civilized ku # 3576 ~ what's the point?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I CAN NOT HELP BUT CONTINUE TO wonder about the question, what is a photograph? Maybe a better question is why wonder about the question, what is a photograph? And just maybe the answer to both questions is "I don't know."

WIthout a doubt, any given photograph can be anything the maker wants it to be. Just as any given photograph can be anything to any viewer to any given photograph. In either case, any given photograph can be akin to an ink blot. It is exactly what it is and nothing more or it can funtion like a rorschach "test" and instigate a host of intellectual / emotional responses.

All of that seems to suggest that a photograph has no intrinsic point (aka: meaning)-a property that an object or a thing has of itself .... which does not mean that a photograph can not have an extrinsic property-a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. The "thing" being a photograph and the "other things" being the viewer and his/her relationship to and with "real" world.

It would be very easy to go down a pyscho-analytical / Academic Lunatic Fringe rabbit hole on this topic but the fact is that I have closed that trap door a long time ago. I have no interest in getting hopelessly lost in that rat's nest / labyrinth. No, I would rather keep it simple.

Which brings me to the movie The Point* ....

.... if a photograph has no intrinsic point other than myriad possibilities deduced by viewers thereof, the Pointless Man (from the movie) has a point:

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

However, the Rock Man (from the movie) has a point as well:

"Say babe, ain't nuthin' pointless about this gig. The thing is, you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?"

So, all of that written, I would venture that the point of my answer to my question, what is a photograph?, is that, other than the undeniable fact that a photograph, when printed, is a thing, it would seem to be rather pointless to be concerned about what a photograph is other than recognizing the fact of its tangible existence. And then get on with the act seeing what you want to see.

*hey, wisdom can be found in the most unlikely of places.

ku # 1453-56 ~ up yours

ice storm ~ all pictures (embiggenable) • iPhone

A WINTER RAIN STORM LEFT A COATING OF ICE on everything. Fortunately, the weather turned warm-above freezing-immediately after so ice storm damage was minimal.

In unrelated news, re: the medium and its appparatus, there was yet another entry on T.O.P. that, tangentially, touched upon the use of the smartphone for picture making. Predictably, the smartphone as a picture making device boo-birds chimed in with the usual chorus of what I would label as ill-informed and downright ignorant commentary ...

... first and foremost on the ignorant scale is the make-no-distinction / blanket statement that smartphones make image files that lack image quality. OK. Let me go on record writing that smartphones can not make image files which match the technical image quality standards of a FF digital camera. No DUH. Most would state that smartphone files are not capable of making files that are comparable, re: file technical quality, to those made using any "real" digital camera. Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT.

The first problem with the aforementioned claims is that the comments make no distinction whatsoever about which smartphones are being referenced. The implication is that all smartphones are deficient image making devices. And, like all simple-minded generalizations, this patently wrong. Just as in the digital "real" camera world, there has been a steady increase in smartphone picture making capabilities to the point where the latest generation of smartphones are very capable picture making devices.

So, IMI(nformed)O, anyone who is making a comment, re: smartphone technical image file quality, who is not experienced with using the latest smatphones, is not qualified to have an opinion.

The second problem with the aforementioned claims is that I suspect that most, if not all, of the ill-informed / ignorant comments are made by picture makers with a limited knowledge and ability, re: image file processing techniques. To wit, as I have mentioned in previous entries, in order to get the best results from smartphone image files, a user must know and understand how the AI / computational workings of the device work ... because, without that knowledge a user is at the mercy of the machine's brain instead of the user's brain.

The machine wants to do what the machine wants to do. However, when making pictures with a smartphone, there are techniques, often referred to as work-arounds, which can be employed to achieve the result that the user's brain wants to achieve. Follow up the use of those techniques with proficient and knowledgeable image processing techniques and ...

... VOILA. You have an image file that, when printed-in a book or a framed print on a wall-can be compared quite favorably to a book or print made from almost any "real" digital camera image file.

And, no, to be certain, the image file will not compare favorably to a file made with a "real" camera when viewed at 100% on a monitor. Nor will a print, dependent upon print size, from a smartphone compare well against a print made from a "real" camera image file when viewed at a viewing distance with one's nose close enough to the print to smell it.

So, to sum it all up and to let you know where I stand on the subject of smartphone picture making... if your viewing pleasure is 100% on-screen magnification or nose on print and your image file processing skills are minimal at best, please take your comments on smartphone pictures and shove it where the sun don't shine.

FYI, my next entry will address why, technical qualities aside, the iPhone works, for me, as my primary picture making device.

ADDENDUM: to be clear, if your thing in the pictue making world is enriched by pixel-peeping / print sniffing, more power to you in your preferred picture making milieu. My issue is not with you or your pursuit of what you consider to be picture making "perfection". In fact, I wish you well in that regard but ... my issue is with your denigrating opinion, implied or otherwise, of what others might consider their pursuit of picture making "perfection". It is a rather pointless, unproductive and somewhat insulting endeavour.

civilized ku # 3575 ~ a tip of the hat

(embiggenable) • iPhone

A FEATURED COMMENT from Thomas Rink:

Your book looks very interesting, so I just ordered a copy ... I consider proper sequencing of the pictures, layout, design and finish of the book, even paper quality, to be far more important. (than technical "image quality")

my response: Thanks for your purchase. I look forward to seeing your thoughts / opinions.

RE: sequencing of the pictures, layout, design and finish of the book, even paper quality. Inasmuch as this is my first experience with blurb, I am trusting that the finish of the book, paper quality and reproduction will be of high quality. The layout / design is simple and clean - 1 picture per page, all the same size on a plain white sheet. That layout / design is the hallmark of all of my photo books.

However, re: the sequencing, be forewarned inasmuch as the sequencing is entirely random. For a number of reasons, deliberately so .... as I have previously written, I consider my picture making to be of the discursive promiscuity variety. That is, no common theme or referent, just pictures of whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities at any given time on any given day. Consequently, the randomness of the sequencing is such that it represents and replicates the manner in which I make pictures.

Hope it works for you.

civilized ku # 3573-74 ~ my book of the year

(embiggenable) • iPhone

tomato on a plate ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

MY THANKS TO THOMAS RINK FOR refreshing my memory, re: blurb as a source for online photobook printing and self-publishing / sales. Consequently, I went to the site and discovered I had an account which was set up long ago (10+ years?). And, having already prepped files for book making on Shutterfly, I went ahead and made a book-2019 ~ The Year in Review-on blurb using those same files.

That book, as opposed to the 10x10 inch Shutterfly book (see above picture) of the same name which arrived today, is a 7x7 inch softcover book. I chose those size and cover options so the book would be affordable for those who might be interested in acquiring it. FYI, I'm not trying to make a profit with this book. I am just trying to make it affordable for those who are interested in seeing my iPhone created pictures in print.

That written, the print and image quality of the Shutterfly book-I selected their 6-color printing option-is really excellent-take that you iPhone skeptics. However, the cost (to me) of that book was $108.00USD. That cost was after a 50% discount! For comparison, the blurb book is selling for $32.00USD. I am quite certain that the print / paper quality of the blurb book will be comparable to that of the Shutterfly book. I will only know for certain after I receive my copy of the printed book. However, I am not losing any sleep over that issue.

click on this link to see the blurb book preview.

civilized ku # 3572 ~ same as it ever was

(embiggenable) • iPhone

HERE IT IS. MY RAMBLINGS ON THE state of of the medium and its apparatus. First things, first .... setting the stage ...

.... unlike any time in the past, photography milieu wise, it would be safe to write that we are all photographers now inasmuch as the dictionary states that a photographer is "one who practices photography". So, logically writing, in addition to those who use a camera to make pictures, there is an enormous number of people in the "civilized" world have a cell phone capable of making photographs. Suffice it to write that the medium's practitioners have expanded to a number never before seen.

That written, the bulk of those practioners are not "serious" picture makers. They are what was derisively called "snapers" at the time of the introduction of the first KODAK. Their primary picture making activity is making pictures for placement on social media and their pictures rarely make beyond their phones / virtual world and into the real world in the form of actual printed photograph. It's all good for them.

Then there is the much smaller subset of "serious" and very "serious" picture makers. That group ranges from casual to dedicated "hobbyists" to those consumed-by-the-desire-to-make-art and it is these groups of picture makers, and their pictures, with whom I am most interested.

It may seem overly simplistic to write that not much of significance has changed over the past year. There has been no out-of-the-blue / sudden emergence of an heretofore unseen manner of seeing and picturing the planet and/or life thereon. The practioners of various picture making genre plod along following the tried and true picture making conventions of their chosen field of interest (which is not to write that there are no pictures of interest being made).

That written, there is one particular genre-one of medium's earliest movements-that seems to be undergoing a wide spread revival. That is the movement labeled as Pictorialism .... from Wikipedia:

Pictorialism is an international style and aesthetic movement that dominated photography during the later 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no standard definition of the term, but in general it refers to a style in which the photographer has somehow manipulated what would otherwise be a straightforward photograph as a means of "creating" an image rather than simply recording it .... For the pictorialist, a photograph, like a painting, drawing or engraving, was a way of projecting an emotional intent into the viewer's realm of imagination.

I come to this belief from my experience over the years of submitting pictures to gallery calls for submissions for juried theme-based group exhibitions. And that experience-especially so over the past year-is increasingly dominated by submissions and subsequent juried selections which could very accurately be labeled as pictorialism aesthetic pictures.

No matter the specific theme of a call for submissions-as simple as, say, pictures of a tomato on a plate-very few "straightforward" pictures of a tomato on a plate make the cut into the exhibition. Typically, if an exhibition is comprised of 30 pictures, only 3-4 are straightforward pictures. Most selections are visual "constructions" straight out of the picture maker's photoshopped imagination.

Why the emgerence of pictorialist picture making tendencies? I could go down a rabbit hole of cultural influences but I don't want to get all pyscho(logical) on this subject. But, in a practical picture making sense, the introduction and continuing development of of Photoshop and picture altering apps have made it easy, for the picture maker, to slip into the domain of making acts of the imagination visible. However, more to the picture making point, it is easier to make a catchy-to-the-eye picture of an imagined world than it is to make a straight, catchy-to-the-eye picture of the real world.

Does this scenario dictate that the end of straight picture making is nigh (as one blogger has declared)? Of course not. Does it mean that the medium and its apparatus will be used to create another digital-era genre which will be dominated by pictures which display that genre's cliches and repetitive visual tropes? It a word, yes.

All of that writen, in a very real sense, the state of the medium and its apparatus is the same as it ever was. That is, the characteristic of the medium and its apparatus which distinguishes it from the other visual arts-its intrinsic relationship with and to the real world-will always be the most challenging aesthetic sensibility within which a picture maker can work.

2019 YIR ~ a look over my shoulder

covers / some spreads ~ from my 2019 Year in Review photo book - all pictures (embiggenable)

WHILE WRITING THE state or the medium and its apparatus entry (ongoing), it occurred to me that I had yet to make a 2019 Year in Review (of my work) photobook. So, I set the entry writing aside and spent a couple days editing out my favorites from last year and assembling them into a book.

Along the way, I thought it necessary to pick one of those pictures as my "best" picture of 2019. As I was working on identifying that treasure, it seemed that I would have to have 2 categories of "best". One "best" based on art considerations. One "best" based on referent, personally affecting, considerations.

As it turns out, and with virtually no mucking about in my archives, one picture came to mind that satisfied both category requirements. A picture which might actually be my all-time best (or, at the very least, my all-time favorite)....

.... a picture of the wife made in the Art Institute of Chicago presented in my snapshot format as framed art on the wall of the AIoC.

FYI I am searching for a online photo bookmaker that allows individuals to purchase books directly from the site. Just in case anyone might be interested in seeing the picture quality that can be had with the use of the iPhone 1 PRO MAX / 7 Plus.