# 6350-52 / common places • common things ~ I'm a shooter

December 6, 2022

I'm a shooter

he's a shooter she's a shooter we're all a shooter
aren’t you happy to be a shooter too?

I AM BEGGINING TO COBBLE TOGETHER A FEW words, re: the introduction essay, for the Philosophy of Modern Pictures project / book. The above words-tip o’ hat to the early Dr. Pepper I’m a Pepper tv commercial jingle-are the leading candidate for the essay title.

The use of the word shooter derives from the aforementioned mentioned-a previous entry-interaction with a young hipster-body jewelry, “cool” hair style + color, et al-bartender in an upscale restaurant bar who asked me if I was a “shooter”. I was confused-was she asking if I wanted a shot of bourbon? was I packing heat? Noting my confusion, she pointed out that she had noticed my cap with the KODAK logo. Thus informed of that, it gave me license to answer that, “Yes. I’m a shooter.”

Apparently the younger generation thinks it cool to be a shooter. That being the case, for purposes of the book, it’s good enough for me.

Re: we’re all a shooter - OK. I get it. Not everyone is a shooter inasmuch as not everyone has a picture making device, However, with the fact that 1.7 trillion pictures are made / taken (whatever) a year and that there are 8 billion humans on the planet, the average number of pictures per human is 125 per year. And, this might be a bit of a surprise, 92.5% of pictures are made with a picture making device which can also be used to make a phone call. Only 7% are made with a “real” camera.

FYI, while the book will have some facts, figures, history, re: picture making, the emphasis will be on how, as the result of the ease of making “good” pictures-i.e. sharp, correctly exposed, referent in focus and the like-the boundaries of what can be pictured and how it can be pictured has expanded like never before.

# 6329-33 / common places • common things • landscape ~ form-it-able

November 17, 2022

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs….The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial.” ~ Ansel Adams

“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” ~ Edward Weston

IN MY LAST ENTRY, re: ideas on making an interesting photograph, I mentioned the idea that it is form, rather than the depicted referent, that is the most important element in creating interesting an photograph. And, I described form as the visual expression of “how the picture maker has “arranged”-by means of his/her framing and POV-line, shape, space, tone (value), and color across the 2D visual field of a print.

That written, it is quite possible that I should not be using the word “form” to describe the visual characteristic that I strive to illustrate in my photographs and appreciate in the photographs made by others. Technically, according to Tate Modern, my usage is correct:

In relation to art the term form has two meanings: it can refer to the overall form taken by the work – its physical nature; or within a work of art it can refer to the element of shape among the various elements that make up a work.

As you might surmise, I hang my picture making hat, re: form, on the idea of the element of shape among the various elements (to include line, space, tone, and color) that make up a work of art. However-and here’s the rub, re: maybe I should not use the word “form”-cuz if you were to search the interweb for “form in photography” you would discover that the genii in the photo commentariat world have decided that form…

“…refers to the three-dimensional appearance of shapes and objects in a photo…[and] is all about subjects that stand out as if they're 3D objects.”

and, get this awesome insight..

“Successfully conveying all three dimensions in a two dimensional medium is a great artistic accomplishment”

ASIDE from the song Assholes on parade: Assholes to the left…And assholes to the right … I once heard it said…That old assholes never die…They just lay in bed…And multiply END ASIDE

another ASIDE I realize the preceding aside is rather harsh but…the interweb is chock full of bad photo making advice, especially so from “experts” and workshop leaders and it gets me to setting my teeth on edge. END ASIDE

I’m sorry, but, the use of leading lines and value (tone - you know shadow and light) to create the faux appearance of 3D shape and/or depth in a 2D art form, aka: photography, is a very fer piece down the pike from a “great artistic accomplishment”. And, it has little to do, if anything, with the idea of form as seen and perceived in the Art World.

So, in my use of the word form to describe an important visual tool in my photo bag of tricks, I worry that the mis/mal-informed out there might get the wrong impression.

All of the above written, stay tuned for my next entry wherein I describe in greater detail much more exactly what I believe to be the good form that I strive to illustrate in my photographs.

PS the pictures in this entry all present, if one chooses to look at them in that way, a sense of depth. That, however, is not how I view them nor is why I made them.

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.

# 6203 / kitchen life • common things ~ writing about photography as art

August 14, 2022

Consider this, re: good field strategy:

THE VISUAL TEXTURE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH derives from an optical mix of steadfastly articulate, recorded facts that have been presented in a manner calculated to emphasize the subject matter’s cumulative rather than individual visual appearance.

FYI, I consider the subject and its visual essence to be indivisible and the complexity of any given environment as potentially articulate aesthetic material.

The preceding is a slightly modified-by me-excerpt from Chapter 2: COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMALISM in the book the new color photography by Sally Eauclaire (a friend for whom I was a consultant on the book). I have co-opted it to make 2 points:

Eauclaire’s idea, re: Field Strategy, pretty much describes the (my) picture which accompanies this entry.
writing about art, subset photography as art, can get pretty “academic” / art-speak wordy at times. Some might even suggest that it can get rather obtuse.

So, my answer to the question raised in the preceding entry - why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography instead of going over lots of gear and technical work?- is that if one wishes to write or read about the “art of photography”, one needs to write or read about art in a more general sense. That is, if one aspires to making pictures that are considered to be Fine Art (as opposed to Decorative Art), one had better read up on what the FIne Art World considers to be Art. And, there is precious little written about Art in general, photography in particular, on the interweb.

Much of what has been written about Art, in book form, has been written by academics who, seemingly by natural inclination, are devoted to shunning simple English….

…formalists perceive real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation. They test every edge, tone, color, and texture for its expressive potential and structural function. Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is co-opted for its visual capabilities. yet delineated with utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter.

My point: if I, or anyone, were to write about the art of photography in any manner resembling the preceding excerpts-which I firmly believe are actually quite on point, photography as art wise-I believe the “average” reader of just about any blog would stop dead, eyes glazed over, at “real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments”, not to mention “expressive potential and structural function”, “delicately adjusted equilibrium”, and “co-opted for its visual capabilities”. I mean, how many of you out there have a “field strategy”?

So, why bother going down that road? The audience would be minuscule.

All of the above written, I must admit that I have read quite a lot about Art and the subset of photography as ART and it hasn’t hurt me none. Some of that reading has even helped me discover and understand what the hell I am doing-acting more intuitively (recognizing and expressing my “inner” self) rather than acting out a conscious intellectual strategy-in my picture making endeavors. And, I would highly recommend to those wishing to discover and understand what the hell they are doing, picture making wise, to read as much as they can stand about Art with the objective of cultivating a “feel” for the making of Art.

However, writing about the art of photography is not something I pursue on this blog. What I have written about photography on this blog has been more concerned with the idea of what exactly is a photograph? or, what are the medium’s intrinsic characteristics / strengths? And that is what I will continue to do.

# 6200-02 / common places • common things ~ stupid is as stupid does

August 13, 2022

***it’s raining outside*** ~ (embiggenable)

ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERWEB, IT HAS BE POSTULATED, AS AN answer to the question of “…why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography here on the blog instead of going over lots of gear and technical work…”, that:

“…a viewer using a phone or small iPad to view will see none of the technical "features" that might make the image worth looking at.”

“…when we do try to talk about the work we end up with so many different avenues for viewing, each of which is a diminished and poor replica of the original, that it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.”

At first blush, I would tend to suggest, first and foremost, that the author of the blog in question does not talk about the art of photography cuz that author has a very dim understanding of what it is that constitutes photography as Art. Consequently, the author would be best served by sticking to what he knows, aka: gear. My opinion is offered in light of the fact-one of many-of the author’s suggestion that “technical features” might make an image worth looking at (don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that cringe-worthy idiocy) - a statement in full-blown support of why Bruce Davidson is “not interested in showing my work to photographers anymore…”

Re: with so many different avenues for viewing… it's impossible to make many meaningful assessments.” when trying to writing about on a blog. BS. While the author’s point, re: the diminished image quality-for any number of reasons-of images on the interweb, is true enough, unless a device’s viewing parameters are highly compromised, I believe that there is more than enough visual information in most cases to make a reasonable assessment of a picture’s aesthetic / ”artistic” worth. Enough, so that, you know, you can determine whether or not a picture is “worth looking at”.

I would even go far as to suggest that, under ideal screen viewing conditions-there is a long list of items under the concept of “ideal”-one could even undertake a critical, informed review of a picture.

Is viewing an image on the interweb-under ideal conditions-the same as viewing that image as a print? Short answer, “No.” Slightly longer answer, a qualified “Yes.” inasmuch as most of the visual qualities which distinguish a photograph as Art, especially the idea of form, are easily perceivable on even a less than ideal viewing screen. And, an on-screen viewing of a good photograph can stir virtually all of the feeling, emotion, and thought that a print of the same image can incite.

iMo and experience, I can write that, in the Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are very few who are interested in the technical features of a photograph. That’s cuz they know and have viewed countless number of photographs which display very little in the way of technical features but which, nevertheless, are some of the greatest photographs ever made.

# 6199 / kitchen life • common things ~ arriving at a fork in the road

August 9, 2022

IT IS A RARE DAY WHEN, ON THE INTERWEB, ONE COMES across an ultra-addicted gearhead having a come-to-jesus picture making moment wherein he/she realizes that he/she has “… really tried hard to substitute hardware for talent. Over and over again.” Add to that a fair amount of other self-flagellation, and it qualifies as something akin to a red-letter day.

That written, I can write that it took a decent amount of fortitude for her/him to confront the fact that, after all of that gear infatuation / acquisition, his/her “images [were] maybe a bit sharper but by no means any better in terms of insight, impact or overall splendor.” And the time, effort (and cash) spent on all that gear preoccupation could have been better spent “finding a great model, a great location.”

All of that written, even if the aforementioned penitent manages to follow the straight (pun) and narrow path of the joy of photography, aka: making pictures, not acquiring gear, he/she still is going to have a long slog getting to the point, if ever, of making pictures that exhibit “insight, impact or overall splendor”. That’s cuz spending time finding a “great”model, a “great” location or overall “splendor” does not a great picture make ( nor, I might add, does getting “bored sticking with one focal length”). A referent-centric pursuit may lead to the making of pictures with splendid decorative value-which may be the sine non qua of that which he/she wants to achieve-but it will not lead to making pictures of insight, impact or overall splendor.

If I were one to leave a comment on the blog of the remorseful, maybe born again picture maker, it would be something like this - Get over it. A camera is, in a very real sense, little more than a recording device for what the human eye sees. (with an emphasis on how the human eye sees). If the human in question does not take the time to learn, understand, and embrace how he/she sees the world, the idea of acquiring a personal picture making vision is a lost cause and all the gear in the world ain’t gonna save your picture making ass.

# 6198 / kitchen life • common things ~ for every pot there is a lid

August 7, 2022

"Nothing exceeds like excess”~as someone said

“No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public” ~ H. L. Mencken

ON MY LAST ENTRY, MARKUS SPRING-a long time follower-WROTE; “…accepting the overcooked look as what memory and feelings conjure up to "it looked exactly like this…" He also expressed an idea on why this is so in response to which I present the above quotes.

I am aware of a picture maker who creates nothing but over-HDRed, ultra-excessive color saturated pictures (his idea of fine art), apparently with great commercial success. His very large prints adorn hospital, corporate, public place, and wealthy residential walls (they ain’t cheap). iMo, the pictures are nothing more than wretched ornamental dreck. His website has 100s of followers whose eyes glaze over and mouths salivate-as judged by their adoring comments-with each of his offerings.

It would be easy to write that this quest-as represented by the aforementioned picture making excess-for wretched excess can be found in so many things American-houses, cars, movies, advertising, et al-and label it as an American obsession. However, I believe it can be found in abundance in most, if not all, first-world countries / cultures. It is also my belief that this quest for excess is nothing new. The grand cathedrals of Europe come to mind as an example. There is also the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to consider.

In any event, I gave up a long time ago thinking that those involved in the quest for excess, at least in the arts, are brain-dead cretins. That’s cuz I came to realize that, that which can be labeled as Decorative Art, does, indeed, serve a purpose. It might even be called a valuable purpose. That is to write, Decorative Art is a vehicle which can assist in gaining an escape, albeit temporary, from the humdrum boredom of everyday life.

And, by one means or another, who is there who does not need an “escape” every now and again?

# 6195-97 / kichen life • common places ~ what you see ain't always what you get

August 5, 2022

left, AFTER / right, BEFORE ~ (embiggenable)

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE iPHONE CAMERA MODULE IS not perfect. While it does, in fact, produce files that require only minor adjustments-primarily bright sunny day pictures. Where it “fails” to get it almost right are those picture making situations that have; a. low contrast, and, b. night / very low light scenes. In those situations the computational bits seem to be programed to deliver a full-range (nearly pure black > nearly pure white) file. That is, a file that does not match what the eye sees in situ.

In some cases, a simple adjustment with a BRIGHTNESS slider gets you very close to where you want to go. In other cases, a more nuanced use of the CURVES tool is called for. In either case, the fact that you are working with a fairly rich file-no, not RAW rich but way more than adequate-gives one lots of room with which to work. Neither fix requires an advance degree in Rocket Science or software engineering.

FYI, I am going to try a few experiments with making pictures with the Scene Detection and Smart HDR disabled to determine the difference, if any (I assume there will be), that those setting create.

PS all of my file processing is performed with the intent of accurately reproducing, as much the medium and my memory allow, what my eyes perceived, in situ, at the moment of making a picture.