counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login

BODIES OF WORK ~ PICTURE GALLERIES

  • my new GALLERIES WEBSITE
    ADK PLACES TO SIT / LIFE WITHOUT THE APA / RAIN / THE FORKS / EARLY WORK / TANGLES

BODIES OF WORK ~ BOOK LINKS

In Situ ~ la, la, how the life goes onLife without the APADoorsKitchen SinkRain2014 • Year in ReviewPlace To SitART ~ conveys / transports / reflectsDecay & DisgustSingle WomenPicture WindowsTangles ~ fields of visual energy (10 picture preview) • The Light + BW mini-galleryKitchen Life (gallery) • The Forks ~ there's no place like home (gallery)


Entries in civilized ku, manmade landscape (1505)

Thursday
May152008

civilized ku # 83 ~ the air you breathe

mmbkyardsm.jpg1044757-1571048-thumbnail.jpg
Appraoching darknessclick to embiggen
Yesterday I mentioned my friend Mel who is never without a camera. I don't how many pictures he makes in a day, a week, or a month but I have no doubt that the number is a big one.

Like Mel, I am rarely without a camera when I am out and about. Rare also are the times that I can make it from point A to point B without making a picture or two, or three, or more. Unlike Mel, whose pictures feature people, my pictures are mostly about places. People make appearances here and there, but rarely are they the featured subject (family "snapshots" excluded).

That said, if Mel has 1 zillion pictures, I must have 1/2 zillion pictures - which leads me to this question for you;

How often do you make pictures? Is it a "special" event, as in when you are in the mood or have the time? Or, do you carry a camera everywhere you go? Can you stop "seeing" or are you always attuned to the act of picturing? Ever wish you had a camera when you didn't have one at hand? Ever wish you didn't have a camera draped somewhere on your person?

In a nutshell, I guess what I am asking is how important in your life is the act of picturing?

Tuesday
May062008

cicilized ku # 83 ~ East Village, NYC (a amost perfect day in NYC)

villagegoblisksm.jpg1044757-1547752-thumbnail.jpg
East Village cemetary oblisk, NYC - click to embiggen
On my way to Amish county, I spent Monday and Monday night with my friend Robert in NYC.

Before we hooked up I spent a considerable amount of time walking the streets of NYC looking for a Verizon store in order to replace my cell phone which had disintegrated that morning. Not exactly how I wanted to spend the time but it was a gloriuos NYC day and no matter how many times you walk the streets of NYC, there is always something new to see.

After a very frustrating day at the press check, I am hoping to get out into Amish country tomorrow and poke around.

Monday
Apr282008

civilized ku # 82 ~ lost and confused?

beerbreaksm.jpg1044757-1525430-thumbnail.jpg
Just relaxingclick to embiggen
Late afternoon, this past Saturday, while I was sitting around relaxing after a nice day with the wife and Hugo, I was suddenly struck by a thought that leads directly to a question for you.

I have previously ruminated and ranted about the state of affairs in the photo world of digital cameras / capture. My previous opinion still stands - that the digital capture world is one fine "immature" mess, in no small part because it is a picture-perfect model of planned obsolescence. Today's "state of the art" is tomorrow's (almost literally) has been.

But one thing that has remained relatively constant is the digital darkroom, aka Photoshop. Make no mistake, PS has evolved over the years with more tools, versatility, and complexity. But, for many photographers, its core capabilities are remarkably constant simply because so many of PS's tools so closely match traditional analog photo and pre-press techniques.

That is why I was able, without too much hair pulling, to jump into PS very early on and take to it like a fish to water - I had experience aplenty in the wet darkroom - color and BW - as well a considerable amount of pre-press knowledge from my commercial photography experience where putting an image on paper on a printing press was the goal of the process.

That said, on Saturday I was struck. with a clarity I had not experienced before, that, DUH, not everyone has had experience like mine. The younger generation of photographers have never experienced the wet darkroom and, relatively speaking, only a handful of photographers have faced the rigorous demands of working with a printer to achieve high quality press output.

So, for whatever reason, on Saturday I had a vision of hordes of bewildered "newbies" wandering around, dazed and confused, in the digital darkroom - many of whom must truly feel that they are "in the dark". With so much of the final picture quality dependent upon the knowledgeable and expert use of some kind of imaging making software, I was left wondering about how many out there are feeling dazed and confused to one degree or another.

I was also left wondering about how many out there even use PS - the acknowledged leader in imaging making/editing software. Do people avoid it because of its expense and/or its seemingly confusing complexity? Or, if you do use it, are you intimidated by the seemingly infinite number of tools and variations thereof? Do you feel that your pictures could be much "better" if only you were better at using PS (or some other software)?

I have never had this conversation before and I am very curious about these issues.

Thursday
Apr172008

civilized ku # 82 ~ a real original

beachbumsm.jpg1044757-1499447-thumbnail.jpg
An original at the shoreclick to embiggen
Last evening I was presented with a difficult choice. I had settled in to watching the Pens try to eliminate the Ottawa Senators when, between periods 1 and 2, I discovered another program, Seneca Ray Stoddard, An American Original (click on the video preview for a taste of the production), that was on at the same time. For me, this presented a serious dilemma.

I have mentioned Seneca Ray Stoddard before. As a photographer (he also wore many other hats - writer, illustrator, map maker, publisher), he was, at the very least, the equal of Jackson and Brady. In his lifetime he made over 10,000 photographs, most of which were of the Adirondacks. Needless to say, I have been interested in both the man and his photography for a long time. In fact, I appropriated his name and that of another early Adirondack character, Nessmuk, for my canoe-based guide business - Nessmuk & Stoddard.

In any event, I found myself unable to fully commit to either event and so I clicked back and forth between the two. Since this a photography blog, not a sports blog, I'll fill you in on the Stoddard program.

First, let me say that the program is worth viewing. In order to do so, you will probably have to purchase the DVD/video and, for $19.95, it's a good investment in learning about what came before. The photography of the early Adirondacks alone is worth the price of admission. The presentation follows the Ken Burns historic documentary formula. Lots of still pictures with pans and zooms, voice-over narration, and the obligatory interviews with 'authoritative' talking heads.

Unfortunately, none of the talking heads give us any insight into the photography beyond the obvious - Stoddard was a photographic pioneer, he was prolific, and he made very nice photographs, which, over time, have also become historically significant. What I kept waiting for, but never came, was for someone to make the connection between what Stoddard did way back then and what some are doing today.

While Stoddard's photographs look like 'spontaneous' pictures - they all tend to have a modern, hand-held "decisive moment" look to them, they are anything but spontaneous. By itself, the nature of the mechanics of photography, circa mid 1800s - early 1900s, dictated long exposure times that meant that people (most his pictures had people in them) had to hold poses for lengthy periods of time in order to be rendered without motion/blur - so much for spontaneity.

1044757-1499700-thumbnail.jpg
At a carry
In fact, Stoddard was as much a producer / director of 'staged' photographs as any modern-day photographer of so-called 'fake' photographs. Think Crewdson, Wall, and, for that matter, the Cinemascape-ist, Aaron Hobson as examples. Stoddard was also known to regularly add clouds to otherwise empty skies. Photoshop as the modern-day evil that is destroying photographic integrity? Gimme a break.

But, here's what really frosts my cookies - the art-history curatorial class, lunatic fringe division, crap all over themselves drawing parallels between Wall's photographs and paintings, between Crewdson's photographs and motion picture works, between nearly any modern-era photographs and virtually anything else except other photographs that came before. It is as if, for them, in a their frenzy to discover and bloviate about something 'new', they have decided to deliberately ignore or, more probably, are ignorant of the art history of the photographic medium itself. Gimme another break.

1044757-1499772-thumbnail.jpg
From the stern seat
To be sure, Stoddard did not, as part of his authorial intent, make pictures laden with irony or 'cool' post-modernist angst (some of his writings did exhibit such tendencies) but his photographs, when viewed with today's knowledge of the past that he depicted, evidence irony aplenty. One of his favored subjects, people-wise, was the now legendary, then heroic, figure of the Adirondack guide. A class of hail 'n hardy outdoorsmen who, well before the end of 1800s, singlehandedly brought about the local eradication of such species as the moose, the lynx, the wolf, to name just a few. Nature 'lovers', to be sure.

I love the story about Stoddard asking Mother Johnson, who ran a lumber camp / lodge at the Raquette Falls carry, about what delicious species of fish he was dining on at her establishment. Mother Johnson replied that she didn't know because, since it was after September 15th and it was illegal to catch trout after September 15th, the fish had no name. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

1044757-1499705-thumbnail.jpg
A guide and a 'sport'
All of that said, and relative to the 'raging against the machine' in order to make something new topic, the more you know about what has come before, photography-wise, the more you come to realize that maybe it has all been done before. Maybe, just maybe, all that's left is for us to do it all over again - hopefully, with a new sense and sensibility.

And, oh yeah, the Pens won, sweeping the series, 4-0, and advancing to the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Wednesday
Apr092008

civilized ku # 81 ~ what Brian said!

garagebarrelssm.jpg1044757-1479121-thumbnail.jpg
Funhouse garage with barrelsclick to embiggen
I still receive auto-email notifications of discussion forum postings from a nature photography site even though I no longer participate on that site. Every once in awhile, there is a topic that sounds as though it might be interesting and I do check it out. Most times it is much more chafe than grain, and I do mean chafe, not chaff.

Recently, as it always does every couple of months or so, the topic of number of comments to picture postings came up. The usual rant is that some 'selfish' posters have a very low ratio of comments to picture posts. This is decried by most because "comments are how we learn", and, "comments are the heart of the site". And, woe to those who don't include tech data with their pictures! - that how we learn.

Now, IMO, in order to buy into that reasoning, you first have to get by the fact that the overwhelming number of comments are little more than of the "I like the color" variety. Most of the remainder are of the "I would have ..." variety. What this most reminds me of is the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian is in a window and his followers are outside demanding a blessing -

Brain: No. No, please! Please! Please listen. I've got one or two things to say.

Followers: Tell us. Tell us both of them.

Brian: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!

Followers: Yes, we're all individuals!

Brian: You're all different!

Followers: Yes, we are all different!

Brian: You've all got to work it out for yourselves!

Followers: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!

Brian: Exactly!

Followers: Tell us more!

Brian: No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!

Here's my point. I'm a 100% self-taught photographer. Aaron, the Cinemascape-ist, is a 100% self-taught photographer. Like many others, we learned the mechanics of the medium by doing. Sure, we read a few books and manuals but that is just part of the doing. Along the way, we made 'mistakes' but, of course, that's another part of how we learned.

We developed our aesthetic sensibilities by looking at the pictures made by others and also by doing, that is to say, making our own pictures - ones that reflected the way we literally and figuratively 'see' things - until we, not them, were reasonably satisfied with the results (the learning never ends). Sure, we like it when our pictures connect in a meaningful way with others but, that said, we aren't doing it for them.

None of this was done in a vacuum - we certainly looked, and still do, at photography by others for 'inspiration' and we have talked to others about many things photography & art-wise - but, that said, we are where we are today because, to paraphrase Brian, we are individuals, we are different, and we worked it out for ourselves.

That said, I'm curious - how many of you are self-taught? And, have any of you ever learned anything from comments about your pictures on an online forum?

Monday
Apr072008

civilized ku # 80 ~ Spring # 4

springplaygrndsm.jpg1044757-1474336-thumbnail.jpg
Spring colorclick to embiggen
This past weekend, signs of Spring were all over the place.

Shorts, t-shirts, flip-flops, dirty snow piles, birds in abundance, blue skies, white clouds, kids at the playground, a backyard full of emerging dog piles, open windows, screen doors, the warmth of the sun, to name just a few of the indications of Spring.

Although, around here, this time of year is commonly called "the mud season". I think it's time to put on the boots and grab a camera.

Friday
Apr042008

civilized ku # 79 ~ looks easy enough

sinknsunsm.jpg1044757-1467140-thumbnail.jpg
Sink and sunclick to embiggen
Yesterday, I mentioned the notion of light itself as a compositional element. Here's another picture with light as a compositional element to look at.

One of the problems using light in this manner is the extreme dynamic range of the light itself. In this scene the range was so great that it took 3 separate exposures in order to record the highlight and shadow detail. In Photoshop, I used the lightest exposure (for maximum shadow detail) as my base layer and then proceeded to add bits and pieces of varying exposure from the other 2 frames to achieve the desired "full dynamic range" result.

Why not just merge to HDR? Because, it does "its thing" (a one size fits all and, IMO, somewhat weird tonal compression) and I like doing my thing by hand.

In any event, it's time to get out the trusty old Nikon, load it up with color negative film and do a direct comparison test - digital vs. color negative capture of the same scene. I'll keep you posted.

Thursday
Mar202008

civilized ku # 78 ~ gimme a break

lampntrainssm.jpg1044757-1426713-thumbnail.jpg
Lamp lightclick to embiggen
In yesterday's entry I opined about how perfect life would be if photographers could write / speak about pictures it a manner that "got beyond the rules of thirds or how much they like the color."

Well, only a few ticks of the clock later, I found myself over at TOP looking at this picture. The picture is one of those that is worth at least a thousand words - sorrow, pain, loss, grief, respect, honor, sacrifice, life, death, war, the cost of war, and, strangely enough (at least for me), beauty to name just a few that immediately come to mind. The picture also brings to mind a painting, Christina's World, by Andrew Wyeth and a photograph, Child in Forest, by Wynn Bullock.

But for one moronic soul, the words that came to mind were "crop" and "black & white" - "... if it were mine, I think I would convert it to black and white. What do you think? And how about the man in the upper-right background? I wouldn't, but would anyone think to crop him out .... I think that producing this print in B&W would make a very significant difference. To me this photo explains what the photographer saw and felt, but in B&W, I believe it would have made us better understand what the woman was feeling.?"

my response to these comments is simply: "Kiss my ass."

The only thing that this person got right about this photograph is "... this photo explains what the photographer saw and felt", which, for some reason, isn't good enough for him. Nope, like so many critique-ers on photo forums, this guy, no matter what the circumstances, just has to indulge in the ever ubiquitous "how I would have done it" when, in fact, the only thing that matters is that the "photo explains what the photographer saw and felt".

If photography is not about "what the photographer saw and felt", what the hell is it about?

Taking/making a picture is not a group endeavour - looking for a hobby that is? maybe you should consider line dancing. What the eventual observers of a picture might have done in the same situation has absolutely nothing to do with it, despite the outright deception that is fostered on photo sites that "what I would have done" or, "what I like (or don't like)" about a picture is part of the learning process.

This is not to say that looking at pictures made by others and thinking about what works or doesn't 'work' for you or, yes, even thinking 'what you would have done' differently in the same situation in order to best express your voice is not a valid / valuable exercise. But, essentially telling a photographer who is expressing what he/she saw and felt to do it your way is not only pointless, it's downright insulting to the artist.

But, maybe I'm just belaboring a point that is just an essential difference between artists who are hobbyists and those who are Artists, between those who are seeking the roar of the crowd and those who are doing it for themselves - which is not say that those who are doing it for themselves don't want 'feedback' (both verbal and monetary). Most do.

That said, and IMO, the last thing they want to hear is 'how I would have done it". Me, personally, I would much rather hear that one of my pictures is a steaming pile of s**t, totally without merit, and makes no connection at all than, if only I had done it differently, it would be great. Why? Because the former opinion is about how my picture makes someone 'feel' and that is what Art is all about.