civilized ku # 3687 ~ the escape from the "real"

Highland Park Diner ~ Rochester, NY (embiggenable) • µ4/3

There is a Leica loving picture maker out there who believes that photography has gone to hell in a handbasket. That belief stems from the fact that so many digital era picture makers have eschewed the making of "straight" pictures - that is, pictures which represent the real world exactly as the camera's eye-guided by the picture maker's vision-saw and pictured it, without any of that digital monkey business.

Now it is certainly true that photo-sharing sites-Instagram and the like-are saturated with non-straight pictures ranging from Color / Saturation / Contrast manipulated "interpretations" of the real world to outright fanciful dreamscapes straight from the image maker's imagination. The aforementioned Leica Lover seems to think that this is a new thing, picture making wise. However, considering manipulated images-which I would not necessarily call photographs-to be a new thing ignores the fact that that practice extends back to almost the very beginning of the medium and its apparatus.

The Pictorialism movement were the first group practioners of manipulating the light-sensitive materials to come out of the camera and that practice has never stopped. In the pre-digitial analog era, one magnificant example of that practice was Jerry Uelsmann. Uelsmann's moto could have easily been, "I don't need no stinkin' Photoshop.

So, even though I might agree with Leica Lover that the distinguishing characteristic of the medium of photography and its apparatus that separates it from other visual arts is its intrinsic and inexorable (albeit seemingly infinitely flexible) relationship with the "real", I believe that it is both very mistaken and misleading to think that the practice of manipulating the product that comes out of a camera as new practice. Nor, despite its seeming prevalence, to be deningrating or destroying the practice of Straight picture making.

What I am most interested in, re: the escape from the "real" so prevalent in picture making today, is what that says about the picture makers themselves and the culture in which they live. Maybe I'll have a few thoughts on that subject .....

civilized ku # 3686 ~ too much information

(embiggenable) • iPhone

Not to long ago I wrote about the idea of sharpness. To be accurate, I wrote about what I cinsder to be excessive or overwrought sharpness as persued by picture makers who seem to be obsessed with it. Not to mention camera makers who seem to share the same obsession, re: making ever bigger sensors with mind boggling resolution.

iMo, unless one is in the regular practice of making really big prints-4x6ft or bigger-what's the point?

Very recently, Mike Johnston wrote:

"The fact is, strange as it may seem lately, visual impressions can still be made perfectly effectively in the absence of microdetail."

Since I am in the practice of making "visual impressions" rather than pictures which are about detail(s), Johnston's point is, to my eye and sensibilities, well taken. Case in point, the picture in this entry.

That picture was made with my iPhone and that scene is one that the iPhone and its attendant AI can have a spot of trouble with. That is, subjects which are dominated by very low light or an abundance of dark colors/tones. Often the result is dark color and tones are not rendered smoothly. FYI, it does not seem to be a matter of noise.

In any event, in such a case I use a tool in Snapseed, Structure, which is intented to emphasize detail in a picture. However, if I move slider into the "negative" zone, it tends to reduce detail and in the process smooth out the colors and tones-it also darkens the selected areas which I then correct with a touch of the Brightness tool.

The result in this entry's picture works really well for my eye and sensibilities because the picture is not about detail but rather a visual impression of what I saw.

Civilized ku # 3682-85 ~ let there be light

all pictures ~ Rist Camp / Newcomb, NY - in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • iPhone

One of things about Rist Camp is the ever changing, hour-to-hour / day-to-day, light coming through the windows. Or, for that matter, the light show over the mountains and lake. And, the place itself is so seductively comfortable that it's tempting to never leave the hilltop.

But leave it I will. There's golf, hiking, our canoes (1 tandem, 2 solos), a nice beach, a couple good restaurants and a world class museum to intice me to get off the porch. And, of course, I want to get out specifically to make some ku pictures.

By "specifically" I mean to get out with only the intention to make pictures. Something I don't do very often. My normal MO is to make pictures of whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities when I am out and about for other purposes. And, in fact, I find that going out for the purpose of making pictures to be a bit intimidating.

I believe that to be the case inasmuch as I feel that I am trying too hard-forcing myself, if you will-to find pictures rather than, as is most often the case, letting pictures come to me unbidden.

In any event, why let a little mental hang up stop me? Tomorrow, I'll be out and about looking for pictures. Wish me luck.

Civilized ku # 3680-81~ living in a paradise

View from the porch ~ Newcomb, NY / in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • iPhone

Provisions ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

All settled in for a 5 week stay at Rist Camp. Looking forward to visits from friends and family but also to some time alone for picture making (the wife will only be here about half the time).

It is my intention, picture making wise, to focus on making ku (natural world) pictures. The issue I face when doing so is to avoid making the "standard" ain't-nature-grand-and-glorious cliche pictures. So, there will probably be some mucking about, picture making wise, while I try to find a grove that works for me.

FYI, for those interested in such things, the 5 prominent bottle labels in the Provisions picture represent-collectively-63 years of distilled spirits aging.

civilized ku # 3677-79 ~ we are all investigators now

Shore Jeresy Shore ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3

didn’t notice the birds ‘til I got closer ~ South Jersey Shore (embiggenable) • iPhone

There was a time, shortly after the upstart medium of photography emerged onto the scene, that the art world, especially the world of painting, began to feel threatened by the new medium. The poet, Charles Baudelaire, wrote (c. 1859):

"“If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon supplant or corrupt it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally."

That sentiment and many others like it was instrumental in art institutions of that era-London Royal Academy of Art / (French) Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, et al-to declare in their many proclamations, re: what qualifies as art, that the hand of the artist must be apparent in works of art.

Up until that point all art was "handmade" art. While this declaration re-enforced the status quo, it also disavowed photography-a mere mechanical craft, aka: pictures made by a machine-as an art form. As a reaction from the photography world, the practice of Pictorialism emerged. A practice where the hand of the artist was very visible.

That was then, this is now and the medium of photography and its apparatus have come along way, baby. Photography has established its niche in the art world (although not all photography is art) and many photographers are considered to artists who are making art.

That written, over a decade or two ago, there has been the emergence of the PhD photographer, a crowd who are members of what I refer to as The Academic Lunatic Fringe School of Photography. Needless to write, as my nomenclature implies, I am not a fan of the pictures they make, pictures that are always accompanied by the requisite artspeak, pyschoanalytical and pure flapdoodle-ish artist statement.

One of things in those artist statements that annoy me no end is the ever-present use of phrases which describe what they profess to be doing. Phrases such as, examining the fundamental search for, or, the use of intuitive process and various reinterpreted psychodramatic methods to examine, or, a method to investigate.

Apparently, the medium of photography and its apparatus is, for them, not about making pictures but rather a tool for "examining" or "investigating" one arcane art theory or another, or, very frequently, a navel gazing pursuit of highly personal identity or personal life issues.

What I find most annoying about the ALFSoP is the fact that they denigrate the idea that a photographic print is a thing in and of itself, a thing that can stand on its own without the need for a 1000 word essay about what it means. But, of course, the ALFSoP is all about content, aka: meaning, and little, if any thing at all, about form. Which, FYI, is why I don't like very many of their "investigations".

Apparently, we (picture makers) are all investigators and/or examiners now. So, be prepared. When asked what you are making a picture of / why you took a picture, the correct answer should be, "I am not taking a picture. I am examining and investigating the physical and psychological boundaries of simulacra and simulation."

civilized ku # 3676 ~ by the numbers

a glimpse of the natural world ~ 1980 Olympic “Miracle On Ice” arena/Lake Placid, NY (embiggenable) • iPhone

There has been a request to describe my print making workflow ....

First, let me write that it ain't rocket science. As I prefer in my picture making, I like to keep my print making workflow simple. While I certainly possess the technical knowledge and skill to go down the print making perfectionist rabbit hole, I would much rather keep it as easy and enjoyable as possible.

Before getting into the details of my workflow, a few ideas about my workspace ... my computer / monitor is set up in a built-in desk alcove in my photo workspace/office. The alcove is painted a neutral 50% gray. That background matches my monitor screen which is also set to a neutral 50% gray. The alcove lighting is daylight balanced and very dim - just enough light so I don't knock over my coffee cup.

The rest of my photo workspace has white walls and track lighting for print display. When processing image files in Photoshop, the track lights are turn off and the sole window in the workspace is covered with a closed venetian blind. In other words, my workspace is keep quite dark-ish when I am working on image files.

Word of warning ... NEVER work on image files in a brightly lit space or against a white or black background on your monitor.

on to my workflow ... while I used to keep my monitor calibrated with a calibration device / software, that procedure went the way of the dodo bird when a system software upgrade made the device / software inoperative. So now, I use the Apple Display Calibrator Assistant to create a reasonable display calibration. When I do so, I do it under the same lighting conditions as I use when processing an image file.

All of my image file proccessing is performed using Photoshop. The Photshop colorspace is set to the calibration setting of my latest display calibration procedure. It would be impossible to detail my image file processing workflow, but suffice it to write that I work to creating "clean" well-balance color and a full tonal range result*. Some of that work is performed in RGB colorspace while other parts are performed in LAB colorspace.

Once I have a final image file, I make a print ... I print from Photoshop to my Epson Wide Format printer. In the print dialog box, I set: a) the Color Handling to Photoshop Manages Color, b) the Printer Profile to the paper manufacturer printer profile for the printer and the paper I am using, c) select Send 16-bit Data + Normal Printing + Black Point Compensation, d) the Rendering Intent to Relative Colormetric.

Once I have a print, I view it under an overhead 5000K light source to determine if I need to make any adjustments to my image file. In most cases, I do not need to ... my first print is my "final" print.

*the single most important Photoshop tools I use to get good color and tonal range is the INFO dialoge window in conjunction with CURVES. Moving (swipe, don't click) any selection tool across an image file will give you RBG numbers in the INFO window with which you can determine color and density / tonal values.

As an example, a good clean color-neutral black value (for printing) should read as R10/G10/B10, Good clean white (for printing) should read as R250/G250/B250. If those values need to be adjusted, you can do so using CURVES.

Learning to use the INFO window in conjuction with CURVES will allow you to work by-the-numbers. And, as the saying goes, "Numbers don't lie." In addition to the workflow described above, working by-the-numbers is why my first print from an image file is usually a final print. Or, when it needs an adjustment(s), that adjustment(s) is very minor.

civilized ku # 3667-75 ~ a weekend haul o' pictures

see them all in one file ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

all pictures ~ (embiggenable)

Picture making gear is rarely mentioned on this blog other than to re-enforce my oft written idea that gear doesn't matter (it's all about the pictures, stupid). However, there is one piece of picture making equipment for which I am a fanatical advocate ... a photo printer.

It is my strongly held belief that, to my eye and sensiblities, you can make as many image files with a camera as you like, but, they are not pictures until they are made into a thing. That is, a physical / tangible object, in and of itself. If ya ain't makin' prints, y'all have left the party before the fat lady sings.

That written, iMo (and I am most definitely not alone), the only manner in which to truly appreciate a photograph is by viewing a photographic print. Every other viewing platform, with the exception of well printed photo books, is merely a comprimised facsimile of the real thing.

This is especially true of viewing images online. No matter how expertly the file may have been prepared for online viewing, a viewer's impression of it is determined by the calibration, or lack thereof, and quality of his/her device's screen. Even if a device is cailbrated to within an inch of its life, it can never convey a sense of or characteristics of the surface of a print ... something to which persnickety picture print makers devote a lot of attention.

Amongst aother differences, perceptually / emotionally a computer / device screen creates a cool viewing experience whereas a print is perceived by most as a warm viewing experience. Whether a viewers consciously feels it or not, cool is off putting, warm is inviting. In the total viewing scheme of things, to my eye and sensibilities, this maters a lot.

While I could brattle on about the, to me, significant differences between screen and print viewing, what really matters most to me is how an image file, which I may have spent considerable time viewing on my monitior (during the editing / processing thereof), figuratively comes alive when it emerges from my printer. The sensation is rather like I am viewing a different image.

It is my belief that the sensation / feeling of an image "coming alive" is due to the fact that I am looking at a real thing. I can hold it, touch it and appreciate the qualities of its surface. My eyes can move over the image on the surface of a print in a manner they can not on a screen. Then there is the perception of an inky richness and depth which no screen presentation can effect.

All of the above written, my love affair with prints has created something of a problem ... I make a lot of prints. Many more prints than I have wall space to accomodate. A problem which has suggested a solution to which I am not immune ... might be time to convert 2/3s of the space in our 2-car garage into a full-fledged gallery space. Or, alternately, rent a store front space and open a gallery.

civilized ku # 3666 ~ it is what is-just deal with that

And now, a bit of irony* ....

Yesterday, after going off on a stupid idea about the medium of photography and its apparatus (conventions and vernacular, not gear), I reflected upon a quote from Bruce Davidson ...

"I am not interested in showing my work to photographers any more, but to people outside the photo-clique."

I found that comtemplative act to be a very calming antidote for yet another attack of stupid-content trumps all-picture making advice agita. Davidson's quote pretty accurately reflects my position on with whom I most enjoy sharing my pictures.

It would be simple, but not accurate, to write that I don't like sharing my pictures with other picture makers. However, I don't discriminate against other picture makers, per se. Rather, I am sick unto death of those who view my pictures (or pictures made by others) and seem to only see the tools of the trade and their technical application.

That written, it is accurate to write that most of those viewers are, in fact, picture makers. And, conversely, those who view my work, first and foremost, simply as a picture are, for the most part, not dedicated / "serious" picture makers. Consciously or not, they tend to be people looking for an aesthetic experience.

That written, there is an interesting 2-sided division / distinction within the picture making ranks. The dividing line between the 2 camps defined by each camps' picture making intentions.

On one side of the dividing line are those whom I would label as "serious" picture makers. A moniker which I use to describe avid amateur picture makers who are somewhat enraptured with gear and technique. Picture makers who are capable of making nice photographs which are much admired by other "serious" picture makers, but, in fine art world, not so much.

On the other side of the line are picture makers who rarely give a rat's ass about gear and technique. Or, only as much as is needed to create what really matters to them. That is, the print as the final expression of their picture making vision. Picture makers, I would tend to label as artists as opposed to calling them photographers.

At exhibitions of my work those viewers in the first group are easily identified by the fact that, inevitably, they get their noses so close to my prints that, if I had expelled gas while making those prints, they would probably be able smell it. And, after the nose inspection, they approach me and, the first words uttered are, "What camera are you using?"

That behavior stands in direct contrast with that of those in the second group who view the work from a respectful distant-taking in its entirety. If they approach me, their comments tend to be along the lines of, "Nice work / good stuff" and the like ... comments which could be taken as lame platitudes but are often accompanied by extended conversions about an opinion / observation, re: aesthetics. Nary word is heard about gear or technique.

IN CONCLUSION let me borrow a quote from Susan Sontag who, in her essay Against Interpretation was imploring art critics (and by extention, the general art viewing public) to get beyond the obsession with content (meaning) and ...

"...learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more." in order to be " experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are.

By extention, I would suggest that "serious" picture makers do the same in order to get beyond the obssession with gear / technique when viewing photographs.

*in case you you didn't get it ... I am displaying my pictures on a photo blog which is followed by picture makers.