kitchen life # 40 / infared-ish # 15-17 ~ baloney

egg and jam remains ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

foliage ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

beach dudes ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

fallen blossoms ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

While indulging in the debunking of an oft heard quote-"The best camera is the one you have with you."-Mike Johnston highlighted a reader's comment which read (in part)

"Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything." I like that line. B&W cuts to the essence of a subject ...

iMo, Johnston should have debunked the reader's comment while he was in a debunking frame of mind. Of course, Johnston has an oft stated preference for BW pictures, both the making and viewing thereof, so he might be hard pressed not to second that idea.

On the other hand I have no such preference so I have no difficulty at all in writing that I believe the idea of BW's supposed superiority over color in getting "to the essence of a subject" is utter nonsense. Now I certainly think I could write quite a long essay regarding why I believe the aforementioned idea is a load of self-serving crappola, but I won't. Instead let me proffer just one particular point.

BW picture making as the pinnacle of picture making is a concept which has come and gone. Prior to the advent of modern-era color film, making pictures with color film was an iffy proposition inasmuch as the early color films were less than perfect. The colors produced were not very accurate-some greatly exagerated other non existent-relative to real world colors and extended exposure latitude was the stuff of dreams.

As a result, "serious" picture makers worked within the confines of the BW picture making genre. Results could be tailor made - film contrast / tonal / grain control with the use of various developers and an veritable cornucopia of paper choices with a wide range of characteristics were the order of the day. "Serious" picture makers most often had their own special recipe for getting exactly the results they desired and they were/are as obsessed with getting their work flow "right" as any digital color picture makers of today.

All of that written, no matter the genre-color or BW-one chooses to work in/with, it is not the genre which works hard to get to the essence of a subject. Rather, it is the picture maker who needs to work hard in order to "master" the genre with/in which they ply their talents. In either case, a picture maker who has "mastered" their genre has the ability to make pictures which successfully represent the esssence of his/her subject. And have no doubt about it, "mastering" either genre-color/BW-is an skill / art unto itself.

civilized ku # 5105 (kitchen life) / the new snapshot # 146-148 ~ vice versa

kitchen reflections ~ (embiggenable) iPhone 7 Plus camera module

Monopole music ~ (embiggenable) µ4/3

Monopole bartneder ~ (embiggenable) µ4/3

Monopole ghost ~ (embiggenable) µ4/3

In a switcheroo, picture making wise, today's civilized ku picture was made with the iPhone 7 Plus camera module and the new snapshot pictures were made with µ4/3 gear. The reason for that is simple ... the µ4/3 sensor is far superior to the iPhone camera module sensor in very low light picture making situations.

kitchen life # 38 ~ things

remnants ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable)

Things being what they are

Transparence is the highest, most liberating value in art - and in criticism - today. Transparence means experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are. ~ Susan Sontag

kitchen life # 37 ~ the cruel radiance of what is

It's been a while since I have pulled the following quote out of my quotes bag:

In the immediate world, everything is to be discerned..with the whole of consciousness, seeking to perceive it as it stands: so that the aspect of a street in sunlight can roar in the heart of itself as a symphony, perhaps as no symphony can: and all consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is. ~ James Agee

I have hauled it out of the bag in light of my recent failures to have photos selected for a couple exhibitions in order that I might reaffirm what my commitment to making pictures is all about. But, let me start at the beginning...

Back in my Jesuit education high schools days, a great value was placed on reading. Not only were there course reading requirements - especially in English and Literature courses - but there was always a Summer reading requirement. Now that written and truth be told, I was not a reading devotee so my reading approach at that time was to get by on the absolute minimum of reading required to, if not excel, at least to do well in a course.

That written, what nearly killed my desire to read was the fact that, in my classes, very little attention was given to the literal story to be had in a given book. It seemed that a book could not be appreciated based upon the experience of a good literal read. No, it had to be appreciated from the act of deciphering the meaning of a book as interpreted from metaphor, allegory and other literary devices.

To wit, nothing was what it was, everything was merely a literary device to be discerned in order to understand the "real" meaning of a story. And the simple fact was that I didn't "get it". For me, a story was just that, a story, and my relation with a story was with the sensuous experience of the reading of it ... its form, not its content.

Inasmuch as my experience of reading a book was sensual rather than intellectual, that taken together with the fact that the intellectual experience was taught as the important value to be had in a book/story, led me to the conclusion that I was "stupid" or somehow deficient. And I mean that literally because I just couldn't relate to book/story in that interpretive manner.

My relationship with books (I have been an avid reader for over 4 decades), as with all art, is to "perceive it as it stands" with all my consciousness "shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is."

And, that M.O. is what I bring to my picture making (and my life ) inasmuch as I believe that manner of seeing and experiencing is part and parcel of what I am.

civilized ku # 5053 (kitchen life) ~ bad pennies

late night trash ~ Au sable Forks, NY - ItAP (embiggenable)

The digital era of photography is often credited with changing the medium and its apparatus (aka: coventions). Much has been written and opined on the subject. A subject which I find rather vacuous; aka: silly, inane, unintelligent, insipid, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, brainless, witless, vapid, vacant, empty-headed. iMo, the same could be, in fact, should be said / written about the subject of the rules for picture making, printing, etc.

iMo, both topic are like a bad penny, so, let me set the record straight on both topics ...

re: has the medium and its apparatus changed as the result of the introduction of the digital picture makiing era? .... Granting that the tools of picture making have changed, the simple fact is that good pictures are not about tools. Good pictures are about seeing and its close relative, vision and good pictures are what picture making is all about - same it ever was.

ASIDE: What is a good picture? The most direct answer to that question is that a good picture is one which pricks the eye and sensibilities of the viewer. But of course, that means many different things to many different people. Art critics, opinion makers, and trend setters aside, what is a good picture is all in the eye and mind of the beholder. Or, it could be written that one does know how to describe what is a good picture but one knows one when one sees it.

CAVEAT: That written, it must be rememebered that, as the Roman poet and philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus said, "quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum" (what is food for one man may be bitter poison to others).

re: the rules of photography, printing,etc. .... getting right to the point, these words from Sir Ansel express it all; "There are no rules for good photographs there are only good photographs." Or, there is the opinion of Edward Weston; "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk."

Or, as I might state it; "I don't need no stinkin' rules."

That written, it could be accurately stated that Sir Ansel had rules aplenty for making his pictures (the Zone System, et al). However, here's the important thing, they were his rules. He made them up in order to facilitate the making of what he considered to be a good photograph. And that exercise is precisely what any picture maker should do, make up rules which suit your manner of seeing and which express your vision. Every other rule is unadulterated crap.

In conclusion ... 1) the medium of photography and its apparatus (conventions) are the same as it ever was - John Szarkowski, in his book The Photographer's Eye, made clear (to the thinking mind) that photography is and always has been about the same 5 things: the thing itself, the detail, the frame, time and vantage point. iMo, he got it right and I simply can not see what has changed.

2) there are no rules for making good pictures, there are only good pictures. Some have opined that a picture maker should learn the rules and then learn how to break them. Seems like a waste of time to me. iMo, one's time is better spent learning about and understanding how one sees - something that comes from the inside, not from external influence. It's sort like Intuition vs. Rationality ...

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~ Albert Einstein

kitchen life # 36 ~ avocado, lettuce and meatloaf

remnants ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - ItAP (embiggenable)

Late last night as I was cleaning up the dinner stuff, I saw this arrangement. Had to hide it in a cupboard so the wife wouldn't throw it away - wanted to picture it this AM with soft window light.