rain / the light / # 3642-45 ~ image and Doppler evaluation

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

the umbrella

the umbrella

YESTERDAY I SPENT THE DAY HAVING A transesophageal echocardiogram. This is a procedure in which an imaging device was put down my esophagus in order to obtain a close / detailed view of my heart. In my case, this procedure was performed to determine that: 1.) the blood clot found in my heart last December had dissolved, and, 2.) confirm that my heart was a good canidate for the Watchman procedure. I passed on both counts. So, next Monday, I do the Watchman thing wherein they put an "umbrella" in my heart.

Moving on to other recent news, this past Saturday evening we experienced a somewhat uncommon manifestation of what we have dubbed, Hobbit Light. Hobbit Light is an atmospheric condition which causes the landscape to be bathed in intensely yellow-red light. The very air itself seems to be yellow-red.

In most cases, Hobbit Light lasts about 15-20 minutes and happens at sunset, with a heavy cloud cover, and following a heavy rain. It is most intense after the sun has set, during the time known as the gloaming or, as I like to call it, entre chien et loup (between the dog and the wolf).

iMo, there are 2 characteristics of Hobbit Light which make it rather eerie: 1.) there is no directional light which results in a flat / soft, almost shadow-less, "murky" light, and, 2.) every time I have experienced it, the air is as still as a statue which creates a very quiet / still landscape.

Taken together, that creates a very other-worldly feeling. Kinda like Middle Earth.

landscapes / 3631-41 ~ however you see the world outside

Ireland ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

Tuscany ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

Tuscany ~ (embiggenable) • Pentax K20D

l-r, t-b / Adirondacks•Pittsburgh•Montreal•New Jersey~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

l>r, t>b / Brooklyn•Adirondacks•?•Massachutsetts~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

PREPPING SOME LANDSCAPE PICTURES AS CANIDATES FOR submission to a juried landscape exhibition.

Strangely enough, since the call for entries begins with the phrase "wide open spaces", most of the landscapes I am considering for submission were made outside of the Adirondacks. A few were made with my PENTAX K20D, some with my Olympus cameras and some with my iPhone.

In addition to "wide open spaces", the call for entries also mentioned "urban environments, with people or without, traditional, contemporary, minimalist — however you see the world outside". So I have included some of my the new snapshot and faux-Polaroid pictures under the cover of "contemporary". Which I assume to mean fanciful or manipulated.

When perusing my picture library for theme-based pictures for juries exhibition submission, I often "discover" theretofore enough never recognized pictures to crete a new body of work separate and distinct from any of my existing bodies of work. True to form, that is once again the case here. And, in a very real sense, what a surprise that is cuz....

.... as hard as it is for me to believe, especially so given the fact that I blogged for a decade or more under the name The Landscapist, I have never assembled a body of work titled Landscapes. DUH. What was I thinking? Perhaps Dylan said it best in the song, I've made up my mind to give myself to you, on his new album:

Well, my heart's like a river, a river that sings
Just takes me a while to realize things

In any event, I feel an editing / selecting project comin' on.

landscape / kitchen life / # 3629-30 ~ sometimes it don't all fit it a square box

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • iPhone

RIGHT OUT OF THE STARTING GATE OF THIS ENTRY, let me lay out the ground work...I have been listening to Bob Dylan's new album, Rough and Rowdy Ways, which has: a.) grabbed and held my attention more than any of his others albums (and I have most of them), and, b.) given me cause to spend some time attempting to unravel some of his engmatic ways (me and a zillion other people).

Now, I might be willing to suggest that, on his new album, Dylan himself has encouraged and and dropped more than a few clues to push the inquisitive in that same direction. Consider these lines from his song, False Prophet...

You don't know me, darlin'
You never would guess
I'm nothing like my ghostly appearance would suggest

However, be that as it may, I'm not writing this to be a review of the new album*. Rather, I just want to pass along, as I did a few entries back, a few of Dylan's words / thoughts that I discovered in my digging about the interweb and which I think apply really well to the medium of photography and its apparatus.

So, without further ado, here's an excerpt from Dylan's Nobel Prize in Literature Lecture**. I have highlighted sentences in bold that I believe to be relevent to my point ....

Myself and a lot of other songwriters have been influenced by these very same themes. And they can mean a lot of different things. If a song moves you, that’s all that’s important. I don’t have to know what a song means. I’ve written all kinds of things into my songs. And I’m not going to worry about it – what it all means....

....John Donne as well, the poet-priest who lived in the time of Shakespeare, wrote these words, “The Sestos and Abydos of her breasts. Not of two lovers, but two loves, the nests.” I don’t know what it means, either. But it sounds good. And you want your songs to sound good....

....Our songs are alive in the land of the living. But songs are unlike literature. They’re meant to be sung, not read. The words in Shakespeare’s plays were meant to be acted on the stage. Just as lyrics in songs are meant to be sung, not read on a page. Our songs are alive in the land of the living. And I hope some of you get the chance to listen to these lyrics the way they were intended to be heard: in concert or on record or however people are listening to songs these days. I return once again to Homer, who says, “Sing in me, oh Muse, and through me tell the story.”

To wit, picture makig wise....

If a song picture moves you, that’s all that’s important. [You] don’t have to know what a songs picture means....
song pictures are unlike literature. They’re meant to be sung seen, not read....
I hope some of you get the chance to listen see these pictures the way they were intended to be heard seen: in concert print or on a record wall or however people are listening viewing songs pictures these days.

And, to be certain, with my picture making, I am totally on board with Dylan when he states (with my annotations)....

....I don’t know what it means, either. But it sounds looks good. And you want your songs pictures to sound look good.

*While not a review, I would neverthelss strongly recommend the purchase of this album. Then, give yourself a pour of the True Holy Water"-as Pope Francis exclaimed when handed a gift of OBAN Single Malt Scotch Whisky-sit back and listen, begining to end. Although, it is worth noting that my listening, while enhanced by the OBAN, was also enriched by the fact that the bard and I are both in our 7th decade.
** A highly recommended read, ALTHOUGH, it is even better if you listen to it.

flora / kitchen life / # 3627-28 ~ whistle while you work

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THE PHRASE "WORK HARD", re: MAKING PICTURES, SEEMS TO ME TO be a rather ridiculous misnomer when mentioned / written in that context. However, that is exactly how it is being used in a 3-part entry on T.O.P.

Let me begin on this topic with one of my favorite quotes from Bill Jay ....

"...photographers who carry 60 pounds of equipment up a hill to photograph a view are not suffering enough, although their whining causes enough suffering among their listeners. No, if they really expect us to respect their search for enlightenment and artistic expression, in [the] future they will drag the equipment up the hill by their genitals and take the view with a tripod leg stuck through their foot."

Now, to be fair, Mike Johnston does begin his series with writing that "no one cares how hard you worked", to which I would add, that is cuz it is all about the pictures you make, stupid. However, my point, re: working hard while making a picture, is that, if one is working hard at it, then that's cuz: a) he/she does not have their own unique vision, and/ or, b) he/she does not have a firm, yet relaxed, grip on the mechanics / technicals of making a picture.

Re: a) he/she does not have their own unique vision - assuming that one understands the concept of vision as knowing how one sees, literally and figuratively, the world and how that knowledge is the basis upon which you make pictures, then making pictures is as easy as just about anything gets. That's cuz, all you are doing is making pictures of what you see.

You only have to work hard when making pictures when you are making pictures of what you have been told is a "good" picture. As in, picturing a "good" referent using "proper" techniques. Or, in other words, when you are working to someone else's standards rather than your own. To which I write, "Screw that."

Re: he/she does not have a firm, yet relaxed, grip on the mechanics / technicals of making a picture - if you are "hauling around 60 pounds of equipment", you are burdening yourself, literally and figuratively, with too much crap which will only get in the way of picturing what you see. If you understand and have idenitified your own unique vision and use that knowledge as the basis upon which you make pictures, then it should be understood that, at this point, you should have narrowed your equipment list down to 1 camera / 1 lens.

Essentially, what that-1 camera / 1 lens-means is that for every unique vision there is a single unique lens. Really. Trust me-and the overwhelming majority of unique-vision driven pictures makers-on this one. It is as simple as that when it comes to making it easy, no working hard required, when making pictures. Or, in other words, when the picture making device in your hands becomes invisible, no thinking required, then all of your other senses can be focused upon the seeing.

All of that witten, I have never, in my picture making life (personal and professional), associated the phrase "working hard" with picture making. Applying my efforts with diligence, focus and determination? Sure. However, that written, the phrase I associate with my picture making is "having fun".

Or, in other words, it's never "working hard" when you are whistling while you work.

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

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

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(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.

neworleanstrolleyfrank.jpg

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.

kitchen sink / intimate landscape / # 3622-23 ~ parts is just parts

(embiggenable) • µ4/3 (cuz my iPhone was upstairs in my studio)

(embiggenable) • CANON Powershot G series camera

WHILE READING A NY TIMES INTERVIEW WITH BOB DYLAN,, re; his new album Rough and Rowdy WAYS, I encountered this quote from Dylan...

It’s the combination of them that adds up to something more than their singular parts. To go too much into detail is irrelevant. The song is like a painting, you can’t see it all at once if you’re standing too close. The individual pieces are just part of a whole.

Dylan was talking about 3 names strung together in the song, I Contain Multitudes but, from my perspective, the except could very well apply to my pictures. It could also apply to the pictures made by others that I enjoy viewing. And, actually, when I think about it, that pretty much defines, in large part, what I consider to be good art, any art.

And, by extension, that also explains why I never had any desire whatsoever to acquire a picture making device which produced bleeding edge and eye sharpness...

... think about it this way - I live in a forest. When I make a picture of/in the forest-and even though the forest is filled with trees-my pictures are not about the trees, per se. My pictures are about the forest. In other words, I do not want a viewer of my pictures of the forest to miss the forest for the trees.

As Dylan said, "To go too much into detail is irrelevant."

around the house / kitchen life / # 3619-21 ~ repellent objects of nature

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I CAME ACROSS A COUPLE OF, iMo, INTERESTING QUOTES FROM CHARLES BAUDELAIRE. And, I especially like the part where he, in a roundabout manner, mentions and, reading between the lines, praises me.

First, there is this idea ...

I believe that Art is, and cannot be other than, the exact reproduction of Nature (a timid and dissident sect would wish to exclude the more repellent objects of nature, such as skeletons or chamber-pots). Thus an industry that could give us a result identical to Nature would be the absolute of Art.

Then, there is this idea which seems to contradict the first idea ...

It is useless and tedious to represent what exists because nothing that exists satisfies me…. I prefer the monsters of my fantasy to what is positively trivial.

The contradiction I read is, simply, that Nature exists (and its "exact reproduction" is Art) but apparently Baudelaire does not like Art since nothing that "exists" satifies him. Now, I know I could dive deep into the writings and parse this and that word, phrase or sentence to come up with something other a than contradiction. But that's not my mission here today.

These quotes are excerpts from Baudelaire's 1859 commentary on photography in which he expressed a distinct dislike for the medium and its apparatus. Based on this, one could make the assumption that he must have loved it when photography and its practioners fled from the exact reproduction of nature into the Pictorialism era wherein picture makers made plenty of his preferred "monsters of my fantasy". And, of course, that preference is alive and well in today's digital Neo-Pictorialism picture making world.

AN ASIDE this is not a complaint, it is just an observation. END OF ASIDE For the better part of the last decade or so, I was given to submitting pictures to juried gallery exhibitions. My acceptance rate was quite high - approximately 25 (did not keep a count) of my pictures made the cut. However, what I begain to notice in most recent years was that, even in exhibitions where a picture of mine was accepted, it was an outlier inasmuch as most of the other accepted pictures were one kind or another of digitally altered / constructed pictures. And, over time my acceptance rate took a nosedive.

Consequently, I do not submit much anymore. In fact, if I look at the work of a juried exhibition judge(s) and see that his/her work is well into the Neo-Pictorialism thing, I don't even bother submitting any pictures. It's a guaranteed waste of time and money. And, it's not because I can't make a Neo-Pictorialism picture. I can and have. Athough, mostly so in my professional career at the request of an editor / art director.

However, that written, to do so with my personal picture making would make me feel as though I were violating my oath to maintain the alliance of the medium of photography and its apparatus' inherent / intrinsic relationship to and with the real.

FYI, in case you are wondering about my claim that Baudelaire "mentions and praises me", I am honored that I am not included in the timid and dissident sect [that] would wish to exclude the more repellent objects of nature, such as skeletons or chamber-pots, or, kitchen sinks and trash cans.

flora / # 3616-18 ~ it's not easy being green

(embiggenable) • iPhone

before LAB curves adjustment ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

after LAB curves adjustment ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

ON THE SUBJECT OF GREEN IN MY LAST ENTRY Thomas Rink commented (partial):

At times, I find it difficult to make the green of vegetation look "right" in pictures....

my response:

CAVEAT It should be noted that my response is predicated upon my experience with my picture making devices (iPhone / Olympus µ4/3 cameras) and the manner in which they "see" color. And, re: devices "seeing" color, all camera / device manufacturers' picture making software has their own unique manner of turning digital information into color. Just as various makers' film did in the analog days.

In my experience, I have found that, in general, both my Olympus cameras and my iPhone (to a lesser extent) seem to have what has been descibed by reviewers as an ever so slight warm color bias. And I notice that bias most in pictures with a lot of green wherein the greens, to my eye and sensibilities, contain a bit too much yellow. The result is that, in cases where there are multiple shades of green, the greens can start to kinda blend together, color wise.

I discovered a solution to this issue way back when I started messing around with color adjustments in LAB color space. The solution, for my image files, is as simple as it gets ...

(embiggenable)

... after converting an image to LAB color space, I go to the "b" channel (Yellow/ Blue) and put an anchor point at the 0 input/0 output point (the exact center of the curves line). Then I put an anchor point on the yellow side of the curves line (above the 0/0 anchor point and drag it downward until, using my monitor as a visual guide, the greens look as I remember them from when I made the picture. Then I add another anchor point at the top of the curves line to straighten the line between the 2 anchor points.

Next, I go the "a" channel (red/green) and place an anchor at the 0/0 point on the curves line. Then I add an anchor point in the green side of the curves line (below the 0/0 point) and drag it up (adding magenta) ever so slightly, again using my monitor as a visual guide to determine whether I need to make this adjustment - sometimes I do, sometimes I do not. Many times the "b" channel adjustment is all an image file needs. In any event, I then convert the image file back to RGB color space.

What I see most from the above process is that, especially once the yellow is adjusted, there are more shades of green and, over all, the greens look more "accurate". I have provided before / after pictures so, if you are viewing them on a reasonably calibrated monitor / screen, you can judge for yourself.