civilized ku # 4050 ~ wabi-sabi

Autumn leaves ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

Wabi-sabi is a Japanese aesthetic - derived from the Buddhist teaching of the 3 marks of existence - impermanence, suffering and emptiness or absence of self-nature (aka: 苦 ku) - centered upon the acceptance of transience and imperfection.

I acquired my first camera and began making my first pictures while living in Japan (1967 thru 1968). That was somewhat ironic inasmuch as I was raised up in Rochester, NY where I could walk to the top of hill on the street on which I lived and see the KODAK corporate tower. Nevertheless, it was in Japan that I learned quite a bit about the medium of photography and its apparatus, aka: (not equipment) the complex structure within the vernacular of the photographic medium.

One of the features of Japanese culture and tradition which I came to embrace while in Japan was that of wabi-sabi. Although, I never encountered that phrase while in Japan but, that written, the idea of wabi-sabi - the beauty of imperfection, impermanence and incompleteness - was part of everyday life in Japan. And, for some reason, I took to that notion like a duck to water.

FYI, I appropriated the word ku (emptiness) for use in the title of my pictures in order to reflect my picture making M.O. That is, when out and about with my cameras (which is nearly every time I leave my house) I am rarely in pusuit of any specific picturing objective / referent. Rather, I keep my mind free of any specific idea(s) about that of which I hope to make pictures.

For me, that mental state of emptiness allows me to be free to make pictures of whatever in the quoidian world might prick my eye and sensibilities. And inveriably, my eye and sensibilities are pricked by those imperfect, impermanent and incomplete referents which make up the beautiful mundane constructs of everyday life.

Life's wabi-sabi-ness, if you will.

ku # 1382-85 / civilized ku # 4049 ~ does size really matter?

There was a time - let's say pre-2000 - when a photograph was perceived as precious. Precious in at least 2 meanings of the word: affectedly or excessively delicate and great value or worth. To my eye and sensibilities, preciousness was a very apt word when used to describe photographs inasmuch as photographic prints of the pre-2000 era were most often small (delicate) and most often depicted memories which the maker desired to be cherished.

Post 2000, the smartphone camera has replaced the P&S camera (and its market) and photographs are displayed online and stored on some type of digital platform. Rarely do they ever take shape as a physical object. These photographs lack a tactile sense of physically and hence, to my eye and sensibilities, they can not attain the status of precious objects.

All of that written, I have been rethinking about downsizing my "standard" printing M.O. - that is, virtually every print I make is 24x24". This size looks good on the walls of my house but in today's gallery world that size is the bare minimum for display. A couple decades ago, the Art World, Photography Division, decided that, if photography were to be considered on the same plane as painting, size mattered - think Jeff Wall / Andreas Gursky whose prints are commonly 12-16' in length.

A recent example of my rethinking is the POD books I made of pictures made during our recent trip to Ireland and Scotland. In the past, POD books of our travels were 12x12" but this time around I decided to make the books 8x8". The purpose of this downsizing was to determine if the book and pictures would look more precious - more like a traditional photo album - in a smaller size.

FYI, the wife did not like the smaller size. I, on the other hand, liked the size of the books but, to my eye and sensibilities, the image size - 6x6" - was still too large to be considered to be precious. Consequently, it would seem that 2 reprints of the 3 book set are in order. One, the 12x12" format and the other in the 8x8" format with the image size reduced to approximately 3x3". In addition, I will be making a few test prints whereon the image size on 24x24" paper will be approximately 8x8".

I'll let you now how I feel about the results.

ku # 1381 ~ reaping what you sow

Autumn color ~ Cascades Lakes / Keene Valley, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

Updates added to WORK / Index page - Autumn Color / Urban, Autumn Color / Nature and Still Life / Found.

I must admit that I am somewhat entertained by watching the Republican Party reaping what it has been sowing for the past couple decades. That written, I am extremely entertained and overjoyed watching the Republican Party tear itself apart while trying to deal with its self-inflicted wounds.

All of which, iMo, has something to do with the Karma thing.

ku # 1380 / civilized ku # 4048 ~ the quest for the perfect picture

grasses ~ St. Huberts, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

autumn backyard ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARk

I came across an entry, rant: we photographers have lost our north, stop the endless gear debates, on the site, PetaPixel.com. The basic premise of the rant is the author's contention that, "Photography was never and will never be about the silly tools we use. It was and is and always will be about the people that use them." That's a belief I have been hanging my blogging hat on ever since I begin this endevour.

Going on the assumption (and it's a valid one) that every "enthusiast" camera is capable of producing very high-quality picture files, all a camera purchaser really needs to determine is whether a specific camera manufacturer has a line of lenses which are suitable for implementing a picture maker's vision.

There are other considerations to ponder, the most important of which - how a given camera feels in a user's hand. Unfortunately, with the dearth of locally owned and operated camera stores, the only method of determining that feel is to find a rental site which has the camera of one's choice availble for rental.

If someone were to tell me he/she was just starting out on the road to "getting serious" about his/her picture making and wanted to know what camera to acquire, my suggetion would be to find a decent used (or a refurb) low-end enthusiast camera which seems to be to his/her liking. Then start making pictures in the effort to discover, define and refine one's vision. That is, what it is one wants to illustrate and, ideally, illuminate with his/her practice of the picture making arts.

Ultimately, if one desires to get beyond the point where making a technically good photography is no longer enough - the point where Brooks Jensen writes "that real photography starts and most photographers quit", the only thing worth pursuing is discovering that which pricks your eye and sensibilities. And, most emphatically, not the quest for the perfect "camera".

civilized ku # 4047 / ku # 1379 ~ intimate views of autumn

woodpile with leaves ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

fallen leaves ~ Port Henry, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

As a general picture making rule of thumb, I subscribe to the idea that every possible picture of a wide expanse of landscapse lush with Autumn foilage has been already been made. On rare ocassion, a different take on the motif emerges from the cliched crowd but that serves only to confirm the rule of standardized autumn picture making.

That written, if making autumn pictures, those which conform to what one has been told is a good autumn picture, is what works for you, then by all means keeping doing so. That's not a bad thing but, iMo, it's just sorta like toeing the party line as opposed to breaking out of the box.

To my eye and sensibilities, the small, intimate and quotidian signs of autumn are what pricks my visual and emotional hot buttons. Which, I believe, stems from my general outlook on life which dictates that, although life has a number of "big" memorable moments, the overwhelming bulk of one's life is spent immersed in the "small" qoutidian personal and visual details of the world around us.

civilized ku # 4046A / 4046B ~ back to where I came from

view thru screen and glass ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

view thru screen and glass ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

view thru open window (Raw Photo Processor) ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

view thru open window (Iridient Devolper) ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

This will be my last report re: Raw Photo Processor 64.

As mentioned earlier, I find the RPP interface to be very non-intuitive and continued use has not changed my opinion. In addition to that factor the software has a few other quirks which, even thought one can work around them, are still somewhat annoying quirks. And, the software has not been updated since 2014 so its anyone's guess whether those issues will ever be addressed. Not to mention the fact that supported camera updates have come to a halt.

That written, with some Photoshop work on a file after RPP processing, the picture does have a pleasing film-like visual quality. However, I have found that, using the RPP + PS result as a guide, I can replicate the look using my standard RAW conversion software (Iridient Developer) - see the comparison pictures in today's entry. And, I can do so with a lot less time and effort than using the RPP program.

It is worth mentioning that I have always used my "de-digitalization" RAW conversion processing methodology with Iridient Developer. However, by messing around with RPP I have been able to further refine that "de-digitalization" processing technique. So, it was well worth the time spent using RPP even though it's going back on the shelf.

places to sit / the light / rain ~ more WORK updates and a note re: RPP

wicker chair

the light

rain

3 more updates on the WORK page - Adirondack places to sit, the light and rain.

The rain picture in this entry was processed (RAW conversion) using RPP. If your monitor isn't reasonably calibrated, the astounding level of detail in the dark areas of the picture might not be visible. In fact, that may be true unless your monitor is perfectly calibrated.

In any event and relative to yesterday's entry re: RPP, the developer's claim about RPP's ability "to obtain that dearly-looking film-like tonality in your pictures", if I understand the claim properly, is predicated on what they call "different development modes". Those "development modes" are selectable film-type simulation modes of processing which render a specific film-type look to the finished RAW conversion.

iMo, so far as I have tested them, the different development modes - B&W = Agfa APX 25, B&W = Kodak Vision2 50D, Technicolor 2Strip, Kodak Portra 160NC, Fujichrome Astia 100F, Kodachrome 64, Fujichrome Velvia 50, Technicolor System4 die Transfer, Kodak Ektar 25 - create reasonably accurate simulations of those specific film types.

While I have yet to zero in on a single film-type "development mode", my inclination is to use the Kodak color negative modes. Kodak color negative film was the gold standard for reproducing - inasmuch as film technology allowed - accurate, well balanced and neutral results (no strongly marked individual color emphasis - think Velvia greens). In my film days KODAK color negative films were my film of choice for my personal picture making (most commercial clients demanded transparency film). This choice was completely independent of the fact that KODAK was my biggest client.

ku # 1378 ~ try it, you might like it

root, grass, leaves ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

For years my RAW conversion software of choice has been Iridient Developer. That may be about to change.

A while back I downloaded a RAW conversion software - RAW Photo Processor 64 (RPP) - because the developers claimed to have a compressed compensation adjustment which (acoording to their website) "allows to preserve highlights in more film-like style instead of clipping used in traditional linear exposure compensation" and the creation of "tone curve adjustments based on actual film density measurements in different development modes" which should allow the user to finally be able "to obtain that dearly-looking film-like tonality in your pictures".

RPP is developed for use on Mac OS machines which is good for me. However, after an initial test drive I found the program to be extremely non-intuitive. So, after a period of unseccessful trial and error, I decided that it wasn't for me.

Fast forward to a few months ago when I started to follow the work of a picture maker who, it seemed to me, was either still using film or using a really good RAW conversion program which produced a very good film-like result. Either way, I like the non-digital look of his images and it re-ignited my desire for a more film-like look to my pictures.

So, since I am not going back to using film, I decided to give RPP another look-see. My opinion about its non-intuitive interface hasn't changed but, after a lot of trail and error messing around, I have been able to come to grips with the interface. Consequently, I have been able "to obtain that dearly-looking film-like tonality" in my pictures.

That written, I am not yet fully committed to using RPP. A lot more RPP trial and error messing around (albeit now with a lot less error) together with comparisons with files created using Iridient Developer vs. the same files created with RPP is in my future.

That written, there is no question in my mind (and eye) that RPP handles highlight in an absolutely exquisite film-like manner.

FYI, google "RAW Photo Processor 64" and the results with take you to the RPP site where a free full-featured download is available (not a trial version - it's yours to use forever). The results should also link to another site - RPP for begginers / Pavel Kosenko - which has a tutorial that helps to get you going.

And yes, today's root, grass, leaves picture is processed using RPP.