ku # 539 ~ this is my own

Rhythm and rhyme • click to embiggenThere comes a time when you just have to let go of it all and just use the mind-finger:

I suspect it is for one’s self-interest that one looks at one’s surroundings and one’s self. This search is personally born and is indeed my reason and motive for making photographs. The camera is not merely a reflecting pool and the photographs are not exactly the mirror, mirror on the wall that speaks with a twisted tongue. Witness is borne and puzzles come together at the photographic moment which is very simple and complete. The mind-finger presses the release on the silly machine and it stops time and holds what its jaws can encompass and what the light will stain. - Lee Friedlander

Constructed pictures are fum to make - my decay and disgust and picture window as an example - but I find myself increasingly drawn to those pictures of my own making that were driven in their creation "merely" by an obsession / desire to "see" and observe. Those pictures, while they may seem to reflect no organizational concept, are, in fact, "organized" under the nomenclature, "This is my life. This is what I saw".

And, the more I think about that organizational concept, the more I realize that many, if not most, of the pictures that I like (made by others) can be said to be huddled under that umbrella, whatever their creators stated intent.

I really like to be shown what others see.

ku # 538 ~ a return to "real" ku (?)

Late autumn color • click to embiggenIt has been opined on on yesterday's entry by Mauro and Matt that "... you have changed, somewhat, (your) direction in your Image making. It seems that you are looking more to effects." and, "... your images seem a little "different" lately. Still Hobsonian in subject, but a little different in treatment".

Ignoring my new learning curve BW pictures, I'm not sure how to respond to that other than to say that my I am making pictures in exactly the same manner as I been doing so for the past 5-6 years - including equipment and the vision thing. My post-picturing processing is also identical to that of the same period of time. Really. No changes whatsoever in either approach.

IMO, what is different about many of the pictures from the past month or so is that this autumn I have been a little more taken with some of the unusually spectacular fall color that has been in ample evidence. So, it's reasonable to say that many of these recent pictures have been (for me) rather untypically colorific.

And, it's also worth mentioning that I am finding myself increasingly more drawn to elements of humankind when I am out and about making pictures. I'm not entirely certain, but that may simply be due to the fact that lately I haven't been spending much time in the wilderness. My focus has been elsewhere for the past month or two - a situation that I hope is soon to change.

In any event, I would be extremely interested in reading any thoughts the rest of you might have re: the comments from Mauro and Matt.

And, FYI, if we are known by the company we keep, check this out - You'll have to wait for the 10th spread to see what I'm talking about.

PS the wife and I are off to Montreal to celebrate our anniversary - see you all again on Sunday afternoon.

ku # 537 ~ why "photographers" suck

Standing water • click to embiggenOK, OK ... an explanation is in order regarding yesterday's unqualified proclamation that "photographers suck". Especially so since one of The Landscapist regulars suspected that my statement might have been caused by him.

Not so. In fact, my statement stems from not a single iota of disgruntlement with Landscapist visitors. Nope. Not at all.

That said, let me start with this:

What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it .... Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both. ~ Garry Winogrand

I.M. not so humble O., I think that is a pretty damn good description of what I have come to understand about photography and I know that I am not alone in that understanding. It also seems that the overwhelming majority of those who use cameras - to include the zillion or so people who are snapshooters and the relative handful of artists who use photography - also understand that idea, consciously or not.

With the exclusion of professional photographers, the only group of picture makers who don't seem to get it are those would label themselves photo-hobbyists - those who I would label, "serious" amateur "photographers".

To get right to the heart of my agitation / annoyance with this group, all they really seem to care about (and talk about) when viewing a picture is all of the usual suspects - sharpness, dynamic range, composition )to include leading lines, rule of thirds, etc.), noise, what they might change in the picture, to name just a few examples of their techno/technique-obsessions. They seem to be emotionally and intellectually incapable of seeing and feeling anything at all about what the picture maker may have been trying to express with their creation.

Consider this in understanding why this may be so:

Most photographers seem to operate with a pane of glass between themselves and their subjects. They just can't get inside and know the subject. ~ W. Eugene Smith

While Smith was referring to the act of picture making, I would opine that that "pane of glass" is also between them and whatever picture they may be viewing.

A case in point regarding the "pane of glass" as it applies to picture making - a few years back, 2 very nice gentlemen "photographers" were passing through my area. We hooked up and they requested that I show them a few locations that might be good for picture making. Leaving aside the idea that I think every square inch of this region (if not the entire planet) is a good location for picture making, I dutifully headed out to a few "iconic" spots.

Much to my total amazement, upon arriving at the first location, they stood there looking for "diagonals", "leading lines", "S curves", and "compositional elements". I know this because that's exactly and exclusively what they were talking about. It was as if the scene all around them was nothing more than a stage set for making what they had been conditioned to believe were "good" pictures.

They exhibited absolutely no inclination to "get inside and know the subject". None. Nada. Zip. Because I liked these guys as people, I resisted the urge to grab all of their gear and hurl it into the small body of water on the shore of which we were standing.

That, of course, would have been an impetuous and stupid thing to do. After all, they were really enjoying themselves as they worked diligently at being "serious" amateur "photographers". That being the case, who am I to mess with their hobby?

However, that being the case, I just don't want to hear it anymore. I swear, if I hear/read one more comment (regarding my photos or those of others) about sharpness, composition, noise ... I think my head is going to explode. I swear, if see one more "photographer" putting his nose on a picture (mine or those of others) to see sharpness / noise / resolution, I'm gonna go postal. I swear, if I read one more camera review wherein the reviewer states that the "quality" of the images are not the "equal" of some "class-leading" dslr, I am going to totally lose it.

Don't these chowderheads know that, since the inception of the medium, tons and tons of great pictures have been made using all manner of equipment and techniques? Pictures that absolutely transcend whatever equipment and techniques where employed in their making because they speak to us about life and living?

Don't they understand that, long after their swell techno / technique laden pictures have been consigned to the dustbin of things that simply don't matter anymore, those pictures that speak to us about things that do matter, no matter the manner or tools used in their making, are ones that will remain?

Update on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 12:05PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: the wife wrote: "IMO, your adherence of the rule of thirds in this photo is novel in this instance, using the stream to separate the photo into thirds both on a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. I would have used a velvia film, tho."

my response: isn't she just delightful in her continuing efforts to remind me of my nugalis, lest I get to wrapped up in my gravitas?

ku # 536 ~ the edges

Weeds and mountains • click to embiggenBack when I was an active participant on a couple online nature photography sites/forums, some of the more frequent epithets used to "critique" my pictures were basically variations on the you're taking pictures like this just to be different notion.

I found this to be a bit odd in as much as most photographers strive to have a vision or, at the very least, a visual style that distinguishes them from the crowd. Something that sets them apart. Something that allows their pictures to be perceived as "different" from those of others.

Taking that into account, I assumed that they were not criticizing me for attempting to differentiate my pictures from those of others but, rather, they were trashing my choice of subject material. Apparently they saw no merit / value in it other than a lame attempt "just to be different".

Truth be told, when I first picked up a camera in earnest, I was very snap-happy. I pointed my camera at just about anything that even vaguely caught my eye. Given the fact that I was living in Japan at the time, there was a lot of stuff that caught my eye. It could be opined that I was in the throes of the joy of photography - eyes wide open, unsatiable curiosity, and a wealth of opportunity.

At that time, I had absolutely no idea what a "good" picture was but I was eager to find out. And find out I did. All that was needed to learn that lesson was to look at as many photography periodicals / annuals as possible and, in doing so, consciously or not, absorb all the rules and standards from those pictures that were being published and thereby endorsed as "good" pictures. It could be opined that I had entered into the dark days of trying to make good pictures.

Lo and behold, I was very good at making good pictures. My rewards and recognition came in the form of success in photo contests, peer praise, and a job as an assistant in a commercial photo studio. Later on, after opening my own studio, it came in the form of money from working with many Fortune 500 firms. Man, oh man, did I know how to make a good picture.

That said, it was not until I decided to, in earnest, start making non-commercial pictures of the world around me (of the natural world in particular), that I looked around at what was being created in that genre. Virtually all of what I found in the public eye was same-o/same-o pretty pictures of an idealized nature world.

It was at that time that I decided to deliberately avoid that milieu. Not "just to be different" but to call attention that which was all around us but was being ignored or avoided. Once I delved into the overlooked, my passion to have eyes wide open, unsatiable curiosity, and a wealth of opportunity, to once again experience the throes of the joy of photography was rekindled in a manner that surprised me with its intensity.

And then, quite recently, I came across this:

I think the best pictures are often on the edges of any situation, I don't find photographing the situation nearly as interesting as photographing the edges. ~ William Albert Allard

That is exactly what I have been picturing, "the edges of any situation" - the edges of the natural world, the edges of humankind's relationship with the natural world, the edges of society and culture, the edges of the situation in which we find ourselves.

In doing this, it is not my intent "just to be different". Rather it is an attempt to call attention to things that really matter. Things that, for the most part, are found, not in the 3-ring circus performances of life, but rather along the edges and in the shadows of any situation.

man & nature # 41 ~ the flow of time

Time flows on • click to embiggenYesterday's entry regarding time drew a few but diverse number of responses, a few of which I'll try to address in today's entry.

The easiest one to answer is Aaron's question; ... portraits too? not candid or narrative portrait photography...but something more along the lines of Mapplethorpe?

It would be easy to say that, above all, time is most evident in portraits - I mean, people age and grow and change in so many ways - but I won't. Simply because I see convoluted time in so many genré of photography. To some, the possibility of time may be more obvious in portraiture, but not so for me - it's there in portraits the same as it is in the picture of a rock.

Anil asked if the same held true for "abstracts". If by "abstracts", Anil means pictures like his Desert Dreams pictures, then the answer is "yes". In "abstracts" of the natural world - or even abstracts of a more man-made variety, time is very evident to my eye and sensibilities.

To be perfectly concise, as Matt mentioned (and Cedric questioned), time itself and the notion of time are two of the medium's most important contexts, or, integral characteristics. Think about it. After all, at its most basic level every photograph ever created uses time in the form of a timed shutter as one of the essential ingredients in its making.

It is beyond me to think how a photograph can be seen or understood so as to negate or be divorced from the many notions of time contained therein.

Cedric has opined that the photographs in yesterday's entry were "timeless (in the sense that they do not evoke a sense of time) to anyone but the photographer and anyone directly connected to them", a point with which I most hardily disagree. Everything about them, again to my eye and sensibilities, screams about time to me.

The light in both pictures is quite obviously of a highly temporary and rapidly changing nature - the little spot of light in the left-hand picture most obviously so. Turn your head and it's gone. Both images have as their primary referent - in addition to the characteristic of transient light that they share - organic matter. Need I say more about the transient / changing nature of organic matter over time?

And, to address Andreas' comment, Re: how do you combine / what are your criteria? (2 pictures to form a diptych/diptychon), part of the connective-ness of these 2 seemingly at first disparate pictures, is the notion of time - the picture of the natural world suggests the passage of time primarily as a slow thing, one could even say glacial in as much as the erratic was dropped there during the last Ice Age. Just image that passage of time and the implied passage of future time that thing sits in the midst of.

On the other hand, the passage of time in the picture of the man-made arrangement is much more "quick". The natural organic stuff - the flowers - will come and go in a very short period of time (ahhh, my beloved decay) as compared to, say the much older tree in today's entry. And the arrangement of all of the stuff in that picture can be gone in less than a minute if I (or the wife) decide for it to be so. The arrangement would then be replaced some future arrangement.

Underlying the elements of time - both "glacial" and "quick" - is the implied narrative that just as humankind can change the man-made arrangement, he can, and is, at the very least, helping change the "arrangement" depicted in the picture of the natural world.

I would also comment that neither of these pictures require that the viewer have specific knowledge / memories of them in order to connect with time - past, present, future - as represented and suggested in them.

"Nuff said by me - I've got a train to catch (to NYC and a photo gallery crawl). I would like to read more from you.

ku # 533 ~ the Adirondack mountains

A view of some High Peaks • click
to embiggenOne area that my ku has been a bit light on is the rugged high peaks interior of the Adirondacks. By "area" I mean both geographic and genre.

The primary reason for this has been my emphasis on water-based wilderness travels over mountain ventures. This preference is dictated in large part by my aversion to the crowds one encounters in the mountain backcountry during the Summer. On wilderness canoe trips, it is virtually unheard of to have to share a wilderness campsite. In fact, it is rare that wilderness waterway campsites are closer than 1/4 mile or more to each other. Most often the separation is measured in miles.

In the high peaks, shared / multi-party campsites are more often the rule. For me, wilderness is about isolation and solitude, not social interaction. Consequently, I have limited much of my high peaks backpacking activity to the Winter months. 30 years ago, when I started Winter backpacking, I and my hiking companion rarely encountered anyone during a 3-4 day trip into the mountain wilderness - the occasional NYSDEC Ranger being the exception.

Today, that is not the case, although once you get beyond the day-hike destinations, the crowds do thin out and an isolated campsite can be had. The chances of such are improved immeasurably by the fact that wilderness camping is allowed in many more places during the Winter than during the Summer.

Thar said, I'm going to encourage the wife to join me on a couple 3 day trips into the mountains this Autumn - after the leaves are on the ground and the leaf peepers have gone. There really is much to see, appreciate, and picture in the Adirondack high country.

ku # 532 ~ stop and smell the roses

Autumn browns are creeping in • click
to embiggenOk, I've calmed down a bit from this AM's rant but I thought I'd take a moment to explain what it was that set me off (apart from the obvious SS issues).

I subscribe to a daily "photo deals" email which lists special offers on photo stuff. I really haven't purchased all that much from these notices but I keep it coming just in case there is an ultra high-speed 200gig CF card available for $1.95 or something like that. Another feature of the email is also a listing of new gear notifications and an occasional "rumor" of things that are just around the corner (sometimes real, other times just wishful thinking).

Today's email mentioned the impending arrival of an announcement about the new Nikon D-whatever. Mentioned in the speculation about the camera was the fact that it would have video capabilities, a"powerful" speaker, and some sort of hookup for external HD viewing of pictures / videos directly from the camera. No mention (that I noticed) about GPS capabilities - another much-needed addition to DSLR cameras.

Now, as many of you know, the announcement I am waiting for is for a tidy, compact, plain and simple camera with a 4/3rds / APS sized sensor. Instead, what seems to be the daily announcement fare is for cameras with more and more and even more "capabilities". More and more and even more menu selections, more and more and even more buttons and wheels, more and more and even more pages in the instruction manual.

I really do wonder who's running the show in camera making companies. I wonder if they even differentiate between amateur snapshooter and pro markets. I wonder if they even care.

ku # 531 ~ another dilema

Small brook and clouds • click to
embiggenI received my Shutterfly-printed Shore Light ~ Book One yesterday. In a display of rather immodest self aggrandizement, I must say that it's rather impressive and a real page turner.

Now that I have seen the excellent quality of the book - paper, color, binding and cover materials - I will now proceed to order a printed Book Two. Shutterfly has always been my first choice for what I refer to as my proof books. Their prices are very reasonable so I can sort of bang out a first-look copy of a book just to see what it looks like before I go ahead and order a "deluxe" finished book from SharedInk (outstanding quality, more expensive).

However, this time around my proof books are not so reasonable in cost - just under $400 for the 2 books, not including shipping. The books are 12×12 with leather covers (I'd prefer linen but that option seems to have disappeared). Book One has 100 pages (the highest number that Shutterfly offers in a single book), Book Two has 86 pages. The high page count is due to the fact that each 2-page spread only has 1 photo (on the righthand page), hence 2 pages for every 1 photo.

Cost-wise this is a very extravagant way to go but I really like not having "competing" pictures on a spread. That way, each spread of 1 photo has the viewer's complete attention, in much the same way as viewing a single print on a gallery wall. And, as one turns the page, each spread / picture becomes a brand new experience, again, just like moving from print to print in a gallery exhibition.

That said, my intent with these books is to offer them as a signed limited edition set together with 1 signed limited edition print - a 17×17 inch image on 24×24 inch paper. Edition numbers are limited to 25 books and 5 prints per image.

I had wanted to have the in-gallery price for a book set + print to be $1,200. However, with a 2 book set, that doesn't look to be feasible. Guess I have to give this some more thought.