what the camera sees (overexposure) # 4 ~ formulaic

cat dishes

One of the difficulties / challanges I face moving forward with what the camera sees is the fact that all of my other work is a direct depiction of what my eyes see: something pricks my eye and sensibilities and I make a picture of what I see.

In the case of what the camera sees, it is not a straight forward proposition. I need to actively look for the elements which I think will work together in order to make a good picture. Quite obviously, my eye does not see what the camera sees using shallow focus and overexposure techniques. Consequently, at this point in the side trip (MO wise) I have a number of misses inasmuch as I have not identified precisely what all of the elements necessary for a good picture of this type are.

Quite obviously, the one absolutely necessary element is an area within the frame of "hot" direct sunlight and in my messing about I have decided that that hot spot seems to work best on the bottom surface of the picture. I have also decided that a corresponding area(s) of darker tonal values is also a necessary element which stands in contast (figuratively and literally) to the hot spot.

Another key element, independent of the light, is that of perspective. So far all of the "successful" pictures have been made with a 12mm (24mm- 35mm equiv.) lens which produces a diminishing perspective POV. All of these pictures are made looking down but I believe that the diminishing perspecive thing will work with any POV - up, down, right angle, etc.

Yet another key element is that there needs to be a narrow zone of sharp focus - or least apparent sharpness relative to the rest of the picture - in order to give the eye somewhere to land.

All of that written, what I am trying to do is to create a formula for making what the camera sees pictures. This idea is very foreign to me inasmuch as my picture making has almost always been of the spontaneous variety. No formula, no rules, no dictates or other considerations while making pictures: just see it and picture it.

Over time, it might be possible to train my eye to see what the camera sees but until that time - if it ever arrives - I will most certainly require the guiding hand of a formulaic approach to making what the camera sees pictures.

Did I mention that I am having fun with this?

what the camera sees (overexposure) # 1-3 ~ having fun, fun, fun (till my daddy takes my cameras away)

open door  

bush shadow

storm window reflection

My basic picture making MO has always been that of straight photography - straight photography refers to photography that attempts to depict a scene or subject in sharp focus and detail, commensurate with the qualities that distinguish photography from other visual media, particularly painting. Or, as I like to say / write, use the one characteristic of photography and its apparatus which defines its difference fro the other visual arts, its inherent characteristic as a cohort of and its relationship to the real.

That written, I have, on ocassion, made side trips (MO wise) into the realm / genre of Polaroid and pinhole picture making. Exploring what, given the limitations and proclivities of such hardware, might be descibed as making pictures which depict what the camera sees as opposed to what the eye sees.

iMo, one could argue that straight pictures depict what the camera sees but I would argue that straight pictures are an attempt to make pictures (within the constraints of a picture's framing) which depict what the eye sees.

All of that written, I have embarked upon another side trip to explore the premise of what the camera sees. Although, this trip employs no special hardware in pursuit of such ends. These pictures are being made with my normal digital gear albeit with a complete disregard for the rules of proper exposure techniques.

One of the challenges of making what I would consider successful picture making results with this MO is that of absolute attention to framing and the organization of color, shapes and lines, and tonal relationships across the 2D plane of the pciture's surface. That demanding consideration is due to the picture's tenuous relationship with the real - if one of these picturse is to have visual merit, it depends almost entirely upon the diligent attention to the forementioned visual characteristics. Because, for the most part, that is what these picture are about.

In any event, I'm having fun.

kitchen sink # 37 ~ think about it at your on risk

sink drain / Rist Camp ~ Newcomb, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

After years of wrestling with a wide range of notions regarding what is a picture (photography division), I have come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, pictures in and of themselves have very little to say, narative wise.

At best, a picture might give voice / "speak" to a simple phrase or a very short sentence. iMo, that is why the lunatic academic fringe picture making crowd always finds it necessary to have lengthy and often obtuse artspeak bullock as companion to their pictures. When it comes to picture making, they are trying their best to cram 2 lbs. of crap into a 1 oz. bottle.

What that crowd seems to not grasp is the fact that a picture is first and foremost a form of expression which appeals to the visual senses. And, in appealing to those sensibilities, a picture can be about "nothing", referent wise, yet still be a very good picture indeed.

Independent of the depicted referent, a very good / outstanding picture can be "about" light, shape, form, color and the resultant organization of space created by the picture maker's framing. Such a picture is invariably a visual delight to a viewer's visual sensibilities and, in the absolute best examples, is also capable of instigating a pricking of a viewer's thought process which is dominated by their personal experience and knowledge, not by what the picture maker is trying to "say".

civilized ku # 4033-34 ~ more seen and noted

Northern Lights ice cream stand ~ Inlet, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

porch / Arrowhead Park ~ Inlet, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

Took a drive to Inlet (in the Adirondack PARK) yesterday afternoon, the place where I spent summers as a kid. Without a doubt, the place which was the genesis of my love of the Adirondacks.

While there, the wife and I had an ice cream sundae at the Northern Lights Creamy. In fact, that was the reason for the drive and the ice cream stand has changed very little since my kidhood days.

The visit to Northern Lights Creamery was notble for 2 items (other than the ice cream): 1) we discovered that NLC is one of Hillary Clinton's favorite place to eat in NYS, and, 2) I had my first encounter with a resident of Whitesboro, NY.

civilized ku # 4031 -32 ~ seen and noted

Rist Camp porch ~ Newcomb, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

Rist Camp / front window ~ Newcomb, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

It's Labor Day and that's it for the summer season. Not for summer but the summer holiday season.

For most, it's back to the grindstone tomorrow morning. However, lucky me, we have 2 more weeks at Rist Camp during which time our primary activity will be sitting on the porch watching the leaves transition to fall colors.

It's a tough job but someboday has to do it.

ku # 1377 / civilized ku # 4028 ~ here one day, gone the next

clearing behind Rist Camp ~ Newcomb, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

along the trail to Santanoni Great Camp ~ Newcomb, NY - in the Adirondack PARK

A question - I received an email from someone about POD book printing requesting information at ShareInk. In the process of moving it from my email trash back to my inbox from which it had been mistakening deleted, it just disappeared into the great beyond.

After looking high and low on my system, it is nowhere to be found. I even checked, without any luck, on my email server. It just flat out appears to be disappeared.

So, in the hope that email writer read some of my comments about SharedInk on my blog, I am posting this entry - as the only way I know possible - to try and let that person know to write again.