NYC window, East Village • click to embiggenPreviously, I mentioned John Pfahl's Picture Windows book from his 1978-1981 series of the same name.

One of the big differences between his picture windows pictures and mine is the nearly total lack of interior detail in his pictures. I am fairly certain that his "choice" of this approach was in fact a "Hobson's Choice" - the technology of the day simply did not allow him to capture the full range of light presented by such a scene. Consequently, he composed tightly to the window itself and the interior walls provided a mostly featureless "frame" to the exterior view. This was an effective visual device that lent emphasis to the outside view.

My picture windows occupy much smaller portion of the picture than Pfahl's do. There are number of reasons why I chose to picture this way, but, I was afforded an actual choice because of today's digital darkroom technologies - all of my picture window pictures are a blend (manual, not HDR) of at least 2 different exposures of the same scene - 1 exposure for the exterior scene and 1 for the interior scene.

I have chosen to picture in this manner because I am most interested in exploring the relationships between the inside and outside worlds - a task that was difficult but not impossible in the good 'ole analog days. A task that is much easier to pursue in the digital era.

IMO, one of the blessings and banes of the digital darkroom is the seemingly endless possibilities of image editing that are available. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of doing it because I can stuff being done that creates little more than technical showmanship and/or excesses. But perhaps that is to be expected when kids are given a new toy to play with.

Ink, Inc. • click to embiggenAs I write this, Aaron and (his) the wife are on their way to NYC to attend the New York Photo Festival, the first international photo festival in the US and billed as The Future of Contemporary Photography.

Amongst the many activities and events scheduled during the 4 day festival is tonight's New York Photo Awards Ceremony. Aaron has the honor of being selected as a finalist in the Personal work / fine art series awards category.

Also of note, and not related to the NYPF, was a recent phone call from the Pittsburgh based Silver Eye Center for Photography. Earlier this year Aaron had been accepted into a juried group show at the Silver Eye. He subsequently donated one of his Cinemascapes, Steeltown to the SE benefit auction. The phone call from the SE was to thank him for paying their electric bill for the year. The photo fetched $3,000 at the auction.

For those of you not familiar with Aaron's Cinemascapes, or, if you want to check out his newer pieces, click here

Roadside nature • click to embiggenDid anyone watch the PBS program, THE ADIRONDACKS?

On a scale of 1-10, it gets a 7.0-7.5 in my opinion. That opinion is, of course, that of a "local" and was echoed by the wife about half way through the program at which point she stated/asked, "I'm not learning anything new, are you?", my answer to which was, "No."

The program touched on all the "standard" stuff about the Adirondacks, which, admittedly, most non-locals probably don't know about. From that standpoint, I would very interested to hear from any non-local who watched the program - did you learn anything new?

Where the program failed was in representing the real day-to-day life of the "average" Adirondack denizen. Sure, we have our share of poets, authors, artists / artisans, conservationists, environmental activists, etc. In fact, because the area is a magnet for such types, we probably have much more than our fair share. But, of the 100,000+ full-time residents of the Adirondacks, they nevertheless still constitute only a distinct minority of the population. By largely depending upon the "elites" to speak for the place, the producers almost totally missed the "true grit" of the place.

One thing they did get right was their choice of a photographer to highlight. Carl Heilman is a fairly accurate representation of the ubiquitous pretty-picture variety of picture makers who dot the region. I know Carl. I like him. He's a really nice guy. In fact, I featured him on one of my PBS Adirondack Outdoors episodes and, in my role as tourism marketing guy, I have purchased and used some of his work in various Adirondack tourism pieces. He has found a comfortable and somewhat unique - 360 degree panoramics - niche in the pretty-picture genre from which he makes at least part of his living and there's no knocking that. Although, like many locals, he has at least one other "job" - a snowshoe maker and instructor.

In any event and to repeat, I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who viwed the program.

Appraoching darkness • click to embiggenYesterday 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?

N. Jersey kitchen window • click to embiggenI am thoroughly enjoying a bit of downtime. The big tourism marketing piece along with several others is done and so is the biggest pain in my ass, the bedroom renovation - 2 bedrooms turned into 1 with the walkin closet of her dreams for the wife.

bedroom renovation

Looks like I'll have a bit of time to recoup and rethink, photography-wise. Item #1 on the agenda is to create a picture-only site for my photography. The time has come to present my pictures in category galleries -

ku - landscapes of the natural world
man & nature ku - signs of humankind in the natural world
urban ku - cityscapes (big and small)
picture windows - views of the world outside
decay & disgust - decying things on my kitchen counter

Can anyone out there recommend any gallery software or a hosting service with gallery templates?

Just like old times • click to embiggenI have a friend in north Jersey, Mel DiGiacomo, who is an extraordinary photographer.

In his heyday, he worked for Newsweek and was Sports Illustrated's #1 go-to guy on the pro tennis circuit. Until a few years ago, every time I saw Mel he had 2 beat up Leicas hanging from his neck. As a matter of fact, I have never seen Mel without a camera - at the dinner table, driving his car, at social gatherings, sitting with friends - name the time and place, Mel has a camera and is making pictures.

And get this, I have never seen him with a camera to his eye - all his picturing is done with the camera at arm's length, pointed in the general direction of his subject.

His "thing", you might even call it his obsession, is wide angle BW people in their environment. For all in intents and purposes, he does decisive moment street photography. In an interview in Rangefinder magazine, a photographer was quoted as saying, "My first true mentor was a crazy Sicilian named Mellshior Digacamo. He had the ability to capture the magic of a moment in almost any situation, and I began to see what it was to be creative." - a statement that pretty accurately sums it up.

A few years back, Mel made the switch to digital. While his picturing continues as before - Mel can make BW prints that have the look and feel of his former analog stuff - he has yet to come to grips with the digital darkroom. More accurately, he has yet to reach a peace with it. Every time he sits in front of a computer, he truly looks and acts dazed and confused. It's not difficult to see that Mel just doesn't feel at home.

Last week on my way to PA, Mel and I got together at my inlaws in north Jersey. As usual, he had his camera in tow as well as his laptop. For the first time, I noticed that Mel's digital stuff is as bunged up as his trusty Leicas - scrapes, gouges, tape, scribbles, and some general all-around crud was the order of the day - and it dawned on me that Mel was "making himself at home" in the digital age.

It was one of those mini-epiphanies when you see something familiar in a new way - jamais vu. Even though I see spanking new looking digital gear all the time, I never really thought about the passing of a photographic tradition - the era of the "brassed" and bunged camera, which at one time, was the mark of a hard working pro. A beat up Leica or Nikon was a patina-ed badge of hard-working honor.

In most cases, just like many of the photographers who carried them, the cameras acquired a time-worn character that spoke of interesting pictures, times, and lives. In the case of Mel Digacamo, he wears the badge with distinction.

Best Western ~ Lancaster, PA • click to embiggenWay back when - seems like half a century ago - one of my first blog entries was about quiet photography in which a writer, Gary Badger, mentioned "the muralist syndrome" - the relatively recent preoccupation in the Art world, photography division, with BIG prints. That is, really BIG prints, which until quite recently were often referred to as "murals". I have never been a fan of "murals" but, over the past year or so, I have become increasingly appreciative of really BIG prints, that is, prints larger than "standard" bigness of 20-30 inches or so.

That said, I am still very suspicious / unappreciative of BIG just for the sake of bigness. Some pictures take on an added dimension when printed BIG. These pictures manage to avoid turning into "murals" - think corporate lobby "wallpaper" pictures - when presented as BIG prints but for a while now I have been struggling with trying to understand why this is so.

One thing I have noticed about good BIG pictures is that they also "work" when presented as small pictures. These pictures do not need to be BIG to "work". As I mentioned, they just seem to gain an added dimension when viewed BIG. Maybe the reason for this is simply that a good picture can "work" at any size but, when it is presented BIG, it just seems to demand more attention. After all, we humans seem to be genetically imprinted with a fascination with BIG - BIG cars, BIG houses, BIG cathedrals, BIG guns, BIG dicks/tits, BIG production numbers .... you know what I mean ...nothing exceeds like excess.

That said, what is surprising to me is that "quiet" pictures - pictures of the ordinary - can remain "quiet" and intimate even when printed BIG or at least it seems so to me.

Have any of you made a really BIG print of your work? If so, have you noticed a new "dimension" to the picture? Can a BIG print be "quiet" and intimate?

Green • click to embiggenNot that you may have noticed here on the web, but I have a new camera and a new lens.

I purchased the camera for 2 primary reasons:

1) I wanted more pixels, in this case 15mp - almost 1.5x the number I have been using - in order to make big prints, 4×4 feet, of my decay and picture window series. I am running some direct comparison tests at 2×2 feet and there is some difference between 10 mp and 15 mp, but, frankly, not all that much at normal viewing distance. We'll see what happens at 4×4 feet.

2) I wanted to use a prime (non-zoom, single focal length) lens.

Before I got into digital capture, of all the lens I owned (35mm, medium format, large format) I only had 1 zoom lens - a Nikkor 43-86mm. It was common knowledge and wisdom that zoom lenses were always inferior to prime lens in sharpness, contrast, and speed. If you were a "serious" (and non-action/sports) shooter, you made pictures with prime lenses. End of story.

With the advent of digital capture and, to be accurate, far better glass and computer-assisted lens design and manufacture, zooms seemed to emerge as the lens of choice. Now, of all the digital capture lenses I own, only 1 is a prime - and that only since a week ago. And that only by switching brands to a manufacturer which seems to place a high value on prime lenses.

Why, you might wonder, do I want to shoot with a prime lens?

The answer is really quite simple - I like to keep it simple. IMO, and 1n my experience, picturing with a single focal length helps me, the photographer, focus on what I am seeing (and trying to convey) without having to be concerned at all with the mechanics of how I see it. The "mechanics" of my vision are locked in and there is a resultant visual consistency to my body of work.

There is little new about this approach. Very few, if any, bodies of Fine Art photography are made with or exhibit the use of obviously different focal length lenses.

So, here I am, once again, making pictures with just 1 lens, in this case, a 21mm f2.8 (35mm equivalent) and it "feels" good - just like old times.

How about you? Any prime lens picture makers in the audience?