urban ku # 76 ~ July 4th

We, the people, must redeem
Our land, the mines, the plains, the rivers,
The mountains and the endless plain -
All, all the stretch of these great green states -
And make America again!

~ from Let America be America Again by Langston Hughes

Update on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 08:32AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Paul Maxim wrote: "...Oh, and thanks for the reference to "The Point". Hadn't thought about Oblio and Arrow in years and years. I wonder if that music is still available? It was such great political and social farce."

My response: Paul, I just ordered the The Point on DVD at Borders. The sound track cd is also available.

BTW, my oldest son, Jason, barely escaped being named Oblio. On the other hand, we did name one of our dogs Arrow. I have also spent a lot of time throughout my life trying to find the 3 fat sisters (whose point was merriment and fun)

ku # 478 ~ lichens (only god can make a tree)

Lichens on bark and rock • click to embiggenI have been reading entries on a few blogs dealing with digital workflow. On one in particular, the author stated that, in the digital domain, at no point between pushing the shutter button and getting a print is there anything which is fixed. There is never anything which you can see without the filter of a piece of software and a monitor.

Frankly, I don't see how this is at all different from the good old analog days. Between pushing the shutter button and getting a print there was always the multiple "filters" of film type, a zillion processing variables, a zillion paper choices, diffusion/condenser/cold light head enlargers and not to mention alternative-process printing and etc.

Sure, you could put a negative or transparency on a lightbox and, in and of itself, it was "fixed" but you still had to make a print. Give the same negative to 100 different photographers and you'll get 100 different prints. other than the mechanics involved, I just don't see how this all that different from the digital domain.

Sure, different RAW conversion software does produce different results, in some cases very different results. Add to that the variable of different workflows, and, guess what? If you give the same RAW file to 100 different photographers you'll get 100 different prints.

Moral of the story - there is no 'standard', there is no 'ideal', there is no 'perfect', and, nothing is 'fixed'. When it comes to RAW software, do your homework, make your choice, put your money on the table and then get on with it. Make prints that express what you have to say but always keep in mind that you are making 'traces', creating worlds, you are not making the 'thing' itself.

Consider yourself a poet and always remember - Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree.

Update on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 09:10AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Royce Howland wrote: "... Some photographers talk in terms of "getting it right in the camera", fixing the interpretation (allegedly) at the point of capture. Some don't mean anything more than that, while others mean that only image interpretation done in camera is "right". Personally I think just in terms of getting it right, period, where "right" means achieving my desired interpretation using whatever combination of tools, materials, media and techniques that seems appropriate ..."

urban ku # 75 ~ Sunday afternoon sky

Sunday afternoon at Stewarts • click to embiggenOn ku # 477 (immediately below) Paul Maxim stated, 'Last week, in fact, I posted a question on such a forum asking the photographer why they'd posted a particular image. What was the "message", I asked? I simply didn't "get it". I received a very curt reply that there didn't have to be a "message" - they just "liked it". Apparently, I'd hit some "artistic" nerve'

IMO, this has relvance to another recent photo forum post titled, Do we over analyze images?. The general consensus was that they did analyze (technique-wise) pictures to a fair-thee-well but that was what they were suppose to do on a site dedicated to "learning", which is accurate enough if you are only concerned, as this site is, with technique/technicals. The site does dwell on things technical/technique almost to the exclusion of all things dealing with intellect/emotion in the medium of photography - except, of course, for the ever-popular emotion of "wow". Get beyond "wow" with message/meaning on the site and, as Paul also states, 'Images that do appear to have some underlying "meaning" are rarely commented on. They seem to make people nervous.'

So, when Paul asked about meaning/message, I don't think he hit an "artistic nerve" as much as he ran smack-dab into the middle of a left-brain wall. Photography, as a hobby, has much to offer the left-brain crowd. For those who are inclined to look first at the pieces, then put them together to get the whole, cameras, lens, sensors, rules of composition and so on are full of pieces that can, in the camera club/hobbyist world, occupy the mind endlessly. Meaning/message, if it matters at all, definitely comes low on the totem pole. Even then, mesage/meaning is always wrapped up in a preoccupation with 'easy' meaning/message of "wow" and "pretty".

Speaking for right-brainers, one person offered a dissent of sorts by stating, 'I think humans over-analyze everything ... When you look at a photograph and start to analyze it for flaws, or color balance, or saturation, or a host of other qualities, do you realize that you have lost the connection to the image that drew you to it in the first place?

This was meet with this response, 'That certainly does not mean that we should not be stringent and very serious about creating as powerful an image as we can, but we do need to strike a balance between our emotional awareness of the beauty of an image and analyzing which criteria it does and does not meet.'

Apparently, in the left-brain world, if one wishes to create 'as powerful an image as [one] can', one must be 'stringent and very serious' about technique/technicals and then, when the picture is viewed,
'analyz[e] which criteria it does and does not meet'.

IMO, even though left-brainers have given the world much, most (not all) are at a distinct disadvantage in the world of Art. Just take a look at this right brain and left brain inventory and decide for yourself which 'inventory' is best for making Art.

What kind of brainer are you?

Addendum - so, does being a left-brainer make you a 'shallow' person? IMO, not necessarily - unless a person's make up is so utterly dominated by logic/reason that intuition, empathy, compassion are totally banished to the pointless forest (see The Point).

Update on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:39AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bret Kosmider wrote: "... I took the test ... Turns out I'm 70/30 right/left. Until now I'd classify most of my work as that shallow "wow" factor beauty-only crap. I still shoot that crap too. But according to the test my brain has a majority in the right column (and can overrule a veto too!) So am I merely fulfilling the "need to apply yourself to develop your potential" aspect of my right-brainyness? ... I should include that I've taken up the challenge to "apply myself" in the area of critical thought in my photography."

My response: I'm not a 'doctor' but I'd say you're on the road to developing your right-brain potential but always be aware that, if you wish your photography to be an extension of 'true' inner self, much of that 'critical thought' needs to be about yourself, not just your photography.

FYI ~ link update

Aaron's new and improved Cinemascape site.

FYI ~ Imagination

Imagination is more important than knowledge. ~ A. Einstein said that.

Imagination is how we connect the dots of knowledge. ~ I said that.

Update on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 09:06AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: old ness wrote: ""imagination is the archeology of the the future" i said that.

ku # 477 ~ summers greens

Lush summer greens • click to embiggenEven though I no longer particiapate in them, I still get email notifications of posts/topics from a couple photo discussion forums.

Recently, I received a notice of a post titled, Do you get tired of Landsape and Nature images? The poster stated that he was "...exposed to so many images at the couple of forums that I check in with throughout the day, that I'm bored with all of them ... I even am now bored with my own ... they all look the same after a while..."

Ignoring the fact that almost all photo forums with a theme tend to promote group-think sameness, I think that the poster's delemma is related more to the idea of over-saturation that is part and parcel of the internet as a whole - google any topic and you get a zillion links to that topic. It makes me think that if A & E's sin was to sample the fruit of the tree of knowledge and humankind has created the all-pervasive internet as a fruit of knowledge, then what we have done is to build a tower of babble.

But, ignoring that concept as well, I wonder if the poster's issue is really more indicative of our culture's addiction to the quest of bigger, better, best. A 'quest' that is really nothing more than an ever-present lust for cheap and easy thrills/highs. Highs that can only by satisfied by bigger and bigger doses of, in this case, knock-your-socks-off pretty pictures.

Pictures which are all about the surface of pretty things but nothing about what lies beneath that surface. Just like shallow people, shallow pictures are, indeed, boring. There's nothing to hold onto. No reason to stay involved, so it's time to keep moving on - sort of like an endless procession of one night stands.

I also think that this person's delemma gives testement to the fact that Art is not a verb. Making Art is an activity, but, to the thinking person, if all someone is making is nothing more than a series of empty statements (no matter how self-gratifying the activity may be), the ulimate result is boring pictures and boredom.

If the only thing that matters in your attempt to make Art is that you are pleasing yourself ... well ... I guess that makes you into, not an artist, but kind of self-centered person, doesn't it?

PS - this entry is not in any way meant to reflect negatively on the personhood (or the photography) of the photographer who posted the forum topic. In fact, I think his 'confession' is his first step on the road to 'recovery'.

Update on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 01:01PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Paul Maxim wrote: "Well Mark, I have to admit that this one is indeed thought provoking. I know you've made the same "statement" in different ways before but, for some reason, this one really makes me stop and think.

I certainly know the feeling of looking at images on online forums and thinking that it's all a huge case of "my picture is prettier than your's is". They do, in fact, all start to look the same. It's nothing more than a game of "one-up-manship". Images that do appear to have some underlying "meaning" are rarely commented on. They seem to make people nervous.

Last week, in fact, I posted a question on such a forum asking the photographer why they'd posted a particular image. What was the "message", I asked? I simply didn't "get it". I received a very curt reply that there didn't have to be a "message" - they just "liked it". Apparently, I'd hit some "artistic" nerve.

So I guess I'm agreeing with your statement that "shallow pictures, like shallow people, are indeed boring". Maybe we shouldn't give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe we should call it boring if it really is boring. And maybe we should let them know that we think it's boring. The hard part, of course, is turning the same "critical eye" on our own work.

Thought provoking, indeed. I'm not sure whether I should thank you or curse you...."

My response: Thanks much for the thanks/curse feedback. Honesty is always the best policy.

A word of advice about ... Maybe we should call it boring if it really is boring. And maybe we should let them know that we think it's boring ... - from my experience this is the fast lane to harassment, flame wars, all-around distain and, in some cases, outright banishment on photo forums, especially nature photography forums. The mantra on those forums is inveriably, "message, smessage... if I like it, it's art and that's all that matters ..."

On the other hand, if you find something here on The Landscapist that you find boring/trite/cliche, feel free to say so and offer opinions why you think it is so (as you already have). Those opinions are always welcome and are great fodder for discussions about the medium we all love.

ku # 476 ~ Marcy Dam

Marcy Dam and Mt. Colden • click to embiggenHot on the heels of yesterday's Pavlovian thing, I had another 'awakening' last evening relative to the way things used to be, photography-wise.

Before a late day round of golf, I dropped off a cd with my Spawn of Cinemascape picture on it at what used to be a photo store with one-hour processing place. At one time they sold a few cameras, lots of film and ready-made picture frames along with a ton and a half of one-hour prints. The store manager was pretty photo-knowledgeable and would, upon request, pay special attention to my processing/print orders. Not quite like going to a 'pro' lab but the results were very good.

A couple years ago, the owner of the store saw the death-of-film handwriting on the wall. She proceeded to build a new hobbit-style store (I'm not kidding - instead of High Peaks Photo it's now called There and Back Again)) and stock it full of upscale tourist memorabilia. As far as I can tell she nixed the film processing .. but ... she did install a Epson 7800 setup.

So, after Aaron had a print made of his Buscemi Cinemascape at the store (with very good results) I decided to give it a try. I ordered a 46×20 inch print of my ode to cinemascape. Here's where it got a more than a little weird for me.

The old photo guy was gone. In his place is a trio of cute gum-snapping teenage girls, It wasn't busy when I went in so they greeted me as 'team' at the counter. I explained what I wanted, they said, "Fine. It will ready in 30 minutes."

30 minutes!!! If, in the 'old days', I had walked into a 'pro' lab and asked for a print in 30 minutes, they would have stared at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears. Then they would have laughed hysterically. Then a manager would have stepped up and said (without laughing), "Sure, that'll be 8 billions dollars."

But seriously, the length of the process to make just a single test print alone would exceed 30 minutes. And, normal delivery for a print from a custom lab was at least 24 hrs, if not 2-3 days. A print could be had sooner with 'rush' service - which would double or triple the cost. That situation was one of many reasons I had a full blown E6, C41 and bw/color print darkrooms in my studio.

That said, at a custom lab, the print would be made by skilled lab technician - usually a wane pasty-face person (too much time in the dark) who knew all the tricks of the printing trade. Last night, one of the cheeky gum-snappers would be the 'technician' and put my cd in the computer, open it in PS and hit "Print".

One round of golf later, at around 9pm, I went back to the store. They are open until 10pm - try finding a pro lab with those hours. One of 'team' took me into their viewing room and, lo and behold, there it was - a remarkably accurate 4 ft print on Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper. After inspecting it, I felt it needed to be a bit darker. No problem. Over to the computer, a little curve adjustment (by me) and 14 minutes later a near perfect print.

Total cost for the venture (I kept both prints) - $80. I was so impressed that I am creating a custom calibration for their 'system' and with any luck at (and with my skill), I should be able to drop off a cd and return 30 minutes later to view and pickup a perfect print.

Holy cow. It's brave new world out there.

And, yes, I am beginning to warm to the idea of cheeky gum snapping 'technicians'.

PS - today's picture is of Marcy Dam which is located about 30 miles as the crow flys from my house. It is a very popular wilderness hiking destination on one of the trails into the high peaks wilderness. The dam was built in the late 1800s by the same company that operated the derelict mill in my village that I have recently been picturing. It was built as an impound for logs harvested from the area around the dam during the winter months. In the spring the logs were released and they made their way down stream and river to Au Sable Forks and the mill.

FYI ~ Pavlovian response

'Conditioning' is sometimes very hard to shake. Back in the old days, did you ever open a camera back without rewinding the film or not knowing there was film in the camera? I did a few times and that moment of recognition creates a very nasty feeling in the gut. You slam the back shut and pray. Not sure what you pray for ... like what? ... that the film was not light sensitive for a moment or two?

In the digital age, all that's behind us ... except ... every once in awhile, when I open the CF door, I spontaneously have the same feeling. I can't seem to shake it. I still get a little weak in the knees whenever I see something open on the back of a camera.