# 5759-61 / civlized ku•people•kitchen life ~ actually, it's how the eye sees

May 11, 2021

RE: NARROW DOF - THE PORTRAIT MODE ON THE iPHONE.

While the PORTRAIT mode is not "perfect" inasmuch as it has, amongst a few other minor quibles, a limited plain of focus range within which it works. As an example, I most often get the Place subject within 8 feet warning when using the PORTRAIT mode. That's cuz I do not often use the PORTAIT mode for making actual portraits.

Consequently, as in the case of the motorcyle picture, the PORTRAIT "effect" was not applied - the motorcycle-the focus point-was well outside of 8 feet. Which required that I create a narrow DOF look in Photoshop (it ain't rocket science).

Conversely, when making a portrait, as in the case of the beer drinker (my son) picture, the PORTRAIT mode works quite nicely, and, it gives me the ability to select the amount of DOF-via a simulated aperture setting-during post-shoot processing. FYI, that simulated aperture setting is not permanent. It can be adjusted at any time.

Another nifty thing that can be done with the PORTRAIT mode is "correcting" mis-focus. Consider the case of the paper towels picture...

...my point of focus was on the frontmost roll. In processing (on the iPhone), when I got the DOF look I liked, the rearmost roll was out of focus. So, I saved the image file with my desired DOF-albeit with the back roll out of focus-then (on the iPhone) I re-processed the image file to get the rearmost roll in focus and saved-with a new name-that file.

The next processing step (in Photoshop) was to cut/select the 2 in-focus paper towel rolls from the image file in which they were both sharp and paste that selection into the image file with my desired DOF. Viola, an image file with my desired DOF with both paper towel rolls in focus...a composit picture made from the same image file with different aperture/DOF settings.

All in all, easy-peasy. And, I might add, try getting that from a "real" camera with just 1 click of the shutter.

PS Kinda makes me wonder what Gordon Parks might have thought, re: this technology and how he might have used it. Although, this quote from Parks might contain a hint (inasmuch as, to my eye and sensibilities, I have always thought / felt that narrow DOF conveys a sense of dreamy-ness):

"...I have felt like a wayfarer on an alien planet at times — walking, running, wondering about what brought me to this particular place, and why. But once I was here the dreams started moving in, and I went about devouring them as they devoured me.

picture by Gordon Parks ~ (embiggenable) — ***picture by Gordon Parks*** ~ (embiggenable)

# 5740-41 / landscape•people ~Rockwell Kent-ish

April 26, 2021

WHILE DRIVING-TOP DOWN IN THE ABARTH-THIS PAST SATURDAY-I drove around a bend over a knoll and was confronted with a Rockwell Kent painting, Adirondack scene wise, apparition.

Rockwell Kent was a prominent 20th century painter, print maker, illustrator who spent most of his adult life on his farm (with studio), Asgaard*, 3 miles up the road from my home in Au Sable Forks (pop.541), NY in the Adirondack Mountains / Forest Preserve. FYI, that's his farm with barn in the above hay bale painting.

*named after a location associated with gods. It is depicted in a multitude of Old Norse sagas and mythological texts.

When I moved to the Adirondacks, 21 years ago, Kent had died 30 years prior. His farm was still in operation (new owners) and is where we still get most of our beef, poultry, pork and aclaimed-around-the-world goat cheese. We are friends with the owners of the farm so on occasion I am able to go up to the farm and hang out in Kent's empty stand-alone studio.

In any event, every once in a while I do come across a Kent-like looking landscape. I never have pictured one. However, the mountain landscape pictured here was so much like that found in many a Kent Adirondack painting that, I swear, the Abarth came to stop on its own and seemed to indicate that it was not going anywhere until I made a picture.

While thinking about making this entry, I recalled that I had made a picture, in the exact same location (and I do mean exact!) where Rockwell Kent had made a painting-in Co Donegal, Ireland near the location of the so-called "Ghost" fishing town, aka: Port. At the time I made the picture, I was not aware of Kent's very well known painting, "Annie McGinley" (presented in this entry). It was not until I returned from Ireland that I discovered the painting while researching Kent's time painting in Ireland.

Upon viewing the painting (online), I will admit to having a freaky spine-tingling moment as I realized, not only had I trod in Kent's near-exact footprints, but I had also made a picture with a similar motif ... a lone woman in a dramatic location. In my case, my wife. In Kent's case, most likely his Irish Lassie inamorata inasmuch as he was a well known seeker of many women's "affection".

PS I was very lucky to come across a very nice signed, first edition copy of Kent's 1940 book, This Is My Own. An interesting illustrated telling of his life and times in Au Sable Forks.

# 5701-02 / single woman ~ unbearable weight of conjecture and deconstruction

April 1, 2021

(embiggenable) • µ4/3 - from my single women body of work — (embiggenable) • µ4/3 - from my ***single women*** body of work

I HAVE BEEN FOREVER ANNOYED BY ATTEMPTS to turn photographs into something they are not. A good example of such an attempt can be seen HERE in an entry, What the Photo Doesn't Show, on Leicaphilia. The title of the video in that entry, WHAT THIS PHOTO DOESN"T SHOW, rather concisely illuminates my point, re: to turn photographs into something they are not.

In any event, on to the photo in question:

“Young Farmers”, or, “Three Farmers on Their Way to a Dance” ~ August Sander - c. 1914

August Sander, born in Westerwald, Germany, made many pictures of the rural people in that region. His intention was:

..."to speak the truth in all honesty about our age and the people of our age...[I] hate nothing more than sugary photographs with tricks, poses and effects."

Regarding his ideas about making pictures, he stated..

..."The person is mobile, ... then I freeze one moment in his movement, a mere five-hundredth of a second of that person's life-time. That's a very meager or small extract from a life."

Re: my point - a picture, any picture, is, as Sander states, a very meager or small extract-a mere five-hundredth of a second-from a life. Given that fact, iMo, the only thing one can "know" from a photo, knowledge wise, is that which is discerned from viewing the precision of the depicted referent in a photo.

Here's what I "know" from viewing this photo...depicted are 3 young men, dressed like dandies in an enviroment for which such dress seems to be rather incongruous. It's a cloudy day. The young men's expressions do not tell me much about what's going on inasmuch as they range from: tough guy, supreme confidence, and, huh? say what? Other than those things and the supposition-cuz it could be well executed reenactment-that it is a vintage photo, that is all I know.

But, here's the thing (for me). That's all I need to know cuz this photo just flat out draws me in. To my eye and sensibilities, it is both factual and yet somewhat strangely mysterious. It raises questions to which it provides no answers. And, from a purely visual POV, I find it to be delightfully interesting.

That is also all I need to know cuz I am not looking at this photo as a history / geography lesson. I am viewing it as a piece of art. I am not hoping to learn something. Rather, I want to feel something.

I want to be visually delighted / interested / intrigued. I want art to raise questions, not to give me answers (propaganda)...in the case of photography, why was a particular referent selected by the picture maker? In the case of any form of art, do feel as though I am touching, at the very least, a fragment of the nature of beauty?

All of that written, in most cases, I have not the slightest interest in what a photograph doesn't show. That is simply because a photograph's unique characteristic is to show us something with a fair amount of specificity, something that has been extracted from a mere small moment of life.

If making pictures is result of a picture maker being in the moment, then it make sense to me that, when viewing a picture, the viewer should be in the moment. That is, at that moment the only thing that matters is what is in the picture, not what isn't.

FYI, I have included in this entry some pictures from my rather substantial single women body of work. That is cuz I felt there is some relevance to the topic at hand inasmuch as I could not offer any information about the women-all strangers-depicted other than what can be viewed in the photographs.

The women were pictured-in public places-without any knowledge-before or after the fact-that they were or had been pictured. I made the picture and went on my merry way. Which, BTW, was a pretty niffty trick inasmuch as all the pictures were made with a 34mm (eqivalent) lens.

# 5682-86 / miscellania ~ an assortment of "serious" cameras

March 22, 2021

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) KODAK Tower / 8x10 view camera — *a serious camera*? ~ (embiggenable) KODAK Tower / 8x10 view camera

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) iPhone — *a serious camera*? ~ (embiggenable) iPhone

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) µ4/3 — *a serious camera*? ~ (embiggenable) µ4/3

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) Nikon F3 — *a serious camera*? ~ (embiggenable) Nikon F3

a serious camera? ~ (embiggenable) Polaroid SX-70 — *a serious camera*? ~ (embiggenable) Polaroid SX-70

IF YOU WANT TO GET ME ALL WORKED UP, just point me to a link on the interweb which contains the phrase "serious camera". Especially so if it is used in a sentence along the lines of the iPhone is not a serious camera".

That written, do not be misled into thinking that this entry is made in defense of the iPhone cuz it is not. Rather, it is about the rather dumb idea that there is such a thing as a "serious camera".

The idea of denigrating certain types of cameras (and the people who use them) got a significant boost with the introduction of the first KODAK. "Serious" picture makers of that era considered the KODAK to be nothing more than a "snap-er's" device which according to a "serious" camera maker's manual stated that "...the photographer whose knowledge has been confined to pressing the button can never hope to make good pictures."

Adding to that thought, Stiegltz opined, "... thanks to the efforts of these persons [the] hand camera and bad work become synonymous." FYI, the "these people" Stieglitz was referring to were "...every Tom, Dick and Harry...[who] without trouble, learn how to get something or other on a sensitive plate." Steichen, on the other had, referred to them as "ye jabbering button-pushers".

In my picture making career, I experienced the not-a-serious-camera prejudice back in the mid-60s when I was handed a Graflex Crown Graphic as the camera for use by a US Army photographer. This dispite the fact that I was stationed in Japan, a country awash in 35mm SLRs. But, of course, those were not "serious cameras". FYI, my ongoing whining and caterwauling eventually led to the acquisition of not 1, but 2, Nikon Fs for my picture making use.

In any event, dispite the fact that the It's-not-a-serious-camera BS willnever die and as you may have deduced, in my picture making world, there are no "serious cameras". There are only good pictures ("serious" pictures?), no matter the picture making device used to make them.

ADDENDUM OK,OK. I wrote that this entry was not conceived as a defense of the iPhone. I still stand by that statement but I would be remiss to not provide a link to the iPhone Photography Awards (2020). Lots of "serious" picture makers making "serious" pictures with a "serious" camera. Be sure to check out each category (at the bottom of the page).

# 5607-09 / people•ku•natural world•landscape ~ I look, I see, I picture, therfore I am

January 5, 2021

man with Sanshin ~ Naha, Okinawa / Japan - c.1967 (embiggenable) — ***man with Sanshin*** ~ Naha, Okinawa / Japan - c.1967 (embiggenable)

"The process of photographing is a pleasure: eyes open, receptive, sensing, and at some point, connecting. It's thrilling to be outside your mind, your eyes far ahead of your thoughts....Part of it has to do with the discipline of being actively receptive. At the core of this receptivity is a process that might be called soft eyes. It is a physical sensation. You are not looking for something. You are open, receptive. At some point you are in front of something that you cannot ignore." ~ Henry Wessel

I CAN ONLY ASSUME-WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ASSURANCE- that just about everyone gets pleasure (of one sort or another) from the process of photographing. I mean, why even bother if there ain't no pleasure / joy / satisfaction / positive vibe involved in the activity?

That written, I am also certain that whatever sense of pleasure may be derived from the act of photographing, any specific pleasure is dependent upon the motivations of the picture maker him/herself. After all, the medium and its apparatus provide a broad landscape for satisfying a wide range of pleasure seeking....there are those who revel in the "pleasure" of acquiring / using and "mastering" gear and/or, likewise, technique. Then there are those who seek to "express" themselves or elucidate the viewer, re: the "meaning" of various referents.

And then there are those, much like me, who indulge in the act of photographing simply to see what something-any thing and/or every thing-looks like when photographed (as presented / expressed on the 2D surface of a photographic print).

That is, the making of a fairly stict visual thing. No expression of my "innner self", no "meaning" or "message", no technical / technique driven tour de force. Nope, none of that stuff. I just want to make prints that are visually interesting, capitivating and involving to view. Not cuz of what is depicted but, rather, how it is depicted.

For me, the idea of receptivity, aka: soft eyes, is paramount to my way of seeing. I rarely go out and about "looking for something" but, that written, I am forever-I am convinced that propensity is preternatural-looking and, seemingly, my thinking does not get in the way of my seeing. My eyes are ahead of my thoughts.

Consequently, throughout my entire life, I have consistently found myself "in front of something I cannot ignore".

#5476-80 / landscape•rist camp ~ one thing turns into another thing

September 11, 2020

THANKS TO ALL WHO LEFT COMMENTS ON MY LAST entry, re: comments. I really appreciate it.

The pictures in this entry are what I would label as "vacation" pictures. Not that such pictures can not be included in my "art" library, cuz some can be so included. However, it is my wont to convert my vacation pictures to my classic snapshot look. Unfortunately, I did not bring a copy of my master snapshot file so those conversions will have to wait until my return to home.

However, here's the thing about what appears to be casually-made vacation "snapshots". To my eye and sensibilities, I find that, once the pictures are assembled into a printed photo book, and based upon the strength of the total body of work, the pictures start to be perceived as "art".

Although, it might be more accurate to write that the photo book itself is perceived as a piece of "art". Assuming the photo book has a simple / elegant design-in my case, 1 photo per page with a generous white surround-it can be viewed and appreciated as a precious artifact.

around the house / flora / # 3624-26 ~ the cruel radiance of what is

June 17, 2020

no wonder the wife likes working from home ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone — ***no wonder the wife likes working from home*** ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

THIS ENTRY MIGHT JUST BE AN EXERCISE in futility for some inasmuch as, if the included link is behind a pay-wall, my point will be somewhat incomplete. Nevertheless ....

... here is the link, A PORTRAIT IF AMERICA THAT STILL HAUNTS, DECADES LATER. In case you can not link to it, it is an article about Robert Frank's New Orleans Trolley picture.

The article itself is a dissection, one might even write vivisection, of Frank's iconic-at least so in photography circles-photograph from his landmark work/book, The Americans. The author of the piece is Arthur Lubow, a journalist who writes mainly about culture and is the author of Diane Arbus: Portrait of a Photographer.

To be right up-front about it, iMo, I really dislike this article. However, to be fair, I do not dislike it any more or less than any other similar articles in which an author is seemingly engaged in trying to impress the reader with his/her insightful art knowledge. And, as should be obvious by my last entry, parts is just parts, I especially dislike it when an author, discussing / writing about a picture, rips a picture into distinct-from-the-whole separate "pieces".

In the article in question, the author actually uses other photographs and a painting to "explain" / add "meaning" to some of people depicted in the picture. I guess that is because they just can not be allowed to be themselves. Instead, they must be associated with other figures depicted in other art in order to be "understood".

And, writing of other art, the author picks apart individual elements in the photograph in order to describe one element as "a hallmark of the Minimalist art that would blossom in the ’60s", or another element as, "could easily be a Whistler painting", or yet anoter element as, "like something out of Abstract Expressionism".

Once again, as the author does with the depicted people, the things he describes with even more art references just can not be allowed to be eactly what they are. You know, things depicted and described as the camera sees them.

In what I consider the author's most egregious example of derivative artspeak lunacy (I will just give you the whole quote)....

"...the arabesque W of the Walgreens drugstore logo behind her ... is like an insignia that ranks her as an officer in the governing establishment, placing her just below the rider in front of her. Because that first decorative element, by strange coincidence, features a similar but larger swoop.

I could go on and on and fester on the emotions, mindset, and, in one case, even what the future holds for one person that the author confidently ascribes to the depicted people but, suffice it to write, the one thing that comes to my mind after reading this piece...

"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art ... Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of "meanings." ~ Susan Sontag

To be perfectly clear, here is my point .... Frank's picture is a very powerful and moving picture about what was and, in many cases and places, still is. That is to write, things as they are or have been.

An awareful and sentient viewer of this picture does not need any art-referential balderdash to be affected by the back-of-the-bus / separation-of-the-races mentality depicted and, by association, the brutality and human suffering engendered by it. All of which can "seen" and understood just by the simple act of looking at the picture.

Or, as James Agee wrote...

"For in the immediate world, everything is to be discerned, for him who can discern it, and centrally and simply, without a either dissection into science or digression into art, but 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 of consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is.

coronavirus snapshot / weather # 3567-68 ~ desperate times, desperate measures

May 10, 2020

May snow ~(embiggenable) • iPhone — ***May snow*** ~(embiggenable) • iPhone

desperately wanting haircut ~ selfie by the wife (embiggenable) • iPhone — ***desperately wanting haircut*** ~ selfie by the wife (embiggenable) • iPhone

WOKE UP YESTERDAY MORNING TO FIND A 2" snow cover on the landscape. By early afternoon it was gone. Then it started to snow again. Apparently, the new normal is that April showers bring May ~~flowers~~ snow.

Meanwhile, I thought you might like to spend a little time viewing this