intimate landscape (ku) / #3613-15 ~ it never occurred to me

June 9, 2020

ONE LESSON LEARNED FROM YESTERDAY'S WALK IN THE woods and from hindsight gained from re-visiting my early intimate landscape pictures is that my eye and senibilities are, most definitely, not pricked by the color green. And, truth be told, that fact never occurred to me before in my picture making life.

However, point in fact, it is not so much the color green itself, rather it is the fact that I am not generally inspired to make landscape pictures during the green, green, green of summer. Not that I do not make landscape pictures with the color green in them, but that those such pictures rarely feature or are "about" the color green.

In my non-picture making life, green is OK. After purchasing our house, we painted it green. The walls in our master bedroom suite are painted with 2 subtely different shades of green. The wainscoting in 2 of our bathrooms are painted green. And, the love-seat and chairs in our living room are light shades of green (although, the wife insists that the love-seat is grey). The cabinets in our kitchen are green. However, all of that written, the greens in question are all middle tones or lighter of a cool shade of green. They are, most assuredly, not the green, green, green of summer.

This understanding comes as somewhat of a shock to me. Not that I will change my picture making ways, but it does re-enforce that idea that I believe that my picture making is driven by forces-if not preternatural then certainly subconscious- that I do not fully comprehend. Which is OK by me inasmuch as I am doing, picture making wise, just what comes naturally to me, aka: following what pricks my eye and sensibilities

FYI, all of my comparison pictures were made on the West Branch of the Au Sable River along a stretch known as The Flume. We have had alot of recent rain so the river is raging right along. I live a few miles down-river from The Flume in Au Sable Forks ... so named because the confluence of the East and West Branch of the Au Sable river is located in the center of town.

intimate landscape (ku) / # 3610-12 ~ into the woods for comparison work

June 8, 2020

(embiggenable) • µ4/3 (left) / iPhone (right)

TOOK A SHORT WALK WITH THE INTENTION OF making a few intimate landscape pictures for comparison purposes. Each scene pictured with both a Olympus µ4/3 camera and the iPhone.

The results are pretty much what I suspected they would be. That is, the iPhone-made pictures compare very favorably with the µ4/3-made pictures. Both would print well at 24x24" with little visible difference unless, of course, one were to indulge in pixel peeping. However, were I to see someone pixel peeping, I would knee-cap them with my basball bat and then drag them back to the proper viewing distance so they could see the print as it should be viewed before they went to the ER.

FYI, I was not attempting to process these pictures to achieve an exact match, contrast / shadow•highlight detail / color / density wise. For my comparison purposes, close enough was good enough. I was looking for enlarge-abilty.

landscape (triptych) / around the house / # 3606-09 ~ mélange o' cameras

June 7, 2020

some of my canoes on Adirondack wilderness waters ~ (embiggenable) • various cameras — ***some of my canoes on Adirondack wilderness waters*** ~ (embiggenable) • various cameras

THE PICTURES IN THE CANOES TRIPTYCH were made at different times using a mélange of different cameras. They were also processed to achieve a soft-focus effect for a specific use.

The center picture was made in my pre-digital days using a CANON EOS IX, an APS film format, interchangeable lens, SLR camera. The left side picture was made after my switch to digital using one model of a CANON Powershot G series camera or another. The right side picture was made after moving on from the CANON cameras using, most likely, my first Olympus camera, an E-520 DSLR.

landscape / sky / # 3603-05 ~ question and answer

June 6, 2020

my kind of sunset picture ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone (FYI, made with the “ultra-wide” lens (14mm-equiv) — ***my kind of sunset picture*** ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone (FYI, made with the “ultra-wide” lens (14mm-equiv)

(embiggenable) • CANON Powershot G series camera

entre chien et loup ~ (embiggenable) • CANON Powershot G series camera — ***entre chien et loup*** ~ (embiggenable) • CANON Powershot G series camera

ON MY LAST ENTRY, Thomas Rink left a comment:

Mark, did you intend to use the phone camera for this work, too? I'm curious since for my own intimate landscapes, I find wide-angle lenses often too short to extract small parts of a scene. A "normal" focal length and longer works better for this purpose as far as I'm concerned. Probably a small sensor camera with a zoom would work best due to flexibility and depth of field.

my response: re:...did you intend to use the phone camera for this work? The devil, aka: contrarian, in me says I should use the iPhone just so I can give the finger to the "perfectionists". However, since I often print my usually highly detailed intimate landscape pictures large-up to 24x24"-I will make a few comparison pictures-iPhone v. "real" camera- to be certain iPhone pictures would compare favorably with "real" camera made pictures at the large size. From my experience making large prints from iPhone image files, I believe they will fill the bill.

re: lens selection. By my estimate, approximately 90% of my landscape / nature pictures were made with a 40mm-µ4/3-equivalent-lens. In fact, it might be accurate to write that 90% of all of my "real"-camera pictures were / are made with the same lens. I am a 1-lens/1-camera kinda guy.

Were I to use the iPhone for this undertaking, I would most likely use the "wide" lens which I believe is a 26mm-ish-equivalent lens. That is the lens I use-my iPhone 1-lens/1-camera equivalent-for approximately 90% of my iPhone-made pictures. With 18 months of iPhone picture making using that lens, I have had no problems getting the results I want and the pictures hold up well when paired with "real"-camera with 40mm(equiv) made pictures. That written, when I make some comparison pictures, I will make a few using the iPhone "tele" lens which is actually a 52mm-equivalent lens, aka: a "normal" lens equivalent.

It is worth noting that after I lent, to my grandson, one of my Olympus PEN cameras with my 20mm lens-the 40mm-equivalent-I have been using my 24mm-equivalent lens in my 1-lens/1-camera set up. In my analog 35mm camera days, my 24mm Nikkor lens was my favorite lens. As I sit here writng this entry, that lens is mounted on one of my Nikon F3s on a shelf right next to me (it makes a nice paperweight). Consequently, I have a long and happy relationship with the 24mm field of view.

intimate landscape / # 3598-3602 ~ daddy needs a new pair of shoes

June 5, 2020

(embiggenable) • early CANON G series Powershot camera

GOING BACK TO THE EARLIEST-CIRCA 2003-SAVED DIGITAL PICTURE FILES in my 7,766 finished picture file library, I have been pulling out what might be considered as the "best of" my ku, aka: nature / landscape, pictures. My reason for doing so is 2-fold.

First, I have been contemplating the purchase of new hiking boots. Second, I consider it kinda like a refresher course, re: how I made pictures of the Adirondack landscape / natural world. The first and second reasons are intrinsically connected inasmuch as I want new hiking boots because I want to get into the woods much more consistently to, once again, start making Adirondack landscape / natural world pictures. Somehow, for some reason, I feel as if I have to do so.

However, that written, while going through my landscape /nature pictures (which number in the high triple digits), I have begun to question whether or not I have anything more to say about that specific referent. Inasmuch as my vision, aka: what pricks my eye and sensibilities and how that dictates how I picture it, has not changed in any significant manner from what it was 40 years ago, I am concerned that the best I could do returning to landscape / nature picture making is to repeat myself.

On the other hand, while I believe that I have made some really good, even outstanding, landscape / nature pictures, especially intimate landscape / nature pictures, maybe, sine qua non wise, the object is to create a new 20-30 picture body of work that represents the ne plus ultra of my concept of landscape / nature photography. That idea seems like a worthy and doable undertaking.

In any case, I am getting a new pair of hiking boots.

intimate landscape / # 3594-98 ~ a step back in time

June 4, 2020

(embiggenabe) • early CANON Powershot camera

ONCE UPON A TIME, 20 YEARS AGO, AFTER MOVING TO THE ADIRONDACKS, I began to make pictures of the place. For a number of years, most of those pictures where of the natural world, aka: ku. And, until I felt it to be time-when digital cameras reached a point of at least somewhat maturity-to step up to a "serious" digital camera (circa 2008), I was using one CANON Powershot G series camera or another (I kept upgrading from one generation to the next). They were all quite capable cameras.

The pictures in this entry are from very early in my post-2000 Adirondack picture making and they are very representative of my-to this day-intimate landscape approach to picturing the Adirondacks. That approach is, to my eye and sensibilities, ideally suited to the place itself.

That is, the Adirondack "Park" is actually not designated as NYS park. It is, and always has been, the Adirondack Forest Preserve. And, as you might assume, most of the Adirondacks is a dense, northeastern US forest. Which is to write that, unless one hikes to above tree-line on a mountain top in the HIGH PEAKS region or visits one of the larger lakes, there are precious few grand, sweeping landscapes.

Based upon my 65 years of experience walking / hiking in the Adirondacks, I can write that, of the 2,300 miles of wilderness hiking trails, 95% of those miles are in the forest. Consequently, what one sees / encounters on a typical Adirondack hike are trees, undergrowth and bracken and more trees. Which is why I make a lot of pictures of trees, undergrowth and bracken.

That written, and to be accurate, on a typical Adirondack hike one will definitely encounter one or more of the 2,800 lakes and ponds and or stretches on some of the 1,500 rivers fed by 30,000 miles (estimated) of brooks and streams. And, waterfalls, bogs and marshes abound. So, yes, I have pictures of that stuff too.

However, my Adirondacks is defined by the seemingly endless intimate landscape tableaux to be found in the forest. And, if I may be so bold as to suggest, my inimate landscape pictures are kissing cousins to my other work, especially my kitchen sink and kitchen life pictures.

kitchen life / kitchen sink # 3591-93 ~ what's not to like?

June 2, 2020

test print / how it might look ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone — ***test print / how it might look*** ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone

I BELIEVE, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT I am incapable of making a bad picture. The reason and logic for that arrogantly stupid belief is the simple fact that (wink, wink) I believe it to be true and it does not matter if others believe to be true because it is only important that I believe it to be true. So there, that settles that.

In any event, I am about to test my belief inasmuch as I am meeting with a local business owner to discuss the possibility of sponsoring a "fresh air" pop-up photo exhibition on Main Street in our home town. Part of the discussion will, of course, focus upon how good my pictures are. And, I am certain he will be blown away by my sample 3x3' (on 4x3' paper) print.

The nuts and bolts of the idea is to fill approximately 20 large store front windows on Main Street with 1-each 3x3' (on 4x3' paper) prints of my life during wartime pictures. The prints will be Engineer Prints made by Parabo.Press that will be simply taped to the glass on the inside of the windows. As mis-fortune would have it (albeit lucky for me), nearly all of the Main Street stores in town are empty. So, getting the ok from the property owners to do this will be no problem.

Once the prints are hung, there will be, most likey on a late Saturday afternoon, an outdoor art-walk exhibition opening. Probably do the wine and cheese thing as well.

Wish me well with my meeting with the potential sponsor. Who, I might add, had previously expressed interest in sponsoring / underwriting one of my town-centered photo exhibition ideas. It is my firm belief that he believes I can not make a bad picture.

around the house / # 3590 ~ it matters how you look at it

June 1, 2020

THE QUESTION OF THE MOMENT, HERE ON THIS BLOG, IS REGARDING why does it matter if people, given a choice between a photograph and painting of the exact same referent, choose the painting almost every time.?

Simple answer, it doesn't matter at all ... unless, of course, a picture maker has tied their income wagon to the idea of selling prints. Then it matters very much.

I know a few picture makers who have made some decent bucks-including me when I was serious about doing it-selling their prints. Not enough bucks to make their living doing so but enough to make it well worth the time and effort to do so. And then there are the big-name fine-art picture makers whose prints sell for crazy big money but, a surprising number of them have jobs, for instance, as college professors (primarily for healthcare and retirement benefits).

In any event, it still astonishes me that, 200 years, aka: 2 centuries, after photography appeared on the scene so few people appreciate / view photography as an art.

iMo, that is because most people, when viewing a photograph, only see the depicted referent. The referent is the thing to the point of it being the only thing. If they have an interest in what is depicted, they might like the picture enough to spend a little time looking at it. However, judging from what I have seen at art / craft fairs, even then, in most cases they don't like it enough to spent money on it. And, if the referent doesn't interest them, they certainly are not interested in viewing the picture at all.

And, I also believe that the exact same situation as described in the preceding paragraph applies to most "serious" picture makers. They are as referent-obessed as the general public. Both in their picture making and in those pictures-made by others-at which they like to look.

All of that written, re: the question of the moment, why might someone choose a painting over a photograph? My simple operational theory regarding that idea is that, for most people, art is a form of escapism. That is, a diversion, some might write respite, from the real world. And a painting is much more suited than a photograph to achieve that end inasmuch as a photograph, specifically as straight photograph, depicts the real world in a very accurate and literal manner.

ASIDEMany "serious" picture makers attempt to circumvent the very literal visual representation that the medium and its apparatus are so capable of delivering by choosing to picture only those referents considered to be most pleasing to the eye and emotions of the general public. And, in doing so, pushing way beyond the boundaries of accurate representation with techniques such as exaggerated color saturation, extreme HDR, dramatic contrast and other attention grabbing effects. To their way of thinking, no sunset is ever colorful and dramatic enough that it can not be "improved" by these techniques and, of course, the general picture viewing public eats it up.

Although, and to be perfectly clear, the medium of photograph and its apparatus has a very big foot print. Within that foot print is a very diverse range of photographic expression. After all, as Julian's grandmother said, "Every pot has a lid." Or, in other words, one person's pile of gold can be another person's pile of steaming buffalo dung. Nevertheless, whether realism of escapism is one's thing, there is room for everyone's foot print in the shadow.End OF ASIDE

In summation, whatever one might think is the reason someone might choose a painting over a photograph of the exact same referent, the fact of the matter is simple, a painting, any painting whether it be good or bad, is always considered to be art. Whereas, a photograph is almost always considered to be just a picture.