this morning ~ embiggenable • µ4/3
Today marks the start of a blisteringly hot week. That written, I and the wife are spending the 4th-7th of July on the West Coast in San Diago.
The upside of the trip is the fact that I rented a Fiat 124 Spider convertible-from a private individual-to tool around in out there. I'll probably have to get one of those hats with an mini umbrella attached in order to keep my brain from frying.
Also, I'll probably make some pictures.
discarded flowers in situ ~ embiggenable • iPhone
discarded flowers ~ embiggenable • iPhone
As written many times on this blog, my tendency is to picture those things/referents which prick my eye and sensibilities. In doing so my intention is to illustrate the things/referents in a manner which creates visual energy and therefore, iMo, visual interest.
In no small measure, visual energy is created by a POV which aligns tones, forms, lines and colors in a "pleasing" arrangement across the 2D plane of a print. However, the frame (forget my black borders, the frame is simply the edges of a picture) imposed during the picture making is equally important inasmuch as the visual engery must work in conjunction with the boundaries imposed by the frame. Think of it, in musical terms, as a 2-part harmony.
In the case of the 2 pictures in this entry one picture, discarded flowers, has visual energy which is almost exclusively created by the referent itself. Although, how that visual energy flows within the frame was a deliberate choice imposed by my POV.
The other picture, discarded flowers in situ, gets its visual energy in a very different manner from that in the other picture. To my eye and sensibility, there is visual energy all over the place - of course, the random disarray and colors of the the discarded flowers is present but their visual effect is magnified by their contrast with the grid-like rather rigid geometric pattern of the floor together with the wastebasket and the-some might think-visual irritant of the cupboard corner. In addition, those geometric patterns also stand in stark relief against the brightly colored discarded flowers by the nature of their neutral color palette. And don't ignore the division of the picture, dark side to light side, as added visual energy.
Then there is the frame of the in situ picture. As a viewer's eye, once it leaves the discarded flowers, is drawn to following the line(s) of the geometric pattern, it quickly slams into the frame and is redirected back into the center of the picture. This visual trait differs from that of the other picture inasmuch as there is little to draw the eye away from the discarded flowers.
All of that written, here's the thing ... I am not suggesting that one of these pictures is better than the other. Each picture has plenty of visual energy which pricks (and holds) my eye and sensibilities.
That written, my preference is for the in situ variant because I find it to be harder for my emotions and intellect to digest. When viewing pictures, whether made by me or by others, I like to be attracted by a prick rather than a soothing stroke.
Clare & Carl's* ~ Plattsburgh, NY (embiggenable) • iPhone
after / before ~ embiggenable • iPhone
* Yes, the building leans dramatically. Notice the sign pole and utility pole for vertical reference.
I'm getting kinda sick & tired of reading about how disappointed a picture maker is with pictures made using his/her phone.
My first gripe with such ramblings is, unless the picture maker / commentor is using a state-of-the-art device (admittedly, an ever moving target), he/she needs to stop enumerating a devices' shortcoming(s). I can list the shortcomings of my first digital camera but, really, what's the point?
The other great unmentioned-in most cases-is, does the picture maker know how to best use the device? Things as simple as cleaning the lens protector, to always using the HDR setting (if available - the now standard setting on an iPhone), and, the use of on-device picture processing apps to-in may cases-greatly improve the end result.
Re: picture processing - dependent upon my picture use intention, I might choose to process a picture on my phone. Or, for more "serious" intentions, I download a picture from my iCloud and give it the complete Photoshop treatment. In doing so, I have found that there is a great deal of "meat" on an iPhone's picture bone-one can shoot RAW files-which allows for considerable processing manipulation without any noticeable degradation of the image. See the above before / after diptych.
All of that written, phone camera modules are not a "perfect" picture making device. That written, I have found the iPhone camera module (7 Plus) to be a very capable picture making device for most of my picture making needs. I regularly make 19x19inch prints which compare favorably to 19x19inch prints made from a "real" camera when viewed from a normal-non-pixel peeping-viewing distance.
FYI, I am about to do a 7 Plus / 8 Plus camera module comparison. I have been told / read that there is a considerable improvement in file quality. If so, the 8 Plus is in my future.
the last supper ~ Burlington, Vermont (embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
Re: the last supper. The meal could have literally been my LAST SUPPER had the heart procedure the following day gone horribly wrong. Fortunately, as it turned out, it was just my last supper before the procedure.
embiggenable ~ µ4/3
embiggenable ~ iPhone
embiggenable ~ iPhone
embiggenable ~ iPhone
I've been making pictures in the kitchen over past week or so. Other than life in the Adirondacks itself, my kitchen is probably my most fertile place for making pictures - an ever-changing tableau of stuff.
Off to Burlington today for my ablation - scarring the interior walls of my heart with the intention of permanently interupting the electric signals which cause my irregular heart beat (better known as afib).
kitchen counter ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • iPhone
dish strainer ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • iPhone
On Saturday morning last I chased the morning light around my kitchen and dining room and came up with 4 good pictures. The 2 above are from the kitchen. Tomorrow will be the dining room pictures.
one red leaf ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3
in the grocery bag ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
In his entry on TOP today, Mike Johnston stated / inquired:
...it's not the ultimate in detail (ed. referring to a sample picture), by today's standard, but doesn't it give you pretty much all the detail—all the information—your actual human eyes could, at a distance where you'd be seeing that woman, the subject, in about the same way? Doesn't it get the idea across about as well as anybody needs?
... So we started this endless roundel of trying, comparing, shooting "test shots," making the most fanatically minute comparisons, and of course upgrading, always interested in the latest and the next. "Neomania," I called it back then. We became maniacs for the newest thing.
But at some point, I just assumed, things would settle down and we'd go back to just...well, making, and looking at, pictures. You know, without caring how the pictures were made. Are we there yet?
No, most "serious" picture makers are not there yet and, most likely, never will be. However, on the other hand, most non-serious picture makers (snapshotists[?]) or non-picture-making viewers of pictures, are primarily, if not exclusively, interested what is pictured and could care little or not at all about the whys, the hows or the wherefores.
Re: Johnston's question - ...it's not the ultimate in detail by today's standard, but doesn't it give you pretty much all the detail—all the information—your actual human eyes could, at a distance where you'd be seeing that woman ... in about the same way? Doesn't it get the idea across about as well as anybody needs?
iMo, of course it does. That is the reason I have always wished that, at exhibitions of my pictures, I could employ those red velvet rope things to prevent viewers from moving in too close - the distance determined by the size of the pictures - to view the pictures in their entirety. Why?
iMo (in the case of my pictures or for that matter any good picture), a good picture is always about* the relatiosnship and interplay of the visual elements - light/shadow, shapes, lines, colors, et al - as placed on the 2D plane of a print and within the frame, as imposed by the picture maker, of the picture. The thing pictured, the referent, may or may not be of any particular importance.
So, if a picture, as a print, is viewed from a distance which allows the viewer to see it as a singular entity, then I see (literally and figuratively) no value at all in detail / resolution which is beyond the capabilities of human vision.
*in the Art Worldfruitand tubers in a bowl ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
vines on a wall ~ Plattsburgh, NY (embiggenable) • M4/3
An excerpt from an entry on PHOTOTHUNK ...
Serious photographers who are successful at communicating things, I feel, manage to simultaneously "go beyond" a sack of graphical tricks, and at the same time to return to the naive subject. Of course, I count myself among this sainted number ....
The same applies to looking at photographs. The naive viewer says "what a pretty flower," the more sophisticated camera owner says "tsk, the flower is centered rather than placed on a Rule of Thirds Power Point," and the artist says "what a pretty flower" but in a more thoughtful way.
I like to think because it's the way I do it, that the Serious Artist sees the whole frame of the photograph. They grasp the whole as a collection of forms and tones and lines and colors all in balance, or not, etcetera. And they they see a pretty flower, and the way the picture reveals the pretty flower without clutter (or with clutter, as is fit and meet.) But at the end of the day, it's still the pretty flower.
iMo, it just about says it all, re: making or viewing good pictures.