ku # 555 ~ life's magic moments

Browsing widlife • click to embiggenI had just walked out of the forest after checking my lines (hoping for for some opossum meat for dinner - the recession is starting to get closer to home) and I heard a faint rustling at my back.

I turned around and there they were - 2 deer browsing for their dinner. Fortunately, I was armed for (photographic) bear and I quietly mounted the big gun (with image stabilization turned on) and fired away. It was one of life's magic moments. Not nearly as magic as blowing them away with a real (big) gun and taking them home for dinner - no opossum on the lines - but I guess you have to take what you can get in these hard times.

It looked to me that it was hard times for the deer as well. They were so emaciated that I swear I could almost see right through them.

ku # 554 ~ wave after wave

A slide in late afternoon light • click to embiggenThe second wave of guests arrived last evening and the last of the first wave left this AM.

Unfortunately, a member of the first wave left something behind - a nasty stomach virus. So far it has claimed me, the wife, and Hugo. But, as they say, there's a first time for everything - the wife and I are sharing the same sick bed. That's never happened before and I miss her waiting on me hand and foot.

On the other hand, it's reassuring when you return from the bathroom to have someone in the same condition to share your misery with. Did I mention that the virus' main feature is wave after wave of ....

ku # 553 ~ truth or consequences

Late afternoon light ~ Bloomingdale, NY • click to embiggenAfter an afternoon spent tubing, participating in the Winter Carnival children's parade, and visit to the ice castle in and around the village of Saranac Lake, I decided to take the back way home.

The reason for this decision was based upon the light - it was a sunny day and it did not take a genius to realize that there would be some nice late day light dancing upon the landscape. The back-way-home choice was a good one. The light was indeed quite nice.

It should that even though I disparage those who have made a fetish of chasing the light I have absolutely no qualms about picturing the landscape while it is in the throes of a nice-light event. My feelings on the subject are remarkably similar to those expressed by this statement:

The word beauty is unavoidable … it accounts for my decision to photograph … There appeared a quality, beauty seemed the only appropriate word for it, in certain photographs, and I am compelled to live with the vocabulary of this new sight … through over many years [I] still find it embarrassing to use the word beauty, I fear I will be attacked for it, but I still believe in it. ~ Robert Adams

Although, to be accurate, I have never really had much of a problem with the word "beauty". It's the word "pretty" that bugs me - actually not the word itself but rather pictures which can be summed up almost in their entirety with that descriptor.

For me, the difference between "beauty" and "pretty" is all about depth. "Pretty" is all about surface. "Beauty" is about what lies beneath the surface. "Pretty" stays on the surface of things. "Beauty" dives/delves into the deep. "Pretty" is simple. "Beauty" is complex. "Pretty" embraces the straight and narrow. "Beauty" embraces contradictions. "Pretty" is contrived and self-absorbed. "Beauty" comes naturally and is outgoing.

And, IMO, 'pretty' is a lie and "beauty" is the truth. Therein lies my agita re: pretty landscape pictures.

At their core such pictures are intended by their makers to be "picture perfect" - not a "hair out of place", so to speak. But, unfortunately for the truth, the "natural world" is a complex and messy thing. So, in the name of "celebrating the beauty of the natural world", these picture makers create lies that mask an inconvenient truth.

Now wait just a minute, you might say - don't these photographers make pictures of the actual real world, in fact, the same one that I picture? Yep, they do. And the fact that they strive mightily to picture said natural world from the "perfect" angle, under "perfect"light, and with "perfect" composition really doesn't diminish the idea that they are picturing the real world. It may be an "idealized" and fleeting version of the real thing, but there is no denying it can be a picture of the real deal.

That said, it was those same "idealists" who embraced Velvia as the landscape picture making film of choice and suffice it to say that that choice was not based upon the film's relative color accuracy. Far from it. Velvia was embraced for its pump-it-up color rendition and those same folks who loved that characteristic are positively enthralled by Photoshop's Hue & Saturation slider and its luminosity masking capabilities - both of which are put to use in the cause of faking up the "beauty" of the natural world.

I mean, why leave it to god/mother nature when you can create your very own natural world "beauty"?

Of course, when confronted with the idea that their pictures are little more than eco-porn that actually does harm to the notion of conservation, the "idealists" usually counter with the rationalization that their pictures are "artistic interpretations" that are meant to spread an appreciation of the natural world in the cause of conservation. Artist interpretations they might be but the idea that you can increase appreciation for something by offering something for consideration that it is not is, at best, absurd, at worst, counterproductive.

Want proof? Riddle me this Batman - why is it that all almost all of our national parks, and by far the most popular/visited ones, are places that "preserve" the natural world's grandeur? Think about it. I mean really think about. Why is that we only strive to set aside and visit the "magnificent"? Where are the national parks that preserve "the ordinary" which, of course, no one wants to visit?

Here's the deal folks - we better start doing something about appreciating and preserving the beauty of the ordinary of the nature world because, when it comes right down to it, that is even more important than the extraordinary simply because there is so much more it.

Simply put, we need to get real.

ku # 552 ~ remaking America

Delicate ice @ -6˚F • click to embiggenI didn't have much to say yesterday regarding the historic (give the word a rest already) event taking place in Washington, DC. In fact, because I was sick to death of all the media hype leading up to the event, my only participation during the event was to listen to the new president's inaugural address on the radio.

IMO, the address is what I have come to expect from then-candidate, now-President Obama - long on rhetoric, short on specifics. To be fair, I really didn't expect him to deliver a policy-wonk address, but, if he is going to truly seize the moment for "change we can believe in", he's got to get down to brass tacks PDQ/ASAP.

IMO, a broad non-specific mandate "to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America" just isn't going to cut it. Now, don't misunderstand, I want for the new president to succeed in leading the "remaking" of America. But he's got to start giving us specifics about the lay of the land he wants to lead us into.

I, for one, am not at all interested in "remaking" America into a redux of the one that has landed us in the mess in which we currently find ourselves. That was an America in which it actually made sense after 9/11 for the then-president to exhort us to "go out and shop" as an antidote to what ailed us. Which, in fact, is exactly what so many "loyal" Americans did to wretched and irresponsible excess which, in turn, helped lead us into a promised land of near economic ruin.

To his credit and to my sense of hope, he did speak of the possibilities of "what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity". The emphasis is mine. I did so because of something I read (by Robert Hughes, from his book, Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America) a number of years ago:

The fact remains that America is a collective act of the imagination whose making never ends, and once that sense of collectivity and mutual respect is broken, the possibilities of American-ness begin to unravel.

Essentially, Obama and Hughes are saying the same thing - imagination + commonality of purpose = common good.

imagination - IMO, and I am not alone, imagination has been sorely lacking in America, especially so in the last decade or so. To be more precise, what ever imagination existed, it was employed by the business class for sole purpose of expanding their wealth and well-being - imagining ways to accrue more and money money in whatever manner possible (as long as it did not require hard work) and f**k the common good. In addition to the many borderline-illegal financial schemes, some employed their imaginings to dreaming up a zillion meaningless/frivolous next-big-things with which to separate the suckers - AKA, the consumer class - from their money.

And, of course, let's not forget those legions of loyal American suckers without whom much of the covetousness inspired spend-and-get nonsense would not have been possible. Those near compulsive consumers whose imaginings were limited to how to acquire the next-big-frivolous-thing in whatever manner possible. Mortgage the house (and your future)? Sure, why not? You gotta love that funny money.

commonality of purpose - The "possibilities of American-ness began to unravel" decades ago when America's moronic grand dad stated that "government was the problem", which is essentially tantamount to proclaiming that "it's every man for himself". The public square in America was deemed to be a place fit only for free-for-all excesses. The idea of the "common good" came to mean something along the lines of, what's good for ME is the common good.

Witness the ridicule heaped upon Hillary Clinton and her mention of the notion that it take a village to raise a child. And, it's worth noting that most of that ridicule came from those swell beady-eyed-zealot folks who proclaimed that government - the BIG village - was the problem and that it takes an unregulated free-market - the free--for-all - to raise a child.

To me, remaking America involves getting our collective head out of the spent-and-get gutter and on to the business of defining what constitutes the common good. And then using our imaginations to do what's necessary to foster, reward, and protect that commonality. Otherwise, you might just want to use your imagination to picture what it will be like to stand in line for a ticket for the next merry-go-round ride to a redux of the bankrupt American "dream".

ku # 551 ~ shoot 'em all

Looking into the sun through an icy tree and a -23˚F mist • click to embiggenCAVEAT: It is rarely my intention to speak ill of the dead. In this entry I will speak of the dead but I will try my best to speak ill only of the living.

Just a few days ago Jean Keene, the much heralded (in most quarters) "Eagle Lady" of Homer, Alaska passed away. I am familiar with her works through a couple of online nature photo forum that feature Avian Photography. Her work has been a topic of controversy on these (and other) forums - is she doing a good thing or a a bad thing?

For those of you not familiar with her and her work, her "work" for a couple of decades has been the winter feeding of the eagles of Homer - 500 lbs of fish a day. Over the course of that time, the number of eagles that show up for feeding time has grown to over 200 - 300 or more each and every day. Over that same period of time the number of so-called avian photographers who show up for feeding time has grown into the thousands. So many, in fact, that they drive the winter economy of Homer.

The controversy surrounding her "work" (which, in fact, is really a "hobby", not a job) is the age old one of feeding wild creatures in the wild. For quite a while, this activity has been strenuously frowned upon by wildlife conservationists - it most often has the effect of tending to "domestic" wild creatures which causes them to lose many of their natural instincts for foraging for food. Not to mention that they then also tend to associate food with a human presence. That kind of habituation can lead to nasty encounters between humans and wildlife.

And, in the case of the Eagle Lady, irrespective of her intentions regarding the eagles, the effect of such a large concentration of eagles in one place was to wipe out / drive away the native populations of cranes, loons, and other avian species in that region.

Way to go, Eagle Lady.

And, as an added icing on the cake, now that she's gone the eagle feeding will come to an end - the Town Council of Homer banned feeding the eagles (with the single exception of the Eagle Lady) in Homer - and no one knows how many of the handout-dependent eagles will perish in the absence of a "free" meal.

Way to go, Eagle Lady.

Now, you can judge for yourself whether or not the aforementioned speaks ill of the dead but let there be no doubt about the following.

It is beyond my imagining why avian photographers would take any satisfaction from picturing what amounts to picturing birds feeding in a dump. But apparently quite a number of them do. So many, in fact, that there is a rising chorus of voices in Homer decrying the end of the eagle feeding because of its negative impact upon the local economy. So many, in fact, that it is estimated that over 80% of all of the published pictures of eagles were made in Homer at the Eagle Lady's fish dump.

With the exception of commercial photographers on assignment who need to get in and out quickly with the goods, I am at a complete loss to understand why someone would pay, on average $3,200, to book a "tour" to Homer, Alaska to visit a dump.

Now, I am not unaware of the fact that birders of both the observer and the picturing variety usually have a life-list of birds that they have actually seen and hope to see. They check them off like items on an automat food menu.

But, just like the nearly endless stream of pictures made at iconic locations - Half Dome, Horse Shoe Bend, Old Faithful, Rainbow Arch, et al - I don't understand the weird idea, to my way of thinking, of wanting to picture what has been pictured a zillions times before. I want to avoid like the plague putting my feet and my tripod feet in the same places that have seen a zillion feet and tripod feet before me.

To be completely frank, I am so sick and tired of images of all the iconic places that I don't even want to visit any of these places for any reason whatsoever.

An aside Here in our area, a just recently spotted owl of some kind or another (rarely seen south of the Canadian border) drew hundreds of birders hoping for a sighting and a picture or two. OK, that's fine - everybody needs to have a hobby. Hell, for number of years I collected autographs of famous blues musicians on my Gibson Les Paul guitar although, for what it's worth, I was really "collecting" the music-listening experience.

That said, I also find it totally incomprehensible why someone who claims to appreciate birds so much would partake in an activity that obviously does the species harm - and, as in the case of our Eagle Lady friend, other species as well. Are they so self-absorbed with their own picture making obsession that it's just a matter of damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead? Are they just take-the-easy-way-out assholes who are too f**king lazy to take the time and make the effort to actually picture an eagle in the wild? Something that I assume is a not an especially easy task.

IMO, all of these so-called wildlife/avian photographers are accomplishing little more than those so-called hunters who kill "trophy" game on a game farm - it's nothing more than shooting ducks in a barrel.

Wow. Big deal.

If that's all there were to it, I'd say let them have their "fun". But, unfortunately, in this case, shooting ducks in a barrel does real harm, not only to the "ducks", but also to other species as well. But, then again, maybe I am speaking ill of the dead, because, after all, it wasn't the photographers who were feeding the eagles .... they were just flocking like vultures around the stench of a rotting carcass - 50,000 lbs (a year) of rotting fish carcass to be exact.

man & nature # 87 - 90 ~ welcome to Au Sable Forks at -23F

Welcome to Au Sable Forks • click to embiggen

Ice and mist on the Au Sable River • click to embiggenAs promised on yesterday's entry - "if it's-15F or below, I'll be out again tomorrow morning looking to make a really cold picture" - let it be said that I'm true to my word.

It was -23F this morning, so it was out the door for picture making.

That said, pursuant to the shedding some light on the subject entry of a few days ago, I must say that the light this AM was quite nice. Thank goodness, I'm happy to report, that I was embracing the light that I found rather than chasing it. You see, that way I can live with myself and rationalize the fact that I made such pretty pictures.

And, oh yeh, baby, it's really cold outside.

ku # 550 ~ baby it's cold outside

-5F on the East Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenWe're having a bit of a cold snap as they say. Tonight's low could be as low as -30F.

That why for the past 48 hours I have been working like a madman on a backyard ice rink. 2 more coats of water and it should be ready for use. Maybe we'll have a skating party with a bonfire in the outdoor fireplace.

Today I went out at -5F to make a few "cold" pictures of which the above is one. If it is -15F or colder, I'll be out again tomorrow morning looking to make a really cold picture.

ku # 549 ~ shedding some light on the subject

Birch • click to embiggenThere are picture makers who think that photography is "all about the light" which, to my way of thinking, is about the same as thinking that writing is all about the ink. IMO, that's about as dumb as it gets.

Those who make pictures that are "all about the light" tend for the most part to use that phrase as a code which translated actually means the "right" light and the "right" light is almost exclusively limited to dramatic, hyper-saturated, end-of-the-day, golden light. On occasion they'll sneak in a little beginning-of-the-day drama and a smidgen of stormy-sky impending-doom one act play but those are mere diversions from their true fetish.

I, on the other hand, tend to agree with these 2 notions from Brooks Jensen:

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light.There is just light.

A good photograph is never "about light". Good photographs are about feelings.

And then there's this from Philippe Halsman

The word “photography” can be interpreted as “writing with light” or “drawing with light.” Some photographers are producing beautiful photographs by drawing with light. Some other photographers are trying to tell something with their photographs. They are writing with light.

That said, consider today's pictures (made about 25 minutes apart). IMO, neither picture is "better" than the other. Neither quality of light is better or worse. If, for example, someone requested that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like, either picture would serve the purpose quite well without, I might add, any caveats or reservations.

Each picture is equally "true".

Now, without a doubt some might prefer one picture over the other because of the feeling(s) imparted by the differing quality of the light found in each picture. It is on this note that I can start to think of light as "good" or "bad" in as much as light that has one specific quality or another - soft, hard, warm, cool, etc. - is better suited to conveying some feelings than others.

IMO, a picture maker who wants to "write" with light as opposed to "draw" with light understands that light has a rich and diverse "vocabulary" that can impart rich and diverse meaning(s) and feeling(s) in a picture. Instead of chasing / following / pursuing "the light", they tend to embrace the light that is present at any given moment / location and use it to tell us something other than "about the light".

That said, tonight I am going to chase the light - I am going to picture the bark on the tree in my front yard after dark just in case someone requests that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like after dark.

BTW, I'm curious - which picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like do you like (and why)?