That’s cuz, for the most part, I believe that BW picture making is a curse on the medium and its apparatus.

Think of it this way…with the exception of cave dwellers, virtually all painting was created using color...ASIDE Sure, sure. With the advent of the printing press, illustrations were presented with the use of just black ink, BUT, even then some illustrators were given to hand coloring the printed illustrations. And, BTW, for the purpose this discussion, etchings and woodcuts are not paintings. END OF ASIDE…So when color dyes / paint became available, painters took to it like ducks to water. Without too much assumption, one could surmise that they adopted color materials cuz they were exceedingly more expressive and representative of the real world. And, fortuitously, they were never burdened by the need to break out of or revert to a BW painting legacy.

The medium of photography and its apparatus were born and wedded to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures and continued to be so bound until the 1936 introduction of Kodachrome film. ASIDE Sure, sure. Prior to 1936, there were a number attempts to create the means for making color photographs but they came and went in fairly short order. END OF ASIDE However, even with the advent of commercially available color film, “serious” photographers remained committed to using BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-film and, of course, making BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-prints.

Re: the curse - that BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-legacy has attached itself to the medium and its apparatus like fleas on a mangy dog. Consequently, those picture makers who cling to it today, in a manner similar to a deeply held religious belief, are given to uttering, in defense of their precious process, such ludicrous nonsense as it is easier to see and capture form or a person’s inner essence without the “distraction” of color. Nonsense.

ASIDE To be certain, if BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making is your thing, have at it unto your heart’s content. While, I appreciate much of the classic BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-work of the picture making masters, I just do not see the need for it any more. END OF ASIDE

Re: my second thought on BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making…the current practitioners of that genre seem to be hung up on the idea the only good BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures are those made the analog way, aka: using film or some digital facsimile thereof. In their quest for such a facsimile, they have landed on the idea of monochrome sensors as if those sensors create are more “pure” BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-files than converting a color image file to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome.

That notion is something that I can not wrap my head around inasmuch as, in the digital color>BW conversion domain, there is such a variety of conversion techniques / options that the picture maker has the capability to create any “look” imaginable for his/her pictures. Apparently, the current crop of BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures makers do not like the digital conversion process cuz-here’s the curse again-that’s not the way it was always done.

And, please stop already with the ridiculously absurd idea that “seeing” in BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-is easier / better when the image on the camera screen / viewfinder is BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome. That’s akin to saying Evans, Adams (both), Weston, Frank, and all the others who came before the advent of a digital BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome sensor would have somehow had an easier time of making pictures-perhaps even “better” pictures-if only they had a Leica Q2 Monochrom (or whatever the current fan boy monochrome-there, I got it right-sensor camera may be)? Once again, nonsense.

PS the BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture in this entry was converted from a color image file by first converting it to LAB Color Space then isolating the Lightness Channel by discarding the A and B Channels. At that point, I convert the file to RGB Color Space and then make minor adjustments, global and local, to taste using the Curves tool in PS.

#6207-09 / commonplaces • nocturnal ~ night prowler

August 18, 2022

THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLES OF CLICHED / BAD ADVICE FOR the making of pictures than one can shake a stick at. iMo, the leading candidate for bad advice, re: the making of pictures which might be considered as Art, is the oft heard / read idea that one should make pictures of some thing about which one cares or is interested in. A bit of advice which, on its face, makes a certain amount of sense. That is, except for the fact that the idea of ”thing” is almost always understood literally, aka: as an actual person, place, or thing.

Consequently, the bulk of “serious” amateurs head out and make pictures that I would label as quite literal. Straight forward, descriptive pictures which are focused on actual people, places, or things. The result of which is a zillion or more very nicely composed, technically competent, markedly look-alike Decorative Art pictures.

And, the inevitable result of that glut of samo-samo pictures is the oft heard complaint, “every thing that can be pictured has already been pictured”. That angst leads to the pursuit of making pictures of the same old subjects / things but with special “effects”. All in an effort to make pictures that are “different” or more “artistic”. Which, iMo, is taking a bad idea and making it even worse.

In any event, my idea-in the cause of contravening the preceding bad advice-is to interpret the notion of “thing” as a mental concept or abstract idea as opposed to an actual physical thing, aka: person, place, or thing. As an example…

…the pictures in this entry. The literal-ists in the crowd might perceive that I made pictures of a white house, a shed, and a side door when, in fact, while those “things” are depicted in these pictures, the “thing” I was picturing was the concept of “night”.

While the concept of night is not overtly intellectually complex, it is, for some (including myself), emotionally compelling / complex. Although some might consider this concept to be somewhat simple-minded, my point is that a concept does not have to be mind-bending or a trip down the rabbit hole.

The important thing is to get away from the mindset that making pictures is all about the literally depicted referent cuz it is at that point that a picture can truly be about more than what meets the eye.

# 6200-02 / common places • common things ~ stupid is as stupid does

August 13, 2022

***it’s raining outside*** ~ (embiggenable)

ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERWEB, IT HAS BE POSTULATED, AS AN answer to the question of “…why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography here on the blog instead of going over lots of gear and technical work…”, that:

“…a viewer using a phone or small iPad to view will see none of the technical "features" that might make the image worth looking at.”

“…when we do try to talk about the work we end up with so many different avenues for viewing, each of which is a diminished and poor replica of the original, that it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.”

At first blush, I would tend to suggest, first and foremost, that the author of the blog in question does not talk about the art of photography cuz that author has a very dim understanding of what it is that constitutes photography as Art. Consequently, the author would be best served by sticking to what he knows, aka: gear. My opinion is offered in light of the fact-one of many-of the author’s suggestion that “technical features” might make an image worth looking at (don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that cringe-worthy idiocy) - a statement in full-blown support of why Bruce Davidson is “not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore…”

Re: with so many different avenues for viewing… it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.” when trying to writing about on a blog. BS. While the author’s point, re: the diminished image quality-for any number of reasons-of images on the interweb, is true enough, unless a device’s viewing parameters are highly compromised, I believe that there is more than enough visual information in most cases to make a reasonable assessment of a picture’s aesthetic / ”artistic” worth. Enough, so that, you know, you can determine whether or not a picture is “worth looking at”.

I would even go far as to suggest that, under ideal screen viewing conditions-there is a long list of items under the concept of “ideal”-one could even undertake a critical, informed review of a picture.

Is viewing an image on the interweb-under ideal conditions-the same as viewing that image as a print? Short answer, “No.” Slightly longer answer, a qualified “Yes.” inasmuch as most of the visual qualities which distinguish a photograph as Art, especially the idea of form, are easily perceivable on even a less than ideal viewing screen. And, an on-screen viewing of a good photograph can stir virtually all of the feeling, emotion, and thought that a print of the same image can incite.

iMo and experience, I can write that, in the Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are very few who are interested in the technical features of a photograph. That’s cuz they know and have viewed countless number of photographs which display very little in the way of technical features but which, nevertheless, are some of the greatest photographs ever made.

# 6195-97 / kichen life • common places ~ what you see ain't always what you get

August 5, 2022

left, AFTER / right, BEFORE ~ (embiggenable)

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE iPHONE CAMERA MODULE IS not perfect. While it does, in fact, produce files that require only minor adjustments-primarily bright sunny day pictures. Where it “fails” to get it almost right are those picture making situations that have; a. low contrast, and, b. night / very low light scenes. In those situations the computational bits seem to be programed to deliver a full-range (nearly pure black > nearly pure white) file. That is, a file that does not match what the eye sees in situ.

In some cases, a simple adjustment with a BRIGHTNESS slider gets you very close to where you want to go. In other cases, a more nuanced use of the CURVES tool is called for. In either case, the fact that you are working with a fairly rich file-no, not RAW rich but way more than adequate-gives one lots of room with which to work. Neither fix requires an advance degree in Rocket Science or software engineering.

FYI, I am going to try a few experiments with making pictures with the Scene Detection and Smart HDR disabled to determine the difference, if any (I assume there will be), that those setting create.

PS all of my file processing is performed with the intent of accurately reproducing, as much the medium and my memory allow, what my eyes perceived, in situ, at the moment of making a picture.

# 6191-94 / narrow depth of field ~ is it now an effect?

August 3, 2022

*from my* ***single women*** *series* ~ µ4/3 camera / 20mm (40e) / @ f1.7 (embiggenable)

***iPhone*** ~ Portrait setting (embiggenable)

BACK IN THE OLDEN DAYS OF PICTURE MAKING, aka: pre-digital, picture makers came by narrow depth-of-field “honestly” - camera+”fast” lens+shoot wide open = narrow depth-of-field. This technique was applied to many uses such as portraiture or drawing attention to a featured referent in a picture. But, in any case, it was derived from an intrinsic characteristic of the medium’s equipment.

In today’s digital picture making realm, narrow DOF is harder to come by given the typical smaller than so-called full-frame sensors + the laws / science of optics and image magnification (which I won’t get into here). For many picture makers who desire max DOF in their picture making , this a bonus.

As an example, in my picture making, wherein I am seeking out aesthetic form, I want every line, shape, texture, space, color, value, et al to be rendered with clarity and definition. That’s cuz every visual element with my imposed frame is an integral part of the aesthetic form I picture and hope to make perceivable to the viewers of my pictures.

For those who like narrow DOF, the options for obtaining it are limited and usually very expensive. Like, have you priced a (so-called) full-frame digital camera with a “fast “ high quality lens? While I like narrow DOF in some of my picture making, the expense versus small need-actually, it’s more like desire-does not justify the expensive. So….

….when the desire for narrow DOF strikes-I turn to my iPhone 13 Pro Max and its Portrait setting / feature. And, in case you haven/t noticed, over the past few months I have been using that setting-and,surprise for me, within a full-frame-much more than I ever imagined that I would. That’s cuz, best as I can tell at this point, I have been seduced by what my eye and sensibilities perceive as the soft, emotional warmth of pictures made with some significant degree of limited DOF. Which, again to my eye and sensibilities, stands in contrast to the hard, analytical, detached coolness of those pictures made with sharp definition and clarity from edge to edge.

ASIDE No. the iPhone Portrait setting does not accurately replicate the effect of the the old-timey film camera+fast lens combination. Yes. It can get confused, re: what to soften versus what to keep sharp, by small details. But, with some processing “corrections”, it does what I want it to do for my apparent narrow DOF picture making purposes. END OF ASIDE

All of the above written, I am ever so slightly conflicted with use of the iPhone Portrait setting. For the first time in my picture making life, I am using a filter to achieve a look / effect. OK, it'‘s not a filter. It is actually computational photography, Nevertheless, I can not help but feel that I am “cheating”, re: my sacred straight photography vow. Although, when picturing scenes / referents which are static, I do pre-select the aperture setting which creates the DOF look I am after and, 9 times out of 10, I print the file from that selection.

So, RATIONALIZATION ALERT, it’s kinda like straight photography, right?

# 6185-90 / the new snapshot • commonplaces ~ my precious stand-in

August 1, 2022

***this weekend past*** ~ (embiggenable)

“…it rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.” ~ Jean Shepherd

OVER THE YEARS, THE WIFE HAS PLAYED, DURING OUR TRAVELS, HER ROLE in my pictures, ala Jean Shepherd’s “loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens.”, with the patience of a saint. And, this weekend past was no different.

Our travel this weekend past, a 260 mile (total) out-and-back run to the central Adirondacks in order to purchase a dozen of the planet’s best cinnamon sugar donuts, started with our first ever gas up at our hamlet’s rebuilt-from-scratch convenience store / gas station. After securing the donuts, we stopped for an early afternoon breakfast in the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake where we dined in a recently restored 1946 era diner that was moved-after its restoration-from Maryland to the Adirondacks.

I have been making travel pictures with the wife as a stand-in for quite some time. I began making them as a somewhat casual, satirical take on the classic tourist picture as described by Jean Shepherd. I continue to do so with the same intent but, as my collection of these pictures grow, I am now approaching the making of such pictures as a “serious” endeavor with the idea of creating a “serious”, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheeky, body of work.

My only regret about this undertaking is that it was not until quite recently that I started to this picture making seriously. Consequently, I am kicking myself in the butt-not easy to do at my age-for all of the stand-in picture making opportunities I have passed up over the years.

# 6175-77 / common places • common things ~ Gutenberg would say, "Print it!"

July 28, 2022

IF IT IS TRUE, ANOTHER I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THING, re: picture making, is the notion that the making of photo prints is on the wain. I find it difficult to believe that “serious” amateur picture makers do not make prints. Why would anyone tote around a “serious” camera with which to make pictures and then not make prints?

In my case, I have 121 photo prints on the walls of my house. Add to that number 30+ photo books-let’s say an average of 20 pictures/book-sitting around the place and, it is safe to write, that I am not numbered amongst the do-not-make-prints crowd.

One way of looking at it (that’s sort of a pun), is that, in effect, I have approximately 800-900 printed pictures ready to go, posterity wise. And, since the work has been printed-in one form or another-over the past few decades, it was, and continues to be, a relatively painless endeavor.

Posterity wise, the most valuable printed pieces are the 12-picture, hard-bound, lay-flat pages, year-in-review calendar photo books that I make every year-for the past decade-as an Xmas present for the wife. The calendars are a collection of pictures of significant events, travels, and the like.

All of the above written, what is the point of picture making if you do not make prints?

#6171-74 / common places • common things ~ soft eyes

July 25, 2022

MY FEELINGS, RE: STICKING YOUR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG when viewing a photographic print, are well know. ASIDE For those who might not know it, in my fantasy world, all of my photo exhibitions would have crowd-control barriers-stanchion + velvet rope-along the walls where my prints are displayed. The distance of the velvet rope barrier from the wall would be determined by the size of the prints. And, of course, anyone leaning over the rope would receive an invisible ray electric shock. END OF ASIDE

That written, some might wonder why I hold such a strict viewing standard. The answer to that wondering is quite simple, having to do with, iMo, the very important idea-for both picture viewing and picture making-of soft eyes.

ANOTHER ASIDE Soft eyes, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to the art of seeing with the simultaneous, effortless combination of foveal vision-laser like focus on specific detail (a “hard” stare)-and peripheral vision-the taking in of the widest possible span and trying to catch all that is on the edges of this span (eye muscles stay relaxed) FYI, it is believed that peripheral vision is an acquired muscle-memory skill*. END OF ASIDE

So, why do I believe that soft eyes are a very important skill in the making and viewing of photographic prints? Consider this: the making of a photograph is considered to be the “art” of selecting. That is, noticing a piece of the world and isolating it via the imposition of a frame, aka: the edges of a photograph. The astute picture maker makes a decision of what include / exclude in the picture by means of that framing. And, it is the result of this decision which is creates the form-some might call it the design or composition-as perceived in the final print.

It should be needless to write, that the aware picture maker will include in his/her framing only those visual elements-actual things, shapes, lines, tones, colors, et al-that he/she believes (sometimes senses) are important to expressing what what and how they see, aka: their vision. In other words, every visual element within the frame of a picture is an integral component of the total visual statement. You can not have one without the other(s).

iMo, the only manner in which a picture maker can pull off this visual”miracle” (making something out of nothing), is with the art of seeing the world with soft eyes. And, if a viewer of such pictures desires to experience the totality of a picture makers’ vision then he/she must view a print in its totality with the use of soft eyes. And the only way that is possible is to view a print from a distance from which the eye can take in the whole image. Essentially, that means placing your foveal vision on the center of the image and letting your peripheral vision take in the rest.

And, I can write without a single, solitary shred of a doubt, that a viewer can not see the totality of a photograph with his/her nose where it don’t belong.

* when BIll Bradley, one of basketball’s all-time greats, was a young boy he walked down the main street of of his hometown and kept his eyes focused straight ahead and tried to identify objects in the windows of stores he was passing.