pool, convent, rainbow ~ Stone Harbor, NJ (embiggenable) • iPhone
At the Shore after a 6 hour dash-speeds up to 120mph-through the dark on Sat. nite / Sun. AM. Saw only 5 other cars, 1 deer and 2 coyotes during the first 120 miles. Consumed 1/2 cup of coffee and 1 small pack of M&Ms.
Survived Sunday with little sleep and now-Monday AM-am trying to figure out my picture making agenda for the rest of the week. My primary objective is the aforementioned Wildwood 50s era architecture. I'll probably drive over today in the Eyetalian pocket rocket (soft-top open and Beach Boys on the stereo) for a scout and maybe a few snaps.
Tomorrow's activity includes teaching an iPhone/mobile device picture making session. Seems like I am gaining a reputation on the subject for knowing what I am doing.
FYI, my blogging activity for the week will most likely be posting pictures-sans much in the way of words-multiple times a day.
the ABARTH ready to roll ~ Stone Harbor, NJ (embiggenable) • iPhone
civilized ku # 3648 ~ back in time
Wildwood, NJ ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
Wildwood, NJ ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
As my least favorite time of the year, a week at the South Jersey Shore, approaches, I am planning on venturing forth with a picture making project in mind.
During last year's Shore time, I was enlisted to drive the teens to the neighboring town of Wildwood for a day on the amusement piers. While driving through the town, my eye and sensibilities were pricked by how much of the town's bygone era funky 50s architecture had been restored to like-new condition.
On that day there was only a very brief time span for picture making. This year (the project begins this coming Sunday), I plan to commit to a serious amount of time to explore the town and picture all there is to picture. Consequently, I'm sorta looking forward to my time at the Shore.
civilized ku # 3647 ~ let's talk
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
Last year I had an exhibit of my pictures, Photographs in Conversion. Each print was a diptych with pictures which were intended to "speak" to each other. Each diptych was comprised of 1 of my pictures with another one made by someone else.
I worked with 10 other picture makers from around the world. I would send them a picture and they would respond with one of their's which related to / spoke to my picture. In some case, they sent one of their pictures to me and I responded in kind.
The exhbit was interactive inasmuch as, in addition to the exhibit prints, I supplied a box full of 5x5 inch prints and 2 photo ropes in order for viewers to make their own photos in conversation sets. All in all, it was a fun endevour, both in the making and the interaction.
Anyone out there interested in a second attempt? If so, send me an email and I'l get back to you.
FYI, clicking on conversations in the categories link at the bottom left of this entry will take you to more photographs in conversation.civilized ku # 3645-46 ~ scratching an iTch
evening light ~ (embiggenable) • µ4/3
cameras w polaroid cheese slicer ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
recent sketches ~ trying to get back in the groove
A comment / question was written on a recent entry:
"How did you afford 8x10 color photography for personal work? The cost of materials must have been significant. And not exactly convenient for spontaneity of inspiration ... From 8x10 to iPhone is quite a journey.
The question is easy to answer - quite obviously, during my 30+ year career in commercial advertising photography, a whole lot of film passed through the film refrigerator in my studio. The percentage, relative to the whole, of film used for my personal work was miniscule. So, to use a common accounting saying, the cost of that film (and the cost color paper used to make prints from it) was little more than a rounding error in the business deductibles expense column on my long form.
A response to the commenter's reference to "spontaneity of inspiration" and "From 8x10 to iPhone is quite a journey." requires a bit more elucidation.
During my professional photography career, I owned and used a plethora of cameras covering a pethora of formats ... 110, 35mm (including a Widelux rotating lens panoramic camera), 120 (medium format), 4x5, 8x10 and polaroid. All of which got plenty of professional assignment use dependent upon the demands of any given project. And, I can guarantee that, had the iPhone camera format been available, I would have used it as well.
As result of that multi-format useage, I can honestly write that I never really developed a preference for one particular format/camera. Although, I can write that using the SX-70 polaroid camera and the tiny Pentax 110 camera (used 110 film cartridges) was a fun thing to do. And, together with my 8x10 field view camera (different from my 8x10 studio camera), those cameras were my choice for personal work (snapshots and "serious" stuff).
So, relative to "a journey", the simple response is that my journey was/is always about making pictures irrespective of the equipment used in their making. Or, give me a camera, any camera, and I'll make pictures. It's what I do ....
.... no "inspiration required ...
... since a very early single-digit age, I have always been making pictures. At first it was drawing and later-age 18-it turned to photography and later than that to graphic design. And, right up to this time in my life, I can write that I have never been much in need, if at all, of inspiration. Making pictures is just what I do and it might not be much of an exaggeration to write that it is a somewhat obsessive activity inasmuch as I do a lot of it.
Although, in fact, I do not consider my desire to create something an obsessive activity. It feels more like a preternatural / inherent characteristic of my personhood. If I were to visit a therapist about this desire / need and it were to be declared an obsessive compulsive behavior, I would say, after a life-long expressing of that desire / need, professional and personal, bring it on!. The more the merrier.
civilized ku # 3643-44 ~ exacting specificity is highly overrated
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
In my last entry I mentioned C prints made from color negatives. I described the visual characteristics of the prints made from such a combination as having smooth tonal and color transistions. I also mentioned I would introduce, in this entry, another characteristic I especially liked. That visual characteristic was the impression that the print was not overwhelmingly sharp.
In fact, the prints were sharp, or, as sharp as was possible given the materials at that time (enhanced by the fact that I printed with a condenser enlarger and a superb Nikkor enlarger lens). That written, the prints were certainly less sharp than today's digital standard.
Lest I am giving the wrong impression that the print substrate was responsible for the aforementioned visual characteristics, it should be made clear that those qualities were the product of the color negative film. Film which had many more emulsion layers (primarily masking layers) than transparency film. A slight but noticeable loss of sharpness (compared to that of transparency film) was one of the by-products of that film trait.
Along with the slight loss of macro sharpness was a corresponding loss of micro contrast, all of which contributed to that easy-on-the-eye smoothness that was possible with the use of color negative film. A visual characteristic which pleasantly pricks my eye and sensibities.
In the digital domain, very good to outstandingly good micro contrast is the norm for lens and sensors. And this is where I part ways with many things digital, picture making wise ...
Simply written, I am not a fan of what I consider to be the hyper reality look of much of today's visual imagery. Most of the hyper reality look is the result of an endless pursuit-by picture makers and sensor/lens makers-of what, to my eye and sensibilities, is rather excessive sharpness. And, that is why I have never been desirous of using "state-of-the-art" photo gear and viewing the prints which are the result of such use.
To understand that notion, it is necessary to write that my picture making pursuit is not about a quest for visual / technical "perfection". Rather, it is about creating and exhibiting visual impressions of what I see in the world around me. It is most definitely not about creating a highly detailed road map of that world. It is not about creating a seemingly exacting visual specificity as it is about the idea of simulacrum - a slight or superficial semblance of what I see in the world.
iMo, it would be acccurate to write that I do not want my pictures to appear to be highly technical but rather to appear to be more sensual.
civilized ku # 3640-42 ~ a kinda there and back again thing
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • µ4/3
(embiggenable) • iPhone
After posting a few of my 8x10 view camera pictures, the picture making part of my brain began to think about film-based picture making. Film-based describes my picture making-professional and personal-from 1966>2004. Not only did I make pictures using film-color negative for personal work, transparency for commercial work-but I also processed and printed most of that film. I especially enjoyed printing my personal color work (there was almost no BW personal work). *
Consequently, after printing hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds more) of color prints, I developed a, some might say "extreme", fondness for the look of C prints. C prints made from color negatives-most of my "serious" personal work was created using 8x10 color negative film-displayed a smoothness of tone and color that was unmatched by transparency film.
To this day, I can walk into a gallery and know, upon viewing just one print, whether or not a picture was made with color negative film (even though the print is a not a C print). That is possible because that beloved smoothness of tone and color is captured-and readily apparent to my eye-in the digital conversion-scanning and printing.
In any event, I am seriously considering returning to the use of film for some of my picture making. That film will most likely be 4x5 color negative film because I have one the most compact and lightest 4x5 field cameras-made of wood-ever made. That camera is a Nagaoka view camera, one that was bequeathed to me in a will. A camera made of cherrywood and chrome-plated brass.
I never used the camera very much inasmuch as 8x10 view cameras were my "thing" for my "serious" personal work. Nevertheless, it was always on display in my studio and eventually in my home simply because it is thing of hand-crafted beauty.
Assuming that I succumb to the allure-perhaps nostalgia-of film-based picture making, several tasks will fall to hand ... finding a good source for the film, the processing and hi-res scanning. That should be easy enough but then comes the hard part ... where in my house to load film holders in a totally dark and dust free (extremely important place. Building a film loading (and unloading) closet in my basement might be the only solution.
Stay tuned. In the next entry I'll write about the other film/print characteristic of film-based picture making that I really like.
*the lone exception being snapshot picture making. That film processing and printing ("standard" 4x6 prints) were left to Kodak via a camera store.
Nagaoka 4x5 view camera with 90mm Schneider Super-Angulon lens
ku # 1425 / civilized ku # 3639 (ku-ish) ~ entre chien et loup and a sunrise
Blue Mountain and fog at sunrise ~ (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss view camera w color negative film
sailboats on Lake Champlain ~ (embiggenable) • iPhone
Theblue mountain sunrise fog picture is a companion picture to the from Castle Rock picture in my last entry. It was created, after climbing up to Castle Rock and camping the previous evening, next the morning. The fog that blanketed the entire landscape can be seen rolling in the from Castle Rock picture. Both pictures can accurately be described as f8 and be there. or, more precisely, f64 and be there pictures inasmuch as the fog was an unanticipated atmospheric event.
It is also fine example of luck rewarding the prepared. In this case, prepared meant not only an 8x10 view camera, 8x10 film holders, tripod and light meter but also a backpacking stove for a lite supper and breakfast, lantern, sleeping pads and sleeping bags (2 of each as I had my assistant along with me). The luck also included the fact that the fog fell below our perch on Castle Rock.
AN ASIDE: A gallery-crafts + a small room for photography-in Blue Mountain Lake was interested in selling the pictures. I had framed 8x10 contact prints of the pictures which I priced at $250/print. When the gallery owner heard the price, she had second thoughts about hanging them inasmuch at that time, c.1981, the price was quite a bit high for the market.
I convinced her to hang 1 of each. Much to her surprise (and delight), they sold as a set on the first day they were displayed. Needless to write, she wanted more and over time 20>30 sets were sold. The guideboat picture also sold quite well. She was happy and so was I.
FYISome very slight color banding in the sky might be visible. This due to downsampling for the web. The original is silky smooth.
civilized ku # 3637-38 / ku # 1424 ~ let there be light
from Castle Rock ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss w 8x10 color negative film
guideboat ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY (embiggenable) • 8x10 Arca Swiss w 8x10 color negative film
(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
George Eastman opined:
"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography."
iMo, this quote, coming from a guy who employed hundreds of research scientists who knew light and how to make outstanding light sensitive emulsions, can be understood in a number of ways .... Eastman's research department certainly understood, from a technical point of view, that "light makes photography". Those who make pictures came to understand it from an aesthetic point of view and worked to "embrace light" as a pictorial meme employed to enhance a picture's visual impact in ways both subtle and dramatic.
Numbered amongst the light from an aesthethic POV picture makers, there is a subgroup of landscape picture makers who, to my eye and sensibilities, "admire" and "love" the light to the point of being a fetish. These picture makers often describe their picture making activitiy as "chasing the light" and by their definition, the light is that which is both dramatic and colorful or which emphasizes the sturm und drang of the natural world. I have never been a member of this club.
That written, there was a time when I did pursue a particular type of light .... the soft and color subtle light found during the time of day called the gloaming or as-using my favorite descriptor-entre chien et loup (between the dog and the wolf). That picture making time was during the late 70s>mid-80s when I toted one of my 8x10 view cameras about my hometown and the Adirondacks. I did so because, at that time, that was what "serious" fine art color picture makers did.
In order to capture the subtle quality of the light and color, my film of choice was 8x10 Type L (long exposure) color negative film. Even though Type L film was manufactured to compensate for the color reciprocity failure due to long exposures (60-120 seconds), I was pushing the envelope out to 10>20 minute exposure times* due to my use of an f64 aperture setting.
Although I still have my 8x10/4x5 view cameras and lenses, for a variety of reasons those days are gone. Over the last 2 decades, I have increasingly let "the light" chase me and, when it catches me, I make pictures of it. To be honest, I subscribe to a picture making idea best described by Brooks Jensen:
"There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light. There is just light."
*FYI, something I did from time to time, during a 20 minute exposure, was to walk through the scene I was picturing. I never detected any impact on the negative of such activity. I just did it to be a wise ass.