civilized ku / around the house/ kitchen life # 3677-79 ~ I'd pay for that

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I HAVE OFTEN THOUGHT THAT, IF a school of higher learning were to create a course of study, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus, which was built solely around multiple volumes of quotes, sans any and all reference to gear and technique, from a wide range of picture makers / critics together with a library of photo monographs from those same picture makers, there just might be a whole lot more interesting pictures to look at.

As an example ...

"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others....The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ JOHN SZARKOWSKI

kitchen sink / # 3676 ~ Bill Jay said it best

AMONGST MANY IDEAS IN HIS ESSAY, The Thing Itself ~ The fundamental principle of photography, there was one idea I found to be quite accurate and appropriate:

"...photographers are photographers one hundred per cent of the time, even when washing dishes."

That brilliant notion aside, Jay builds his case, re; the preeminence of the the thing itself, upon "the medium's inseparable relationship to The Thing Itself...Photography performs one function supremely well: it shows what something or somebody looked like, under a particular set of conditions at a particular moment in time". A function which he labels as "photography's boon as well as its bane.

Jay and I pretty much agree on that score. Especially the boon as well as bain part - although, iMo, emphasis should be placed on the bain part cuz ...

...when it comes to the medium's struggle to gain acceptance as an Art, its ability to faithfully record "what something or somebody looked like, under a particular set of conditions at a particular moment in time" was the primary impediment to acceptance.

That is to write, the medium's one function [that it does] supremely well created a prevailing picture making paradgm in which what you photograph is usually more important than how you photograph it. An idea which stands at odds with the Art World.

It was not until the medium began its climb out of its emphasis on the what-round about the late 60s / early 70s-that the Art World began to consider photography as a viable medium for making Art. At that time, photographers began to eschew what they had been told was a good picture and begin to make pictures of what they saw and in doing so they began to embrace tenets of the Aesthetic Movement ...

The aesthetic movement was a late nineteenth century movement that championed pure beauty and ‘art for art’s sake’ emphasising the visual and sensual qualities of art and design over practical, moral or narrative considerations.

iMo, it was as this point that the how you photograph-with emphasis on the visual and sensual qualities of art and design over narrative considerations-broke free of the constraints of the what you photographed. Photographers who were sensitive to the visual and sensual qualities of Art were free to make pictures of how they saw/see the world.

Simply put, the how began to take precedence over the what. And, the Art World took notice.

around the house / # 3673-75 ~ slicing it thin

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION A FEW DAYS ago that, if one were to be in a must-have-FF-sensor delirium state of mind, there is a FF sensor camera available for just under $1K (1 dollar under).

While I am not in a FF sensor huff, acquiring such a device has piqued my picture making fancy more than a few times. However, not for reasons one might expect ... I do not want more pixels, more resolution or more whatever. In fact, what I want is less of something, that being DOF.

That written, one of things I miss seeing in picutes made with digital picture making devices is what is known as selective focus. That is:

In photography the term 'selective focus' refers to a technique where the photographer selectively focuses on the subject of an image, essentially ignoring all other aspects of the scene. ... The contrast of the sharp subject against the soft image background creates powerful, contemplative images.

Avoiding dwelling on what most already know, simply put, small sensors (at any given aperture) = increased (apparently) DOF (relative to FF or larger sensors). It is baked into the nature of the magnification beast.

One of the only considerations preventing me from acquiring a FF sensor device- other than "the look" I get from the wife when I bring the subject up-is my use of the PORTRAIT picture making mode on my iPhone. Especially so now that that setting can be used with the iPhone's wide angle lens. It is also very intriquing / useful that, after the picture making fact, I can adjust the DOF-at any time cuz the adjustment is not permanent- to whatever DOF look I desire.

To be perfectly accurate, the PORTRAIT DOF is not perfect. It likes simple shapes rather than very fine details but, that written, 99.9% of the time it gets the job done to my satisfaction.

So, bottom line, I would opine that my current-nothing is forever-satisfaction with the iPhone's PORTRAIT mode is indicative of another hit on the the camera making industry cuz, at this time, I can write that "I don't need no stinkin' FF sensor.

around the house / kitchen life / single women / # 3668-72 ~ luck is where you find it

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ACCORDING TO MIKE JOHNSTON ON T.O.P. I am "lucky indeed." That's cuz I have the answer to his riddle and cuz I can answer "yes" to the second question...

"What are you happiest making pictures of—what kind of pictures have the highest satisfaction/gratification quotient for you—and do you have access to it? If you know the answer to the first riddle and can say "yes" to the second question, you're lucky indeed."

Re: "the riddle" - What are you happiest making pictures of / what kinds of subject matter? My answer to that question is quite simple inasmuch as, when I first began making pictures, I ignored (without much effort) the standard advice for good picture making which goes along the line of, pick a referent-almost always meaning a person/people, place or thing-that you care about / are interested in and concentrate on making pictures thereof.

This "timeless" advice, iMconsideredo, unfortunately leads many / most to believe that the literal, depicted referent is what a picture is and should be about. Which tends to lead to the impoverished idea that, if a picture is to be considered as beautiful / interesting, it is only because the referent is beautiful / interesting. Which, in turn, leads to, as Johnston points out in the same entry, "motifs [that] are beginning to become almost standardized in photography, as so many people take the same picture over and over again.

Not wishing to belabor the preceding opinion / point, my answer to Johnston's riddle is simple .... my favorite kind of subject matter is any thing and every thing cuz my real picture making interest / subject is the rhythms, the melodies, the harmonies, to include the dissonances that can be seen and found just about everywhere regardless of the actual /literal depicted subject matter.

And, since my favorite "subject matter" can be found / seen just about everywhere, I have constant and seemingly endless "access" to it.

So, I guess I am a very lucky guy indeed.

around the house / kitchen life / kitchen sink / # 3663-67 ~ no thinking required

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

GIVEN THE MEDIUM OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND ITS APPARATUS' intrinsic / inherent relationship with the real world as its primary defining characteristic which distinguishes it from the the other visual arts, it is my considered opinion that, in the digital picture making domain, the medium has moved beyond the creation of images which depict the real world in a "realistic" manner to that of the creation of images which are more hyper-real than real.

That written, and lest anyone think that I believe that the medium and its apparatus has gone to hell in hand basket, I am referring to that segment of the picture making world-camera makers and picture makers-for whom there is never enough rich color / saturation, micro detail, resolution, sharpness and brilliance. All of which are employed in the making of pictures which appear, to my eye and sensibilities, to be more real than real (my apologies to the Tyrell Corporation).

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that this proclivity is solely the product of the digital picture making world inasmuch as, back in the good ol' analog days, one could choose color film / paper products which were designed to exaggerate / distort the real world. Fujichrome Velvia film and Cibachrome color paper come immediately to mind.

In either case, analog or digital, I just don't understand the desire to subvert the medium's primary characteristic. However, I might suggest that those who go down that road seem to lack the imagination / creativity to make good pictures within the "constraints" of adhering to the real as opposed to slathering the real with a cheap-trick veneer of art sauce.

natural world / around the house / # 3660-62 ~ for your eyes only

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

ART DOESN'T NEED A SUBJECT. iMconsideredO, content is antithetical to the art aesthetic and it is form that opens the gateway to the rapture of the art experience. Consequently, I would rather view a piece of art that makes me want to puke than one which makes me want to think* about it, i.e. to discern meaning (aka: content). However...

....lest I get carried away, I can not ignore the fact that, inasmuch as I navigate the art-waters of the medium of photography, my art making endevours are inexorably liked to real-world referents. That is the intrinsic nature of the beast. And, especially so with the medium of photography, what is depicted is most often linked to a picture's content, aka: meaning.

Fortuntely for me and my picture making, I am (seemingly) preternaturally drawn to making pictures of 'nothing" or, more accurately, nothing of any great visual significance. That is fortunate inasmuch as the depicted referent is unlikely, for those atuned to it, to get in the way of seeing the artistic sensibility / characteristics, the intended content of my pictures, employed in the making of my pictures.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, that is just the way I see it.

* which does not mean that a picture I view might not incite thoughts. Although, most of those thoughts are descriptive of the emotion(s) which the picture might have incited in me.

around the house / #3658-60 ~ cleaning up

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

A FEW DAYS BACK, I STARTED WRITING AN ENTRY that addressed Stephen McAteer's question:

"...do you have any posts outlining how you get such natural colours in your pictures?...My own photographs tend to be over-saturated as they come out of the camera. I would much rather have naturalistsic colour rendition like yours."

However, as I was plugging along on it, I realized that I was writing a long-winded how-to tutorial of how I get to my color look. A process which is very dependent upon my very specific workflow and tools that may or may not have any relevance to anyone else. So, what follows is more of an overview which I hope will be more helpful.

Let's start with a few lines form Paul Simon's song Kodachrome:

They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah

Back in the good ol' days of film, picture makers had lots of color film choices. And each one of those choices came a film makers' idea of what color should look like, even to the point where individual film makers had multiple color film offering, each with a different idea of how color should look. Not to mention the difference between how transparency film and color negative film dealt with color.

My choice in the analog era-for my personal picture making-was always a Kodak color negative film which was biased toward "natural" or "neutral" color rendition. That's cuz I wanted my pictures to represent, as close as the medium could produce, color that looked like what my eyes perceived in the real world. The fact that color negative film also delivered, compared to transparency film, a greater dynamic range-with wonderful soft highlight rendition-was an added bonus.

In any event, the look I obtained from using a neutral / natural color negative film became the look I came to, dare I write, love. And, it is also the look that I strive to achieve in my digital era picture making. I think of it as my embedded-in-my-head/eye baseline.

Moving on ... the key to obtaining natural color is to first identify the color "bias" of the picture making device you use. There are probably a number of techincal means-involving expensive equipment and software mastery-of doing so. Then there is the non-technical seat-of-your-pants manner of doing so which only involves your eyes and some messing round with Photoshop and a reasonably calibrated monitor.

HINT: most picture making device makers create color engines which tend to be biased toward a warmish color rendition with a bit of color saturation thrown into the mix, i.e. warm(ish) "rich" color. Hey, why not, cuz who does not like the world to have "nice bright colors" and look like all that world is "a sunny day"? Based on that observation, I find that I do most of my color "correction"-in pursit of natural-like color-in the yellow and red color channels.

In my specific picture making world, I have found that I need a just a bit more adjustment (reduction) in the Y segment of the B channel than in the A channel (also a reduction). Although, in some images, I find I only need to make the B channel adjustment. In making just these 2 relatively minor adjustments, it is amazing how natural-like all of the color in an image becomes.

In it also important to note that ALL processing for contrast / tonal adjustments be made on the LIGHTNESS channel in LAB color space. Making those adjustments on the RGB curve line will effect the color in an image as well. Not so with the LIGHTNESS channel.

Once again, I should point out that my color processing is performed with Photoshop using, almost exclusively, the CURVES tool in conjunction with the INFO window. That processing is always performed on individual color channels, NEVER on the RGB curve line. And, my normal processing adjustments are usually made on the A and B channel in LAB Color Space. NOTE: I never use the Hue/Saturation tool over than, after mking my color adjustments, I will now and again use the tool to reduce overall saturation by just a smidge.

The one adjustment function for which I do use RGB color space is the first adjustment I make-if I deem it needed-on an image. Step 1 is to identify the highest value (closest to 250 in the INFO window) hightlight in an image, one that I want to appear as a clean neutral white. Then on each individual color channel, I adjust each channel to be equal (as seen in the INFO window), as in 250R / 250G / 250B. Then, step 2, keeping the same CURVES window open, I find the lowest value shadow (closest to 10) that I want to appear as a clean neutral black, then I adjust each channel to be equal (as seen in the INFO window), as in 10R / 10G / 10B.

At this point, the CURVE line shoud still be a straight line. If that is so, just by adjusting the highest and lowest color values to equal, as incredible as it might seem, all of the color values along the CURVE line will be as "clean" as they can be, given the overall color bias of a devices' color engine. It is at this point, I move on to making my correct-the-devices-color-bias adjustments (R and Y) in LAB color space.

As mentioned, all of this image processing is based on the use of the CURVES tool + INFO window in Photoshop or some other processing software which has a CURVES tool and allows for processing in LAB color space. Using CURVES may seem like rocket science to some but, if so, there are a zillion simple tutorials out there that do a good a job of demonstrating the use thereof.

That's it folks. Hope this was helpful.