# 6259-61 / common places • common things ~ on shooting up the place

September 28, 2022

THE TOPIC OF “WORKING THE SCENE” HAS COME UP ON TOP. My immediate inclination is to call BS. That’s cuz the idea of working a scene brings to (my) mind the notion of aimlessly firing a machine gun at a target in the hope that one of those bullets will hit the bullseye. Whereas I believe the best way to hit the bullseye is carefully considered aim, the bullseye firmly fixed in one’s sighting device, and a relaxed squeeze of the trigger.

OK. I apologize. Those last 2 sentences are a bit heavy on the metaphor scale but I think that, most likely, you get my point.

That written, I am not declaring BS on the idea of working the scene inasmuch as a little bit-a very little bit-of working the scene can be useful every now and then. FYI, by a very little bit of working the scene I mean a matter of inches as opposed to firing off shots while break-dancing around a scene. I can write, without reservation, that I have never utilized the making of pictures as part of my calisthenics routine.

All 3 of the pictures in this entry were made over the last 24 hours with but a single pull of the trigger (sorry, yet another metaphor). One shot wonders, all. That written, I did employ my idea of working the scene inasmuch as, before I pulled the trigger (sorry), I did move the camera (sorry, the iPhone) a little bit-inches-while viewing the scene on the iPhone screen in order to get the framing and placement of visual elements where I wanted in order to manage a direct hit on the bullseye with just 1 shot (sorry, sorry, sorry).

The reason that this picture making process works for me, most of time, is that I see with soft eyes which, when a referent pricks my eye and sensibilities, I am able to identify, in my peripheral vision (no eye movement), surrounding visual elements and subsequently (and quickly) recognize how I might use them to create an interesting visual form, the true “subject” that I am always trying to create. Consequently, I am able to get right to the “right” POV with very little wasted effort, cuz I am ”just” photographing what I see.

And, FYI, writing of picture making calisthenics, if I were to be using a tripod-which I no longer do-it would need only 2 head-height positions. 1 set to my standing eye level and the other to my sitting eye level. That’s cuz 99 of 100-or some very close number-pictures I make are made from my eye level. In the case of tripod use, the head might be tilted up or down to one degree or another but, cuz I photograph what I see and, literally, how I saw what I see, it’s all a eye level POV for me.

In any event, re: working the scene, my manner of working a scene works for me. It may not work for many others. Although, it is most likely how those who work with a view camera work. That written, I probably average 2 pulls of the trigger per picture. I do some exposure bracketing and, every once and a while, I move the iPhone an inch or so in order to get an ever so slightly different POV. That’s cuz I wanna be sure I hit the bullseye (sorry).

# 6246-55 / landscape • rist camp • common places • common things ~ hit rate much higher than zero

September 22, 2022

HIT RATE ZERO, OR SO MICHAEL JOHNSTON TITLED AN ENTRY, wherein he explained / lamented his failure-“I was cold and really didn’t get anything”-to harvest a few situations (aka: picture making opportunities?). After reading Johnston’s entry in its entirety, I was not surprised, for a number of reasons, that he came home with a “hit rate zero”.

item 1 - “…the magic can't happen unless you're out there with the camera” I believe that the idea of looking / waiting for“magic” to rear its head in the making of pictures is a rather bogus pursuit. That’s cuz I believe that if a picture maker has figured out / recognized in a conscious manner how he/she sees the world-literally and figuratively (in a style representing forms that are recognizably derived from life)-the so called (and, iMo, mis-labeled) picture making ”magic” can happen at any time, any where, for any referent.

item 2 - “…any time, any where, for any referent” (my words). The worst possible intent a picture maker can harbor is going out in pursuit of making a “greatest hit” pictures. I mention this in light of the fact of Johnston’s utterly, totally, completely ridiculous / nonsensical / statement that a “…picture works entirely or it doesn't work at all. Everything's a no that isn't a yes.”

iMo, that statement is one of the most destructive-to a picture maker’s “confidence-opinion I have ever heard/ read cuz, over a life time of viewing exhibitions / monographs of “big-name” picture makers’ work, it can be stated / written that not every picture in a given body of work is a “greatest hit” (whatever the hell that is). However, all of the pictures-some more so, some less so-are all working together in a given body of work to reinforce the visual idea the picture maker is striving to create. Think of it as a visual example of strength in numbers.

item 2A - I believe that going out to create pictures of a specific referent (people, places, things) causes most picture makers to miss all the picture making possibilities that surround them. That is, those possibilities that do not conform to what they are pursuing. Case in point, my picture making MO…

I rarely go out with the intention of making pictures. That written, I rarely go out without making pictures. That’s cuz I do not encumber my picture making activities with the inconvenience of carrying a “real” camera. Rather, I always have my picture making device-the iPhone-on my person so that when something-a people, a place, a thing-pricks my eye and sensibilities, I always have the means to make a picture.

The result of that MO is that I have a ginormous library / collection-some might say a grabasstic cluster f**k-of pictures of all kinds of referents-people, places, things. From this seemingly haphazard, random collection there has emerged-I might add, somewhat organically-a number of thematically coherent bodies of work. Bodies of work that I add to, over time, by the mere fact that I continue to make pictures of what I see as opposed to what I have been told-or even tell myself-what is a good picture.

So, the moral of this story is simple. Forget about making the”perfect” picture and realize that some “less-than-perfect”-aka: nearly perfect-pictures are perfectly suited for inclusion in a body of work. And, that bodies of work are what matters most. Plus, if you must concentrate a specific referent / theme in the act of creating a body of work, when you go out to make pictures, take off the blinders that obfuscate the joy of photography. That is, the simple act of just making pictures of any peoples, any places, and any things.

FYI, included in this entry are handfull of some the pictures I made over the past few days. Discursive promiscuity in action.

# 6243-45 / common places • common things • rist camp ~ defamiliarization and disorientation

September 17, 2022

“…By unhinging our customary perceptions of the world, the visual artist forces viewers to experience what has become habitual with renewed attention.” ~ Daniell Cornell

“Photography is a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing. The contest can be held anywhere.” ~ John Szarkowski

THE ABOVE EXCERPT WAS LIFTED FROM AN ESSAY which was written to accompany the 1999 Yale University Art Gallery exhibition, Alfred Stieglitz and the Equivalent, Reinventing the Nature of Photography. In the essay the author, Daniell Cornell, introduced an early-tewentieth-century linguistic theory in which a Russian university professor proposed that the function of poetic language was…

“…not to reflect reality but to make it strange…Russian Formalists called the disorientation created by such an estrangement from one’s usual perceptions defamiliarization, identifying it as the central characteristic shared by all artistic representations.”

While I have never spent much time over-thinking the idea of defamiliarization-or, to be honest, ever recognizing it as such-I can certainly write that one of the most common and oft-heard comments, re: my pictures, which i really appreciate is, “I don’t know why I like these pictures but, I do like them.” It now seems obvious, to me, that comment-or a variation thereof-is the result of my picturing making act of employing the concept of defamiliarization. That is, making pictures of referents which are not perceived as subjects for the making of what the great unwashed masses of the picture making world think is a suitable referent.

Most of those viewers of my pictures, when they realize that they like a picture(s), seem to become disoriented, aka: “I don’t know why it like it.” Of course, what they most often fail to realize* is that their liking is not incited by what is depicted but rather by the visual impression, the form, created by how it is depicted-my version of unhinging of customary perceptions of the world-aka: my vision thing…the vision thing which, seemingly, is the by-product of how I see.

*“My aim is increasingly to make my photographs look so much like photographs that unless one has eyes and sees, they won’t be seen.” ~ Alfred Stieglitz

# 6238-40 / landscape • common places ~ b + w + some gray stuff in between

September 8, 2022

…”flat, leaden skies, intermittent rain. Damp and dark. And dull.” ~ Mike Johnston

IMO, IF YOU ARE GONNA DO MONOCHROME, you must embrace the world in all its weather glory cuz, to paraphrase Paul Simon, all the world's not a sunny day, oh yeah. And I might add, iMo, if you can’t make a rainy, cloudy day look like more than dull, maybe monochrome ain’t your calling.

Then again, I am not a monochrome guy, so what the hell do I know about it?

FYI, BW conversion in Photoshop / LAB Color Space.

# 6232-37 / commonplaces • landscape • rist camp ~ (pre) chimping

September 7, 2022

“CHIMPING”, aka: a colloquial term used in digital photography to describe the habit of checking every photo on the camera display (LCD) immediately after capture, is very often used as pejorative in the picture making world. A variety of reasons have been offered as to why chimping is considered to be a bad thing but, whatever the case may be, I bring the word to your attention to lead you to the fact that I consider myself to be, in my picture making manner, a practioner of pre-chimping. I.E., using an LCD screen to see how picture will look before making the picture.

However, it should be noted that I have been pre-chimping for decades, long before the advent of digital cameras with LCD screens. That chimping was performed-in my commercial picture making days-with the use of Polariod film in a variety of Polaroid film backs-different backs for different film camera formats (I even had a Polaroid back for my 35mm Nikon cameras). That chimping was done for the edification of clients-art directors, designers, and the like-in order for them to see and approve how the final picture would look.

Of course, I didn’t need no stinkin’ Polaroid prints to know how the finished picture would look cuz, for a significant majority of my commercial work, I used cameras-view cameras and medium format cameras-that had large-ish viewing screens, most often called ground glass and/or focusing screens. Whatever you choose to call them, the point is I was not looking through a viewfinder.

What I was looking at was an image on a flat “screen” which presented that image in a manner similar to how it would appear on the flat surface of a finished print. That is to write, more 2d-like. Therefore, a much better manner in which to see form-the visual characteristic I seek to create / capture in my pictures.

All of the above written, you could (and probably should) assume that I was never preoccupied with the development of the digital camera EVF. Even with those digital cameras I own that have an EVF, I always make pictures with the use of the LCD screen, the only exception being picture making situations which feature fast action. I am not at all bothered by the perception of some, especially “serious” amateur picture makers, that I appear to be, when holding a camera out in front of my face, a lame / clueless snapshooter. Or, much less how, on the other hand, I am perceived when holding my Phone in front of my face while making pictures.

Needless to write, one of the reasons I really enjoy using the iPhone is that very nice viewing screen where upon form hits my eye like a big pizza pie. My only wish is that Apple would put all of their iPhone picture making goodness into the iPad cuz using an iPad screen for picture making would take me straight back to my 8x10 view camera days. Plus, I would no longer look like a clueless / lame , sappy snapshooter cuz I would mount the iPad on a tripod and use / hide under a view camera darkcloth to make my pictures. So instead, I would be perceived as the big-time, hot-shot picture maker that I really am.

# 6228-31 / landscape (ku) • common places ~ the crux of the matter

September 3, 2022

HAD TO LEAVE RIST CAMP FOR A FAMILY 3-day wedding event in Vermont. Not my favorite thing to do but family duty calls. In any event, a comment or 2 (or more), re: M. Johnston’s recent post about his methodology for making a body of work.

Johnston’s method broken down to its bare bones requires a year of daily picture making (of a defined idea) to create 400-1500 keepers which, after serious editing, will produce “40–60 pictures that work together in sequence and express my take on my idea.” This method stands in rather stark contrast to my current methodology…

ASIDE it should be noted that my methodology is entirely dependent upon the fact that a picture maker intent upon making a coherent body of work has a firm understanding regarding how he/she sees the world. An understanding which results in a subsequent picture making vision which directs-in fact, mandates-the manner in which he/she makes pictures. That’s cuz-in the Fine Art world, Photograph Division-rare is the picture maker whose entire life-long body of work is not created with a single, finely focused picture making vision. END OF ASIDE

….just earlier this week, “equipped” with my long-standing picture making vision-walking along a plank, dock-like walkway through a very small bog / swamp-within the span of approximately 30-45 minutes I made (iMo) 20 gallery exhibition quality (especially so in my neck of the-literally-woods), intimate landscape “keepers” (one of which is in this entry-more to come when I get back to Rist and some “serious” image processing) which would-and will-make a very nice photo book.

Lest this read like bragging about my super-human picture making abilities, my point this…the most demanding requirement for making a body of work is the time and effort it takes to realize one’s picture making vision. In some cases, that might take years. That’s cuz, iMo and iMe(xperince), a picture making vision can not be manufactured (do not confuse vision with a “creative” technique). Rather, it must flow from within, i.e. one’s nativism-the philosophical theory that some ideas are innate. And, recognizing one’s “native” vision often requires a substantial amount of introspective time, effort and picture making.

To be certain, I am not suggesting that, even after “finding” one’s vision, the making of a coherent body of work is as easy as falling off a log (say, after drinking a pint of high-proof bourbon). There could be many reason’s for extending the time and effort it might require to refine what it is that one is trying to convey. I, for one, will be returning to the aforementioned bog / swamp within the next week to have another look at it. An “effort” that will most likely result in the making of a few more “keepers”.

FYI, there will more to come on the idea of why I believe 20 pictures-no matter the total number of keepers I might have in a body of work-is the upper limit I would ever have in an exhibition or a photo book.

# 6227 / rist camp • common places • landscape ~ looking around the place

August 30, 2022

***made from my Adirondack chair on the Rist Camp porch*** ~ (embiggenable)

“Your own photography is never enough. Every photographer who has lasted has depended on other peoples pictures too – photographs that may be public or private, serious or funny but that carry with them a reminder of community.” ~ Robert Adams

WITHOUT A DOUBT, I CAN WRITE THAT MY own photography is never enough. Evidence of such is the amount of time spent, almost daily, wandering about the interweb looking for / at good pictures. That time is augmented by visits to galleries in order to view photographs. And, time spent viewing photographer monograph books should be thrown into the time-eater machine as well.

I spent all of that time viewing photographs simply cuz of the pleasure I get from doing so. That pleasure, for me, comes in 2 forms: 1) call it inspiration inasmuch as the shear diversity of POVs-how other picture makers see the world-encountered inspire me to keep on making pictures in the manner of how I see the world, and, 2) although I never thought of it this way, it is Adams’ idea of “reminder of community”.

I am not certain if Adams’ idea of “community” is photographer community based or humanity community based, Or, quite possibly, both. However one chooses to understand it, for purposes of this entry I am going with photographer-based community…

In my quest for finding and viewing good photographs, I find the the interweb is a very messy place. Doing searches based on the words “photography / photographs” most often yields up a lot chaff and precious little wheat. Instagram used to be useful but no much anymore. If you are into “groups”-usually very specific types of photography-flickr might be a good thing-but not so much for me.

In any event, let me suggest a method for getting right to the nub of viewing some damn good photographs…

Over the years, I have been submitting photographs to Photo Place Gallery themed juried exhibitions (with, I might add, a great deal of acceptance success). The themed exhibitions request for submissions are issued on a monthly basis and subsequent exhibitions are also presented on a monthly basis. Those photos which are accepted are exhibited online and on the walls of the gallery-in Middlebury, VT. And, get this, for a very nominal fee, the gallery will print and frame your photo for the exhibition. FYI, you can request the print (not the frame) after the exhibition comes down.

That written, I mention Photo Place Gallery for 2 reasons: 1) if you are at times running out of reasons to make pictures, it might be helpful to use Photo Place Gallery’s monthly themes as an exercise to get out there and make pictures, even if you do not submit the pictures for exhibition consideration. When the themed exhibition appears online, you can then see how other picture makers approached the subject, and, 2) re: the point of this entry, the online exhibitions have links to the accepted pictures maker’s websites.

Cuz the quality of the accepted photographs-30 for the gallery / online exhibition + 30 more for an additional online exhibition (selected from several thousands of submissions)-is very high*, using this website as a portal for the viewing, on the accepted photographer’s sites, of some very fine bodies of work is a no-brainer.

The number of viewing possibilities is, quite frankly, overwhelming. I think it possible that one could spend the better part of a year-with time out for coffee and a few naps-exploring the wealth of offerings.

*FYI, the jurist’s for the exhibitions, a different, single jurist for each, are nationally and internationally known photographers, gallery directors, or teachers. Hence the very high quality of the accepted photographs.

6222-26 / common places-things • kitchen sink • rist camp ~ deception

August 28, 2022

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” ~ Robert Adams

This Robert Adams quote has always held my attention inasmuch as it kinda, sorta skirts around the edges of my picture making intentions. My eye and sensibilities are unquestionably pricked by the commonplace and the avoidance of the grand geste (picture making wise) but, I can not write that I fully embrace the idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

To put a finer point on that idea, iMo, there is not a lot in the commonplace world that is visually beautiful in and of itself. However, within the domain of picture making, much of the commonplace world contains visual fodder for the making of beautiful things, “things” being photographic prints which give to evidence to finely seen and pictured form.

That written, while there are some who can see an actual blade of grass and perceive / feel / experience the every-thing-is-connected beauty underlying the universe, it is probable that they might not experience the same thing while gazing at a rather mundane picture of that same blade of grass.

By the same token, I also believe that many viewers, looking at a picture of that same blade of grass which-in its totality across its visual plane-evidences a depiction of a finely seen sense of form, might be incited to exclaim, “That is beautiful.” However, is the viewer remarking on the blade of grass itself or the depiction thereof? I wonder cuz, without a doubt, the blade of grass and the depiction of it are most definitely not the same “thing.”

All of that written, I am still faced with the is-beauty-commonplace question. And, the best answer I have been able to come up with is that, no, within the context of the real world, beauty is not commonplace. However, within the context of picture making, the commonplace is rife possibilities for coaxing beauty from the seeming rubble of the mundane.