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 diptych (186)

Sunday
Aug072016

civilized ku # 4016-17 / diptych # 207 ~ New England skies

1044757-27183524-thumbnail.jpg
Splitsville Luxury Lanes ~ Foxboro, MA • click to embiggen
1044757-27183526-thumbnail.jpg
Gillette Stadium ~ Foxboro, MA • click to embiggen
1044757-27183529-thumbnail.jpg
late evening skies ~ Duxbury, MA (Cape Cod area) • click to embiggen

Leaving the Cape Cod area - 11:30pm Sunday - after a 3 day hockey tournament and headed for the Jersey Shore. Should arrive at about sunrise so maybe I'll make another Atlantic Ocean sky picture.

Wednesday
Aug032016

civilized ku # 4015 / diptych # 206 ~ photoshopping

1044757-27177779-thumbnail.jpg
Saratoga Diner sign as pictured ~ Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-27177782-thumbnail.jpg
Saratoga Diner sign w evening cloud / clear sky ~ Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen

In yesterday's entry John Linn wrote, "I do love old neon signs." To which I reply, so do I.

I have a ragtag collection of old sign - neon and painted - pictures which I never organized. I have also given thought to pursuing an old sign body of work. However, one of the problems with that idea is that some old neon signs are still in operation and the ideal time to picture them is at or near dusk. In most cases I am not in the presence of such signs at a time which allows me to hang about waiting for the ideal picturing conditions. Consequently, I picture those signs in daylight, which while still interesting, is not the same as picturing a lighted neon sign.

Most likely, I will continue to picture old signs as I encounter them unless I have the opportunity to picture working signs at dusk.

In any event, as can be deduced from the as pictured picture of the Saratoga Diner sign, even daylight can be not very ideal. I made the picture knowing that it would not be a "winner" and that was exactly the result.

That is, until I had some time on my hands and set about trying to improve upon the "real" world.

PS to John: I've noticed a few pictures made at The Hedges on your blog. I am intimately familiar with those referents in as much as I have been staying at The Hedges since 1975 - literally over hundred visits over the years. Any of the lakeside cabins are great, the Ice House cabin is even better, but my favorite place to stay is the Colonel's room. Well worth a return visit just to stay in that room.
Tuesday
Aug022016

diptych # 205 / civilized ku # 4014 ~ good dining

1044757-27176074-thumbnail.jpg
old style McDonald's ~ Albany, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-27176072-thumbnail.jpg
Lombardo's / owner ~ Albany, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-27176152-thumbnail.jpg
Lombardo's ~ Albany, NY • click to embiggen

While walking to dinner in downtown Albany, the wife and I passed what I believe to be an old style McDonald's. Or, maybe a unique style which I have never seen before.

In any event, we resisted the urge to dine at McDonald's and continued on to Lombardo's, a very old restaurant (c.1919) which serves up some very interesting and very tasty Italian food. Had a chat with the owner and made a picture of him.

We went to the restaurant simply because I had previously passed by it a number of times (see daylight picture, c.2013) and was really impressed with the sign. That criteria is not my normal guide for choosing a restaurant but, in this case, the sign caused me to research the restaurant online and I discovered that it had great reviews.
Thursday
Jul072016

Ireland / Scotland # 33-35 (diptych # 214) / picture windows # 70 ~ touch not the cat

1044757-27142203-thumbnail.jpg
Cragganmore Distillery ~ Ballindalloch, Banffshire, Scotland • click to embiggen
1044757-27142224-thumbnail.jpg
Coat of Arms / Cragganmore Distillery ~ Ballindalloch, Banffshire, Scotland • click to embiggen
1044757-27142207-thumbnail.jpg
Gents / Laddies • Conway's ~ Ramelton, Donegal, Ireland • click to embiggen

The first distillery we visited in Scotland was Cragganmore, one of many distilleries in the Speyside region - hence the name Speyside Malts. At the finish of the tour, one is treated, in the office of the founder John Smith, to tastings of various expressions of Cragganmore Malts. And it was in that office that I pictured the Coat of Arms which adorned a wooden cabinet. I was drawn to the weird, to me, motto of "Touch not the cat but a glove" not to mention the wreath-clad guy with a club.

They say that curiosity killed the cat but, since I am not a cat, my curiosity about the Coat of Arms and the motto therein caused me no harm. What I discovered was that the motto is, according to the curator of the Clan Macpherson Museum, that of Clan Macpherson which in turn was a member of Clan Chattan along with Clan Macintosh, et al. Furthermore, an "ungloved" cat - in this case, a Scottish Wildcat, the mascot of Clan Chattan - is one that has its claws extended. Therefore, be forewarned and "Don't mess with us".

Alternately, according to other sources, the motto could be interpreted to mean. "Touch not the cat without a glove." Either way, it would seem that it is best not to mess with the cat.

That settled, the Gents / Ladies signs in the diptych, while not a Coat of Arms, is one of many like-minded (potty humor?) gents / ladies signs found on many Irish pub restroom doors. I like them. I wish I had pictured more of them.
Tuesday
Apr262016

civilized ku # 3085 / diptych # 213 ~ black and white and red all over

1044757-26993070-thumbnail.jpg
red coat ~ Manhattan, NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-26992946-thumbnail.jpg
reds and neutrals ~ Manhattan, NYC, NY / Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

Over my years of viewing and making pictures, I have come to the conclusion that the pictures which best prick my eye and sensibilities are those about which it could be asked, why'd you make a picture of that? Pictures which could have been made by Captain Obvious tend to leave me bored to the point of picture viewing death /tears.

And conversely, when my pictures are viewed, the highest compliment / comment that I like to hear is, I don't know why I like this picture, but I do. Most often that statement is made by a viewer who is puzzled by his/her appreciation of a why'd-you-make-a-picture-of-that? picture. And that statement is often followed by another - I would never have taken a picture of that. Hence, the confusion.

I believe I know the appropriate reply to both statements although I always hesitate to provide such information to a bewildered viewer of my pictures for fear of the explanation being perceived as an insult ....

... iMo (and experience), I feel confident in writing that the appreciation / "like" of a I-would-never-have-taken-a-picture-of-that picture is rooted more in the subconscious mind, rather than in the conscious mind, of the viewer. What they are responding to on a subconscious level is the rhyme and rhythm (concordant or discordant / pleasing or unsettling) of the relationships of shapes, tones, color (most prominent amongst other picture qualities) and their framing as presented on the 2-dimension surface of the print. Because this is a non conscious thought on the viewer's radar, the puzzlement is the result of liking a picture of what they would consider to be a non picture-worthy referent.

Therein lies the dilemma for most picture makers who attempt, in many cases unsuccessfully, to make pictures of I-would-never-have-taken-a-picture-of-that referents. What they lack in the attempt is a sense - the more refined the better - of the relationships of shapes, tones, color (most prominent amongst other picture qualities) and their framing as seen by the camera's eye and subsequently presented on the 2-dimension surface of the print.

Can that sense be learned? I have my doubts simply due to the fact that I have encountered a number of picture makers who 'have it' and an even greater number of those who don't. Nevertheless, those who don't can have some success in developing that sense if they start out picturing by the 'rules' - the rules of composition and the like. Once understood and successfully applied, they can then set out about trying to figure out how to break the rules and move on to making pictures of what they see as opposed to making picture of what they have been told - the what and the how - is a good picture.
Thursday
Apr142016

civilized ku # 3077 / diptych # 212 ~ digital / pre-digital color

1044757-26971060-thumbnail.jpg
camera strap ~ Manhattan, NYC, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-26971064-thumbnail.jpg
stuff in bowls ~ Manhattan, NYC, NY / Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

Without getting into a highly technical comparison of film vs. digital image capture, this entry addresses what is most commonly referred to as the primary difference, as seen in prints, between digital and film output. Namely, the excessively vibrant / saturated color exhibited in much of the output from digital sensors/cameras.

While different image processing engines from different camera manufacturers do have their own unique color signature, the exaggerated color vibrancy / saturation seen in prints generated from digital output is rarely the result of a camera's processing engine (with the exception of in-camera generated jpegs). In virtually all cases, the cause of the problem can be found in how a image file is processed after the file is out of the camera and into the hands of the picture maker.

All RAW processing software and photo editing software - Photoshop, LR, and the like - is capable of producing clean well-balanced natural color much like that obtained using a traditional color negative film from KODAK (iMo, the gold standard of natural color). However, the # 1 tool for producing such results is also the # 1 tool for screwing things up...

... CURVES.

Rather than trying to create an online primer on the use of CURVES, let me just mention a few do's and don't's, re: color image file processing (if your goal is natural color):

1) never shoot jpegs, always shoot RAW.
2) use a RAW processor which allows for WB fine tuning - that is, after setting a good WB point, an ability to fine tune at least the red / green component of that WB setting (independent of using CURVES).
3) in a RAW processor or PS/LR, never, ever, use the RGB curve to adjust contrast. Adjust contrast in the LAB colorspace L (lightness) channel to avoid the inevitable color saturation which results from bending the RGB curve.
4) never use sliders to adjust contrast, brightness or color. Use CURVES.
5) use a RAW processing program which allows adjustments to be made in LAB colorspace.
6) proper use of CURVES in individual color channels (RGB and LAB) will minimize the use of H&S sliders for anything other than very minor tweaks (a good thing). I use the LAB a channel (red/green) and b channel (yellow/blue) for my primary hue and saturation adjustments.
7) learn at least some basics about LAB colorspace.
8) avoid over-sharpening like the plague.
9) come to grips with the idea that not every picture requires a full tonal range (10-250ish).

These basic do's and don't's are not the end-all and be-all of natural color P's & Q's. However, it's pretty difficult to obtain clean well-balnaced natural color without nothing and understanding them.

FYI, off to Marlborbough, Massachusetts. Will post tomorrow.
Tuesday
Apr122016

civilized ku # 3075-76 / diptych # 211 ~ there and back again

1044757-26952786-thumbnail.jpg
view from hotel window ~ Concord, NH • click to embiggen
1044757-26968044-thumbnail.jpg
Apple Store ~ Montreal, QC, CA • click to embiggen
1044757-26968040-thumbnail.jpg
umbrellas ~ Manhattan, NYC, NY • click to embiggen

From 1 week ago Friday past to this past Sunday (10 days), I have spent 3 days in Concord, NH, 2 days in Manhattan , NYC and 2 days in Montreal, QC, CA. Needless to write, I haven't had much time for posting entries. However, I have had time to think.

Much of my thinking has been on topics, photography wise, instigated by 2 primary factors - 1) "...Many contemporary photographers lament the “lifelessness” of digital images. We look at the picture, admire its vibrant colors and sharp lines, and still can’t help but feel nostalgic for the photographs of the old, pre-digital age." (Pavel Kosenko, author, LIFELIKE:A Book on Color), and 2) my recent acquisition (in NYC) of the book, SAUL LEITER: Early Color. And, to my way of thinking, items 1 and 2 are very closely related inasmuch as one is nostalgic for pre-digital age color and the other is a tour de force of pre-digital age color.

Pavel Kosenko's nostalgic lament is somewhat understandable to me inasmuch as I still believe that some of the pre-digital C prints I made were indeed beautiful, color space / tonal wise. That standard / benchmark of representational color and tonal value is still the one I aim to replicate in today's digital era. In doing so, I am very much de-digitalizing my digital picture files and have been doing so since my early digital picture making days.

My issue with the current standard / benchmark (for so many) of tack sharp, noise (aka grain) free and somewhat over-vibrant color is, to my eye and sensibilities, rather plastic or not lifelike as in the sense of not real or sincere. While many who ascribe to that picturing M.O. would state that they are trying to make "realistic" pictures, in fact (again, to my eye and sensibilities) they are making pictures which appear to be hyperreal as in the sense of something fake and artificial which comes to be more definitive of the real than reality itself.

You know, like the Nexus 6 replicants manufactured by the Tyrell Corporation which were made to be more human than human.

Inasmuch as Kosenko seems to think that replicating the look of analog film is the answer to introducing "life" to color pictures - he advocates for a RAW developer that is at its heart an effect app-like program with many presets for various types of analog films - I would disagree with his rational / nostalgic longings for "photographs of the pre-digital age".

Are pre-digital photographs more real (or less real) than digital era photographs? I think not. Are they more pleasant to the eye than the current crop digital picturing 'perfection'? iMo, unquestionably so. They are, to my eye and sensibilities, 'softer' and more gentle to behold.

Perhaps that is what I am experimenting with adding 'grain' (monochromatic digital noise) to my pictures - like those in this entry's diptych.
Wednesday
Mar232016

(someone else's) kitchen life # 88-89 / what is a photograph? # 19 ~ forgetting that you are a picture maker

1044757-26932342-thumbnail.jpg
stuff on a kitchen table ~ Merchantville, NJ • click to embiggen
1044757-26928523-thumbnail.jpg
locked door with KEEP OUT sign ~ not place specific other than in my Head • click to embiggen

Many books have been written - and continue to be written - about How To Read A Photograph. Virtually all of those books have been authored by a picture maker or someone in the business of teaching picture making. A fact which lurks at the heart of the difficulty many have with 'reading' a photograph.

Continuing on with yesterdays entry, simple questions / even simpler answers, wherein I mentioned 3 questions as posited by Mike Johnston on TOP, my simple answer to the simple question of how does one look at a photograph? was simply, (for me) with eyes and mind wide open.

How does one keep the eyes and mind wide open when viewing a photograph? Again, a simple answer - forget the fact that one is a picture maker and everything about the tools of the craft.

Really. Banish all thoughts of things related to making pictures. I would even recommend banishing all thoughts about every photograph you have ever viewed as well as the history and traditions of the medium itself. In other words, you'd better free your mind instead ...

iMo, the only driving impulse one should adopt when viewing photographs (or any other form of art) is that of curiosity, aka: the desire to see and learn (why does the picture maker want me to see this picture?). Expect to be surprised and challenged by what a picture maker has put in front of you because a good picture should not only delight the eye but also engage the mind. Expectations about what you have been told is a good picture and thoughts, craft and academic wise, will only get in the way of if not completely block what could be a potentially new and unique picture viewing experience.

Interestingly enough, what I have described here is how most non-picture makers relate to photographs. First and foremost, they look at a picture to see what it depicts (the referent). In most cases, if they are not interested in the referent, then they are not interested in the picture no matter what its 'artistic' merits might be. If the referent captures their attention then it is possible that they might engage the picture to discover why, beyond the visually obvious, they like the picture. In fact, the picture might even engage their mental faculties in an effect to 'read' the meaning that might be found in the picture.

I would go so far as to postulate that a small subset (relatively) of the non-picture making picture viewers who go to photo galleries to look at photographs expect to have their mental faculties engaged when viewing photographs. They are seeking the complete package, picture viewing wise. That is to write that they are looking for not only illustration but also some form of illumination to spice things up.

iMo, the best pictures are all about life and seeing the world around us in new or unexpected ways. In other words, I am not interested in the mechanistic how of what a picture maker sees but rather what a picture maker has chosen for me to see and hopefully gain a bit of insight to my relationship to life and the world around me.

Or, as the Dos Equis Most Interesting Man in the World might say (if he were looking at pictures rather than drinking beer), "Stay curious, my friends" because as a poster somewhere on the interweb states ... The future belongs to the curious. The ones who are not afraid to try it, explore it, poke at it, question it and turn it inside out.