#6709-16 / zines ~ paging all photographers

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE LONG PONDERED THE IDEA OF WHY anyone would engage in picture making and not make physical / tactile objects-aka: prints, books, et al-of the results of that pursuit. The absence of such objects, leaves me perplexed, re: what’s the point? The only answer I can come up with is the old adage of “different strokes for different folks”, or, “whatever floats your boat”.

I, of course, am the poster boy for the making of printed photographs in one form or another; the current count of displayed photographs on the walls of my house is 124 (some prints display multiple photographs of my travels “snapshot” work). In addition there are 25 photo books laying around the place. And now, to add to the “clutter”, there is a growing body of zines.

FYI:

The word “zine” is a shortened form of the term fanzine, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Fanzines emerged as early as the 1930s…A zine is most commonly a small circulation publication of original or appropriated texts and images. More broadly, the term encompasses any self-published unique work of minority interest…There are so many types of zines: art and photography zines, literary zines, social and political zines, music zines, perzines (personal zines), travel zines, health zines, food zines. And the list goes on and on. 

My interest in making zines is to: a) create easily made and economically inexpensive updates of my various bodies of work, b) make the zines available for distribution on an e-commerce component of this site, c) thereby getting my work, in printed form, in the hands of those who might be interested in it, and, d)duh, I like looking a prints of my work

My zines are printed by BLURB. BLURB zines are actually labeled as magazines on the site. The quality of their magazines is much better than typical zines-often hand-bound pages made on photocopiers-inasmuch as the paper and printing quality is very good. And, what I find amazing is the very low cost; typically a 20 page zine will cost about $10-12US (+ shipping*).

Re: the paper and printing quality is very good: I can write, without much reservation, that, if making zines on BLURB were to be the only method I could employ to print my work, I would be quite happy to cut pages out the zines and frame them for display on my walls. The print/paper quality is more than good enough for that use. Portfolio use or photo-”perfectionist” viewing, maybe not so much.

BTW, my current photo world fantasy is to create a curated site devoted to showcasing and selling photo zines. The biggest problem to doing that is finding a critical mass of zine-making photographers and, accomplishing that, getting the word out to a sizeable audience.

In any event, why not give it-making a zine-a try?

*BLURB shipping costs are, iMo, a bit high. So what I do, in addition to selecting the cheapest shipping cost, is to order at least 3 copies of a zine and split the shipping cost across the number of books)

# 6705-08 / in situ • common places-things ~ I contain multitudes

all photos (embiggenable)

LIFE IS BACK TO POST-HOLIDAY “NORMAL”. Been busy grinding out more SEEN magazine editions, most recently Issue No. 5, IN SITU. Also updated the IN SITU gallery on the WORK page. From the zine’s Artist Statement :

As I see it the medium of photography and its apparatus has as its primary capability making visible what something looks like when photographed. That characteristic is the impulse that drives my making photographs obsession….

…. Presented herein are photographs culled from my picture making oeuvre organized under the discriptor of in situ, aka: in the original place. They pay homage to the genre of street photography but not all are made on the street. My intent in the making of these photographs was to record, in a pictorially interesting manner, divine and sometimes quirky snippets of the human condition / comedy.

The other thing that has kept me somewhat busy is seeing-now 3 times-the A Complete Unknown movie. Wednesday evening I drove, to and from, a theater in Lake Placid during a moderate snow storm with 2˚F temps and a bitter, biting wind. Some might suggest that that certifies me as a Dylan fan-atic but, truth be told, I am not wrapped up, as so many others are, in the never-ending quest to unravel / decipher / understand the who and what of Bob Dylan.

In order to avoid going completely OT, I’ll bring it back around to photography, re: Paul Strand; who when asked about his work, simply stated that “the answer is on the wall”. Dylan has spent a lifetime of not answer any questions about his work and his private life. Which, in most people’s minds makes him enigmatic. I don’t think of him as enigmatic inasmuch as I believe the answer to Dylan is, simply stated, in the music cuz, after all, he was-and still is-aware that The Times They Are A-Changing, so consequently, he let it be know that (he) I Ain’t Gonna Work On Maggie’s Farm No More, and, he was-and still is-not afraid to tell his fans that It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue (..take what you need You think will last But whatever you wish to keep You better grab it fast). And, of course, if you still can’t figure it out, you might wanna remember that The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind.

What I appreciate / respect about any artist is their authenticity-true to one's own personality, spirit, or character-and an unrelenting commitment to their art. iMo, that’s true of many photographers, musicians, et al. Also iMo, I do not believe that in that regard Dylan has ever changed inasmuch as, no matter the musical “notes” / rhythms he pairs with his lyrics, his lyrics are always amazingly lyrical-think Nobel Prize for Literature.

All of that written, it’s back to photography, specifically, my photography. Like Dylan, I contain, photography wise, multitudes. Consider this from the In Situ Artist Statement:

During my 60 year picture making life, I have adopted no allegiance to any one photographic genre-landscape / nature, still life, people, street, et al. Rather, whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities is impetus for my discursively promiscuous picture making endeavors.

As I am creating multiple SEEN magazines representing many of my separate bodies of work-kitchen sink, in situ, life without the APA, picture windows, art reflects, poles, decay, autumn color / urban + nature, tangles scrub / thicket / trees, single women, all of which reside under the umbrella of discursive promiscuity-that endeavor serves to reinforce my understanding that ordinary life is my source of artistic inspiration, aka: my muse*. And, it should be made obvious that, like Dylan and his work, I refuse to be put in a box, referent wise.

Although, it should be made plain that I am not consciously “refusing” to do anything; rather, simply put, I am being true to myself and my muse, aka: being authentic. What others may think about what I create is of little concern to me** cuz I am doing just what it is I have to do.

*Some common synonyms of muse are meditate, ponder, and ruminate…. all these words mean "to consider or examine attentively or deliberately which describes precisely my picture making M.O.

**but, of course, I do appreciate that others may appreciate my work.

# 6704 / common places • common things • the new snapshot ~ I hate it when my eyes bleed

(emebiggenable)

THERE EXISTS A SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY DILEMMA which stems from 2 ideas a.) that digital is better than analog (aka: film) and that, nevertheless, b.) that there is an interest in film simulation apps. Or, in other words, that you make a photograph using some form of digital capture-cuz it’s better than film?-but would like it to look like it was made with film-i.e., exhibiting the visual characteristics of film-cuz it looks better than digital?.

It would seem that the obvious solution to that somewhat contradictory situation is quite simple; if you want your pictures to look like they were made with film then, duh, make your pictures using film. However, it is not really that simple. Using film is much more expensive in the long run than using digital and it also involves finding a reliable source of high quality film processing-more expense-which, depending upon where one lives, is like finding a needle in a haystack. And, quite frankly, even finding film can be a challenge; that is, if you can want certified “fresh” film-film that has been properly stored and handled before sale. In my commercial film-based hay-day, when I purchased film, it came out of a refrigerator and was then kept in a refrigerator in my studio (film warmed to room temp prior to use).

Truth be told, very few picture makers are willing to enter-or re-enter-the film world. Consequently, app makers have recognized enough of a demand for a film-like appearance that can be applied to digitally produced images. So now you have it, film simulation apps aplenty. Haven’t tried any of those apps and I don’t intend to. However….

….. all of that written, I must admit, I do like my prints to exhibit film-like appearance. Which is not to write that I want my prints to look like they have been made with a specific type of film-aka: Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Kodak color negative film, Fuji film, Agfa film*, et al.

Rather, what I strive for is what might be called an anti-digital look. That is, a “softer” look that is less color saturated, has less acutance (edge contrast), softer highlight / shadow contrast, and a smidge-and-a-half less “sharpness”. I can get that look all by my lonesome all of which produces a print which strongly resembles a C-print made from a color negative. A look that, to my eye and sensibilities, is more gentle on the eye than the prints that exhibit all of the “better” qualities of digital capture.

*true confession, I did love Agfa color negative film.

# 6700-03 / common places-things • picture windows • single women ~ OT New Jersey and some whiskey

all photos (embiggenable)

SPENT THE WEEKEND IN NJ FOR THE WIFE’S family holiday get together. Snuck (aka: sneaked) out with a few family members to see-2nd time for me-A COMPLETE UNKOWN. Both the drive down and back were a Dylan music fest in a car, our car. At times it felt like we were on Highway 61.

Speaking of which, Highway 61 wise, for the Holidays Dylan gifted me a copy of his hand annotated lyrics to Subterranean Homesick Blues. It was wrapped around a bottle of his Heaven Door Homesick Blues Minnesota Wheated Bourbon Whiskey. How nice of him.

FYI, here’s a review typical of his whiskeys:

Okay, so there's something just a teensy bit creepy about naming a booze brand after a Bob Dylan song with a title that's a euphemism for dying (via YouTube). Dylan does own the distillery, though, and presumably drinks the whiskey as well, and he's still knock-knock-knockin' right along in his 80th year. By all accounts, the man is quite the whiskey aficionado, so he's not going to attach his name to any old plonk. While not all celebrity-branded booze lives up to the hype, Heaven's Door Master Blender's Edition seems to be well worth the price. You can still pick up a bottle for around $100, which is not bad at all considering its striking Dylan-designed artwork.

BTW, not all of his whiskeys are $100 but, that written, I do have one (2020 edition) that was $650 off the shelf, now selling for $1,000-2,000+ a bottle. That’s why I have 2 bottles-one to drink, one (it was a gift) to hang on to for later sale as the supply dries up. The 2019 edition is currently selling in the $3,000+ range - iMo, this is a rather bizarre / ridiculous absurdity not unlike, say, buying a “bargain” priced, used Leica M4 for $7,557.29.

For the record, I do not buy whiskey as an investment. I buy it to drink it cuz, ya know, I enjoy it.

FYI, the design on the bottle is of one of his much sought after iron gates; gates he makes in his iron working studio that are put together with scrap metal he gathers while on tour.

# 6594-99 / common places-things • kitchen sink • landscape ~ over the river (lake) and thru the woods

all photos (embiggenable)

Vermont as seen across Lake Champlain (6th largest lake in North America-120 miles long and 13-miles at its widest point)

CROSSED LAKE CHAMPLAIN INTO VERMONT AND went to Middlebury, a quaint college town, to do some Yuletide season shopping. The main street is lined with a number of small, eclectic gift laden shops. 5 miles out of town we drove into a snow storm which created a stereotypical winter wonderland vibe. Throw in a roaring waterfall along side of the main street and a late pub lunch and it was a grand day out; although, no visions of sugar plums dancing in my head were to be had.

In any event, Merry Holidays to all and to all…goodnight (and no, rest assured that I am not saying goodbye, blog wise.)

# 6585-88 / pinhole * common places-things ~ pin perfect

all photos (embiggenable)

WOKE UP THIS MORNING AND DECIDED I NEEDED TO make some new pinhole photographs for my pinhole collection. That meant hauling out the µ4/3 camera and mounting the pinhole “lens” in place of the regular lens. It also meant setting the ISO to 1250>2000 cuz the actual pinhole opening is the equivalent of an f125 aperture. FYI, the effective focal length is 22mm.

Yet another adjustment must be made to regular picturing routines; the camera’s viewing screen is basically a blank black screen making framing essentially a guessing game. That written, I kinda like that aspect of pinhole picture making cuz there is always a surprise or two along the way.

In any event, I would emphatically recommend giving it a try. There are many pinhole “lens” available for most cameras and they are not expensive. And, it is as “loose”-there ain’t a lot to shuffle and fret about-a way to make photographs as there is. Just let go of all the its-gotta-be-”perfect” crap and be open to surprises. You may actually learn a few things and grow as a picture maker.

# 6572-78 / poles • common places • common things ~ sharing the joy of seeing

all photos (embiggenable)

added 4 new photos to my poles body of work (on my WORK page)

ON MY LAST ENTRY, RE: Blurb magazines, Dennis left a comment / question:

“In an earlier post, you commented the Blurb was not your go to book maker. Has that changed? Who is/was your favorite?”

My long term POD photo book source is Shutterfly. It continues to be so for “showcase” photo books of my favored bodies of work cuz they offer-don’t know if any other sources do-6-color printing. Their quality of materials and book binding is very good and, if there is a problem with the results, they reprint without question.

That written, I suspect-with good evidence-that most POD photo book sources use a small number of printing sources. A practice which results in pretty consistent quality across the board. In any event, in many cases, the choice of which source to use for POD photo books comes down to their book making software. Some are quite clunky and non-intuitive. Also worth considering / exploring is the fact that some POD sources offer products-of which Blurb magazines are a good example-that others do not.

Re: book making software: Shutterfly-like most sources-allows creators to make books with their software in a standard browser window. Blurb requires a creator to download their software onto the creator’s computer. That written, in any event, I never use the source’s layout patterns. Instead, I set up my books with blank pages and place my page files-made to the exact page size (to include a white border and any text)-full-bleed, aka: out to the page edges, on each page.

Re: making full-bleed page files: I make my page files in Photoshop. This procedure gives complete control over all of the layout possibilities: photo size, placement, number of photos per page, size / color of border (always white for me), text typeface / size / placement / color and quantity,

All of the above written, let me suggest, yet again, that if ya ain’t making prints, ya ain’t making nothin’. Ok, I get it, some of you might not have enough wall space to do your body of work justice so that’s why the photo gods gave us books. In my case, I currently have 70 POD photo books of my work-all shapes and sizes. That is in addition to the nearly 100 prints I have on my walls. You might conclude that I like displaying and looking at my work.

But here’s the thing I like about books; they’re portable. I can take them anywhere and share them with any one I choose. And, in the case of Blurb magazines, they are so inexpensive that, if someone likes them, I can give them away. That is to write, I am able to put my work in front of other people’s eye’s and, if they desire, into their life, to have and to hold.

#6547-51 / common places • common things • kitchen life ~ please box me in

all photos (embiggenable)

BEEN VERY BUSY LATELY MAKING BLURB MAGAZINES of my various bodies of work, Adirondack Survey, Kitchen Sink, and Discursive Promiscuity to be exact- the discursive promiscuity one can be seen in the above photo. I made the discursive magazine-named LOOK magazine which has now been changed to SEEN magazine-on a bit of a whim; just to see the quality (paper and reproduction). To be frank, I was impressed especially so considering that the price for a 28 page Premium magazine -8.5"x11", 80# matte pages / 80# semi-gloss cover magazine-is $8.60USD + $4.99USD for a hi-res Pdf of the magazine.

FYI, the reproduction was excellent and the paper is very close to the finish and feel of the substrate I use to print my photographs. In fact, I could cut pages out of the magazine, frame them and put them on my wall(s) and I would be very content to present them as excellent examples of my work. This result has my head spinning inasmuch as I feel like I have entered a crazy world where a quality 8.5"x11" photo print costs $0.33/print. That’s truly a crazy world cuz I can not make a 8.5"x11" print on my printer for that price.

All that written, what has kept me busy for the last week or so is creating magazines for 8-10 bodies of my work. The idea of having 10 magazines representing a lot of my work in a single slip case is just flat out very seductive.