NYC window, East Village • click to embiggen

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 embiggen

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 embiggen

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 embiggen

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 embiggen

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 embiggen

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 embiggen

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 embiggen

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?

The press check from hell room • click to embiggen

Answer; "No." Thanks to a number of issues at the printer which were exacerbated by a printer's rep who was a total idiot when it came to estimating when I should be on hand to check a press sheet and, just to make matters infinitely worse, how long I would need to be on hand while they fixed various press snafus and assorted other issues. The net result was that I ended up spending most of my time at the printer with some 4 hour food-and-sleep breaks thrown in. This went on 'round the clock for almost 48 hours straight.

When it finally wrapped up at 3:45 AM on Thursday morning, I slept for 8 hours, then ate breakfast and headed home - a 7 hour drive. I just did not have the energy to take a detour and make pictures. Unfortunately, I didn't even have time to hook up with a Landscapist reader who did answer my open request to get together and have a beer. By the time I could get together, he was too busy. Oh well, maybe next time.

FYI, on Wednesday, May 14, PBS is airing (nationally) the 2 hour program, The Adirondacks. The program is organized by the four seasons and features 4 ....

.... passionate characters, each with a unique perspective on the region .... a craftsman restoring one of the legendary Great Camps, rustic retreats for the super rich of a bygone era; an Olympic hopeful training in Lake Placid, home to two historic Winter Games; a young visitor climbing his first Adirondack High Peak; and North Country Public Radio reporter Brian Mann's story on proposed development in Tupper Lake ... "

THE ADIRONDACKS conveys why living within these protected lands makes for an extraordinary human existence. For many people, questions about the relationship between man and nature are largely theoretical; Adirondackers, however, confront these issues in their everyday lives as loggers, conservationists, innkeepers, artists or athletes. As viewers get to know these engaging characters, they may contemplate their relationship with the natural world in a different light.

I would highly recommend this program for those of you who have a PBS affiliate that airs THE ADIRONDACKS. It sounds as though it will provide a good look at where and how I live my life.

Specialty store of the year - Milford, PA • click to embiggen

And, because of that fog, I re-read and re-read the article that I mentioned in the previous post. At first I thought that maybe I had missed or misunderstood something - surely someone wasn't seriously suggested that, in essence, you judge a color photograph's success / goodness / quality by converting it to BW and then judging it. But, no matter how many times I read the thing, that does indeed seem to be the point.

The idea that you judge what something is by turning it into something that it is not is, as I stated previously, rather daft. In fact, IMO, it is quite daft. The only reason that I can think of that someone would suggest this idea is that they simply do not understand the radical differences between the skills necessary to make successful color and/or BW pictures.

Each genre has its own distinct visual vernacular, its own way of seeing - both in the making and in the viewing. On a purely visual level (form), ignoring content, most successful BW pictures rely heavily on the expert use of tonal values and contrast. Color pictures, on the other hand, rely heavily on the expert use of ... well ... you guessed it - color.

Make no mistake, these are two very different skill sets. If you are to be successful in either genre, you need to understand what is required by each approach and work accordingly. This concept of knowing the difference has become more than a bit muddled in the age of digital capture wherein all pictures start out as color images. In order to edit and print in BW, one must convert the color values to bw values after the act of picturing.

This way of working has led many, if not most, picture makers to consider BW as an effect not as the unique way of seeing that it actually is - you need only witness the never ending stream of this comment found on so many photo forum sites - "I think this photo works better as a BW picture than it does as color picture.", or its inverse, "Do you think this photo works better as a BW picture than it does as a color picture?"

Simply stated, this comment(s) displays a complete ignorance of the BW genre, or, for that matter, one could argue, a rather significant misunderstanding of the how and the why of making a truly good body of work (color or BW) - rather than the occasional and "accidental" making of a single good picture (color or BW).

Again, simply stated, if you want to consistently make good BW or color pictures you must have, at the very least, a basic understanding of the visual vernacular of the genre of your choice. Otherwise, you are little more than an "accidental' photographer.

Any thoughts on this?