civilized ku # 3600 ~ mastery of the machine

February 20, 2020

PERFECTION. IN SOME WAYS I JUST DO NOT "GET IT". That written, I especially do not "get it" when it comes to picture making. Or, at least when comes to the idea of a "perfect" picture / print...

...I have always been both befuddled by and distainful of those picture makers who look for technical "perfection" when viewing a picture. Or, for that matter, the idea of even considering, at all, any "technical" aspects of a picture.

Consider this loopy comment left on a discussion about the use of film:

... the results are so inferior to modern digital images that God forbid if I got an image I loved and wanted to do anything with it. Even the better images from a technical point of view would have been considered complete failures if taken with even an average digital camera. Film is simply an overwhelmingly inferior technology.

Apparently, according this line of thought, all of the pictures made during the film era should be considered, from a technical point of view, to be "complete failures". How terrible it must be to bring this attitude to the viewing of all of the great pictures made during that era. And when I write "great pictures", I mean from both an aesthetic and a technical viewing perspective.

The question which comes to my mind for this idiotic commenter to answer is, "Have you never viewed a print made from large format-that is medium format and up-color or bw negatives?" ASIDE which is not to imply that carefully made 35mm format negatives, using some specific film stocks, can not produce beautiful prints. END OF ASIDE

My conclusion about moronic pronouncements like the comment from the aforementioned commenter is that, inasmuch as the medium of photography and its apparatus is linked to the use of mechanical devices-of one kind or another-used in the making of pictures, photographic picture making will always attract those who want to exercise and display their mastery over the machine...

...always seeking-one might write "fetishizing"-maximized resolution / sharpness, extended dynamic / tonal range, the "purest" and most extended color values and, of course, the possession of "over-the-top" / hyper-expensive picture making gear.

At this point in this entry, it is very tempting to cast aspersions upon the aesthetics of the pictures made by the masters-of-the-machine crowd. However, suffice it to write that, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities (and I am by no means alone), the making of a "perfect" picture has little-in some cases, nothing at all-to do with technical "perfection".

civilized ku # 3596-98 ~ mish-mashing around

February 14, 2020

3200K + 5200K ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone — ***3200K*** + *5200K* ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

THIS ENTRY'S PICTURES ARE A PRETTY GOOD ILLUSTRATION of my discursive promiscuity manner of picture making. Pictures wherein a consistent vision, aka: way of seeing, combines pattern and color to create a feeling of visual energy which holds a series of pictures together as all of a whole. And, FYI, visual energy is a visual characteristic that I prize, not only in pictures made with the medium of photography and its apparatus but also in any of the other visual arts.

civilized ku # 3594-95 ~ pattern and color

February 12, 2020

WITHOUT A DOUBT I CAN WRITE THAT I am, predominately, a visual thinker (as opposed to a word thinker). Being a visual thinker is not something that I learned, rather, it is a personal character trait that I eventually realized is what I am and have been for my entire life. And, that is what led me to, without considering anything else, creating visual things in my professional and personal picture making life.

In my professional and personal picture making life-as well as many other "visual" aspects in my life-I never once thought about the art aesthetic aspects of my work as a commercial photographer and graphic designer-the why or the how I created work that looked like it did. I just did it. It was all created intuitively and/or by "feel".

It was not until I became seriously involved in my personal "art" picture making-when I started to be interested in the idea of what is a photograph?-that started to realize that, to my eye and sensibilities, my pictures were not about what-the depicted referent-I pictured but about how I saw and pictured whatever the depicted referent was. Without question, I was much more interested in how my pictures, the thing itself (when printed), looked rather than what they depicted.

Which is why, when I found the following excerpt (from an article about visual thinking), I felt that I had discovered something very important about who and what I am....

...fundamentals in visual thinking lay the ground work for many design disciplines such as art and architecture*. Two of the most influential aspects of visual composition in these disciplines are patterns and color. Patterns and color are not only prevalent in many different aspects of everyday life, but it is also telling about our interpretation of the world.

I could probably use this excerpt as the basis for an artist statement which accurately defines my work and how I see / interpret the world I live in.

* I started college as a student of architecture. Did not like the career path that it entailed. Dropped out. Got drafted. Sent to Japan. Discovered photography and asked to become a US ARMY photographer. Request granted. The rest is history.

civilized ku # 3589 (kitchen life) ~ much, much better than good enough

February 6, 2020

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE TIME IS RIGHT to dispell a few misconceptions, re: the making of pictures with the use of the iPhone camera module.

MISCONCEPTION # 1: the iPhone makes it easy for anyone to make a good image file (as opposed to a good picture).

iMo and experience, this is, quite simply, not true. I teach iPhone picture making workshops and I can testify to the fact that, unless a person comes to the iPhone with some "real" camera experience, it is very easy for them to produce very mediocre / flawed image files. The reason for that is easy to identify - most iPhone users, to include even those who would like to make good pictures / image files, simply lift the iPhone to eye level and touch the "shutter" release.

In fact, what should be done is: 1st) clean the damn lens cover glass each and every time the iPhone is used to make pictures; 2nd) touch the screen to select focus; 3rd) use the slider next to the point-of-focus box to adjust exposure if needed (having the knowledge to identify situations when protecting highlight or shadow values is very important); 4th) then touch the "shutter" release.

In other words, even if an iPhone user follows these simple steps, aka: being involved in the image file making process beyond just touching the button, she/he is on the way to creating a good image file.

AN ASIDE: for those who want to be more involved in the making of an iPhone image file, there are apps which "take over" the iPhone's camera module and allow the user to set aperture, shutter speed, ISO, focus, WB and the ability to shoot RAW. END OF ASIDE

MISCONCEPTION # 2: the image file the iPhone's AI decides is a good image file is a good file.

The iPhone's AI produces pretty amazing image files. That written, the result may not be an image file that looks like the picture maker want's their finished picture to look like. Enter into the process more user involvement in the form of image file processing.

Image file processing can be as simple or complex as one desires. The iPhone 11 PRO processing tools are reasonably comprehensive, although they are slider-type tools. The processing app Snapseed (free) has more sophisticated tools including a SELECTION tool, HEALING tool, CURVES tool, PERSPECTIVE tool, amongst many others - it's kinda like PS in a jar. And then there is the new (and evolving) iPad friendly PS app / program which is pretty much aimed at being a "full" PS program.

MISCONCEPTION # 3: Sure, sure. But the pictures, when printed, are still just "iPhone pictures".

Taking care in the iPhone camera module's use and the use of processing apps / tools, an iPhone picture maker can produce professional-level image files which can be used to print outstanding, no-excuses-needed prints. In my case, prints up to 24x24 inches with rich-clean color, high dynamic range (aka: tonal range) and impressive resolution and detail which, when viewed under good light and from the right distance-a distance which allows the viewer to view the entire print-compare very favorably to prints from most "real" cameras.

All of the above written, the idea that the current iPhone picture making capabilities are no better than that of a lowly point-and-shoot is complete and utter hooey. The idea that the iPhone has made the making of good image files and, hence, good pictures-technically writing-"easy" is completely unfounded.

In fact, it is same as it ever was inasmuch as the making of a good image file requires at least a modicum of informed user involvement and input. Does the iPhone AI help a user make a good file? Absolutely .... but that AI wants to create a one-size-fits-all picture making use file. It still takes a "serious" picture maker to tailor that file to fit his/her picture making vision. And, a good, "rich" iPhone made image file is well worth the effort it takes to produce an outstanding print.

civilized ku # 3576 ~ what's the point?

January 15, 2020

I CAN NOT HELP BUT CONTINUE TO wonder about the question, what is a photograph? Maybe a better question is why wonder about the question, what is a photograph? And just maybe the answer to both questions is "I don't know."

WIthout a doubt, any given photograph can be anything the maker wants it to be. Just as any given photograph can be anything to any viewer to any given photograph. In either case, any given photograph can be akin to an ink blot. It is exactly what it is and nothing more or it can funtion like a rorschach "test" and instigate a host of intellectual / emotional responses.

All of that seems to suggest that a photograph has no intrinsic point (aka: meaning)-a property that an object or a thing has of itself .... which does not mean that a photograph can not have an extrinsic property-a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. The "thing" being a photograph and the "other things" being the viewer and his/her relationship to and with "real" world.

It would be very easy to go down a pyscho-analytical / Academic Lunatic Fringe rabbit hole on this topic but the fact is that I have closed that trap door a long time ago. I have no interest in getting hopelessly lost in that rat's nest / labyrinth. No, I would rather keep it simple.

Which brings me to the movie The Point* ....

.... if a photograph has no intrinsic point other than myriad possibilities deduced by viewers thereof, the Pointless Man (from the movie) has a point:

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

However, the Rock Man (from the movie) has a point as well:

"Say babe, ain't nuthin' pointless about this gig. The thing is, you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?"

So, all of that written, I would venture that the point of my answer to my question, what is a photograph?, is that, other than the undeniable fact that a photograph, when printed, is a thing, it would seem to be rather pointless to be concerned about what a photograph is other than recognizing the fact of its tangible existence. And then get on with the act seeing what you want to see.

*hey, wisdom can be found in the most unlikely of places.

civilizedku # 3556 ~ it is what it is

December 12, 2019

I WAS READING AN ENTRY ON A PHOTO BLOG wherein the picture maker, writing about the pictures in his/her self-published photobook, wrote about how a viewer should view / look at / understand the pictures. To be kind, the statement was kinda offered as a "suggestion". The "suggestion" even included, along with some artspeak, an obscure french phrase-which to be explained-to help the viewer along to "getting it".

iMo, telling viewers how to view one's pictures is, re: the artist statment, a Mortal Sin (in the Catholic vernacular, the worst kind of sin). It's right there alongside telling viewers what your pictures mean.

That written, I have no problem with artist statements, per se. However, I think an artist statement should be "short and sweet" and not go beyond the artist's statement about what the impetus was which propelled the artist to make the art. Even as simple as Gary Winogrand's statement:

“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.“

On the other hand, perhaps no artist statement is the way to go. Why not leave it up to the viewer to "see" what he/she will? or, in other words, let a picture "speak" for itself.

civilized ku # 3538-40 ~ up theirs

November 15, 2019

(embiggenable) • iPhone - read it and weep — (embiggenable) • **iPhone** - read it and weep

MORE GOOBLYGOOK, RE: SMARTPHONE PICtURE MAKING:

I use my 4 year old iPhone as a convenience scanner, but rarely for anything that meets the stricter definition of a photograph....smaller companies .... small companies [ed: camera companies] who care intensely about the pursuit of beautiful images .... care more than ever about the importance of artistic photography (which mostly takes place with non-phone cameras)

Ok. I get it. The gearheads and "perfection" crowd loves their stuff but why do they always have to include a slam, re: aimed at anyone who does it in a way that is differnet from their methodology ... "the stricter definition of a photograph", whatever the hell that means. I mean, seriously, my strict definition of a photograph is simply a picture made by a picture making device. End of "definition".

It doesn't matter what device-a "real" camera (analog or digital), a toy camera (holga, et al), a smartphone, a pinhole camera made from a shoe box or whatever-it's all about the photograph, aka: the picture.

The more I run into this attitude, re: my stuff (gear and pictures) are better than your stuff ("mostly") because I use "good / better / best" stuff, the more I am encouraged / determined to launch my smartphone picture gallery. FYI, I have started to lay the groundwork for doing so and, as long as all the moving pieces come together, it's gonna happen.

Wish me luck.

civilized ku # 3514-15 ~ exisiting light

October 16, 2019

(embiggenable) • iPhone - PORTRAIT setting / 2x lens

George Eastman stated:

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography.

On the other hand, Brooks Jensen wrote:

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" light. There is just light.

While there are a number of ways to understand / interpret these two statements, it does seem that they represent opposing points of view, re: light. Whereas Eastman's notion is nearly fetishistic, Jensen's is rather dismissive, as in, what's all the fuss about? In either case, we should be able to agree on the fact that we all need light to make pictures.

In my case, I do have a specific type of light that I like-I embraced it, I admired it and I loved it-and, truth be told, light that I have "chased" - the light encountered during the time of day that is called entre chien et loup or, alternately, the gloamimg. That is, a time of day during which the sun has set but it is not yet full-on dark.

However, those "chasing the light" days are far behind me now. While I still make entre chien et loup pictures, I do so when that light "finds" me rather than "chasing" it all about the landscape .... and that M.O., re: light for picture making, is S.O.P. for my picture making....

.... which kinds places me in the there is just light picture making camp. That is, while at times the light itself pricks my eye and sensibilities, in which case I make pictures of the light itself (see today's pictures). But most times, I just work with whatever light I encounter.

In the case of strong directional light which creates tonal shapes and patterns, aka: chiaroscuro, I use those shapes and patterns as elements of my composition. Flat or soft light allows me to concentrate on just the arrangement of the visual elements of my composition, independent of the light as a composition element.

In either case, I don't see the light as "good" or "bad". I just see it asit is, aka: just light.