very early ku ~ the 4mp solution

In a bog • click to embiggenMy 'talk' at the Schenectady Photographic Society went very well. No one fell asleep, left the room or otherwise expressed any displeasure. The crowd, which numbered 80-100, asked good questions and was genuinely involved in learning something very new and different (to them) about the medium of photography. It was fun.

I appreciated the opportunity to make the presentation because it forced me to organize and clarify many of my own thoughts, ideas and positions. I also made quite a number of prints for the presentation reaching far back into my archives for pictures - back to the 'old' days of my first digital camera, a Canon G3 4mp P&S.

Much to my surprise, as I was printing everything, new and old, to the same 10.5×10.5 size, I really could NOT detect any real difference (that mattered) in the image quality between my 'old' 4mp shot as 8 bit jpeg pictures and my spanking new 10mp shot as 16bit RAW pictures. No kidding folks. When viewed side-by-side at normal viewing distance and at at a move-in-close to see detail distance, there really was no noticeable difference.

I was very surprised. And just to validate what I was seeing, last night after my presentation at the SPS, the results of a juried print competition was presented. The competition judge commented on each of the winners. As he was discussing the winning color entry, he stated that it was a Mark Hobson-like picture. Specifically, that it was sharp and detailed without falling into the over-sharpened look that many digitally processed pictures have.

As an example of a beautifully printed picture with lots of subtle color and delightful detail, he advised the audience to check out one of my prints in particular - actually a triptych - that was made up of and printed from, you guessed it, 3 of my 'old' 4mp files.

Now, I am not saying that there is no difference between the files, because I am certain that at some magnification, the 4mp file will start to break down. However, I am curious to find that breaking point - not by some dumbass test enlargement of a segment of the file but rather by having a few really big prints made of entire pictures. Then putting them on a wall and looking at them as if they were pictures.

I'll let you know.

urban ku # 163 ~ Happy New Year

Snowy New Year's day • click to embiggenFor those of you in the common era, aka the Christian Era, who are using the Gregorian calendar (by a decree of Pope Gregory XIII), which is a reform of the Julian calendar, Happy New Year.

Otherwise, have a good Tuesday.

For me, so far, so good. Had a gourmet dinner last night in the company of former NY Govenor George Pataki, it's snowing, I and the wife are sipping good champagne, and the Pittsburgh Penguins have won the Winter Classic - an outdoor NHL hockey game played in a football stadium in the snow and wind.

FYI ~ a speaking engagement

Front page news

I'm working feverishly on my Jan. 2nd presentation to the Schenectady Photographic Society. The pressure is on because my appearance has been pre-described / critiqued as a "wonderful presentation". No sweat, though. I expect to deliver nothing less than "wonderful".

The topic will be Photography's Reality Effect" - the idea that was developed to describe the ideological effect of a system of representation that is sometimes confused with a literal copy of reality. The reality effect has to do with the way viewers experience how a certain appearance of reality, (in the case of photography) presented on a 2-dimensional surface, becomes intensely conscious.

In the best of cases, what is shown then appears extremely authentic and close to life. Sometimes you even have the impression that you could never perceive it so clearly in real life. An effect that most certainly results from the transition from sensory apprehension to consciousness, which gives the viewer the opportunity to see such appearances at once more analytically and more emotionally.

The point of the presentation will be to discuss how, using the reality effect, a photographer can create photographs that can lead viewers to a 'truth' - or perhaps many (subjective or objective) - that can be arrived at no matter the 'truth' of the actual depicted subject itself.
Parking lot nightmare • click to embiggenStraight or constructed, the best photography still needs to deliberately and creatively play with the reality effect in order to create pictures of meaning that get beyond documentation.

This should be fun. If you're anywhere in the neighborhood (mapquest directions), you should stop in. Just tell them I invited you.

urban ku # 162 ~ picking up the pig

Picking up 50 lbs. hung-weight • click to embiggenOn Saturday, we received our annual delivery of 1/2 a cow - 305 lbs. hung-weight of Scottish Highland Cattle from Moon Valley Farm. Yesterday we went up the hill to Moon Valley Farm and picked up 1/4 of a pig - 50 lbs hung-weight. Our freezer is now jam-packed.

While at the farm, I took a picture of the former pig shed and got kissed by a Scottish cow / cattle.

urban ku # 161 ~ really annoying s**t

A drive in the woods • click to embiggenDoes this bit of tomfoolery piss off any of you like it does me? I am sick to death of anyone for any reason, even if it is 'well-intentioned', accessing my computer. No exceptions. Period. End of discussion.

Question: You're looking for a new clock/radio. You find one you like. At the checkout counter you are informed that, as an added bonus feature, every time you turn the thing on, the store will send one its employees (or anyone else it might choose to designate) into your bedroom at anytime, night or day without notice, to stand around and 'monitor' and record how you use the thing.

This is not an optional feature. It is part and parcel of the product. Oh, by the way, your name, address and any other personal information you used at the time of purchase will be linked to any observations and recording. Of course, they promise not to share or misuse the observed behaviors. No guarantee that it won't be stolen and then shared and misused.

Would you buy it? Would you leave cookies and milk for the uninvited and unannounced observer?

Santa is the only one who has these privileges at our house. But he only visits once a year and always on the same day so we know when to lock up the liquor cabinet.

I don't know what irks me more - the fact that all manner of 'reputable' companies are doing it, or, that nobody seems to give a damn that they are doing it.

urban ku # 160 ~ sleds, my sled & snot

My silver maetalic sled • click to embiggenThe wife and I went out for lunch today (Friday). That's the wife getting in, not on, our sled. We were the only ones in the joint - Charlie's at Lake Clear Junction - not wearing a full-body snow suit and toting a helmet.

It's a fun place. We always eat at the bar where the owner is sure to try and scare the snot out of you by dropping one of his big rubber spiders (on a thread) down from the ceiling on you when you're not paying attention. Some victims scream. Some jump. Some curse. Some do all three (and more). It never seems to get old for the owner. Can't help but wonder how many spilled drinks he has to replace.

civilized ku # 72 ~ size is a relative thing

Size is relative • click to embiggenTwo good questions, relative to the size thing, emerged from yesterday's entry.

#1) from Jim Jirka; "If you don't want to go back to the big ass film, just take 40 digital images and stitch. That would allow you your large print size, without the costs of film ... Do you think that would be an alternative?"

I have been thinking along those lines but it seems that the problem with that is motion. If things move, and they do in the natural world - water, clouds, all manner of things in the wind - there is the problem of registration when you stitch. I have run into this problem previously and have been able, with a lot of hand work, to solve it to my satisfaction so I guess it could be a solution. Before I make the leap backwards(?) to film, I will be giving it a try.

#2) from Aaron Hobson, son of The Landscapist; "what about the logistics of these prints being sold??? that is my big question. Who has 25 feet of wall space for a photograph?"

I have often wondered about the same issues and I suspect very few people have that kind of space. I suspect that most of the really big photographs being produced are intended for a single audience - curators at museums or wealthy individuals who purchase and then donate them to museums in order to create an art-patron legacy.

But, to clarify my 'big' intentions, I am iclined to the notion of moderately big, which is to say (in the case of my square stuff), a print size of 4×4 feet. A size that, in the confines of an 'average' home, is very large but not so large as to require a single-purpose room to accommodate it.

civilized ku # 71 ~ a tree grows in Chelsea

The epicenter of Art photography • click to embiggenAs always, my recent trip to NYC's Chelsea neighborhood, the epicenter of Art Photography, has left me with a mixed bag of thoughts. One thought-thread in particular that has been repeatedly bubbling to the surface from the murky depths of my mind is that of size.

I have always been a fan of small-ish prints - 16×20 and smaller - because I like the feel of intimacy that comes from moving in close to a small-ish print. Not nose - on - the - print close, but just close enough to take it all in. This sensation also explains why I am so fond of photography books. A well designed and printed book takes on the feeling of a precious object to me.

That said, and of late, my recent trips to Chelsea have provided a constant exposure to a world of photographic prints that are big. Not big-ish, but really BIG. In this milieu if one of the print dimensions isn't at least 8 feet, then it's a small print, especially so when compared to, say, a 25 foot (or bigger) Jeff Wall or Gursky print.

Now I have to state that this exposure to really big has had its effect on my sensibilities - size can matter. Some photographs take on an entirely new perspective when presented really large. Sure, they can impress with their sheer size, but that alone is not the whole story. There is a kind of 'importance' that is imparted and photography's 'reality effect' really comes to the fore. More than ever, life seems to be staring you right in the face.

If you haven't had the opportunity to see really big photographic prints, you should make it a point to do so. Nothing you have seen in photography can prepare you for the experience.

And it is on this size related note that this specific thought-thread keeps coming to the fore.

I want to do big. But, what that means is nothing less than a return to film (nothing in the digital capture world can do really big) and what that means is a return to the world of film processing that has virtually disappeared. It also means a return to the world of dust and 'spotting'. Not to mention hauling around really big equipment and the fact that one exposure costs around $10.

Yikes. Or, as Hugo says, "Poop on a stick."