civilized ku # 2123 ~ different breeds

Asgaard Farm fresh eggs ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenDifferent breeds of chickens = different colored eggs.

addendum: I failed to mention that the Asgaard Farm eggs were part of an all-Asgaard omelette - Asgaard eggs + Asgaard pork Andouille sausage + Asgaard goat cheese = delicious.

civilized ku # 2094 ~ seeing red, pt. 2

Grapes ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenAs I suspected, yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 2092, caused Colin Griffiths to clarify his previous statement, re: "I really suspect that there is something different about the way you and I see the colour red." In yesterday's comment, Colin stated:

I don't think I explained myself very well ... [I]t's not a matter of the technical nature of the colour red ... ®ather, that you have an ability to notice and capture red objects in such a manner that makes them appear ... almost incongruous within the image ... it's as if you are pointing something out to me that I'd never noticed before.

my response: If I now correctly understand Colin, what he seems to be stating is that my use of the color red within the frame of my pictures (and my awareness of it in a picture making environment) is different from the manner in which he does so - that I use the color red as a kind of exclamation point within the frame in a manner that he does not. And, as somewhat of an aside, he also suggested that some familiar-to-both-sides-of-the-Atlantic objects might, in fact, be made of different colors.

To be certain, I agree with both of Colin's points. Having traveled to Europe and Japan, I can state that there are colors in use on public signage and the like that are more or less different from similar objects here in the States. No real surprise there.

Re: my use of the color red (and red-ish) in my pictures - I do use red in some of my pictures as a visual exclamation point of sorts. That would be especially noticeable in scenes where the red referents in question are in a neutral or near-neutral color environment - yesterday's Fire hydrant picture as an excellent example. And, while the environment is not very neutral, the reds "dancing" about the frame in the Between periods / Saranac Lake HS vs Lake Placid HS picture (civilized ku # 2087-91) is another good example of reds keeping the color field of a picture rather lively.

As some many know, the first 25 years of my commercial life was devoted to making pictures for advertising agencies / commercial clients. However, the following decade-and-a-half was split, about 50/50, between commercial picture making and creating graphic design for similar clients as a designer, art director, and creative director.

However, prior to working in the graphic design field, I was well aware of the work of and worked with (making pictures for) many good/great graphic designers / art directors. It was always my desire and ambition to work on projects (large and small) together with quality graphic designers / art directors - there is nothing worse than making a really nice picture and then having it mutilated by its use in bad/questionable design work. Conversely, there is little better in the commercial world than the visual synergy created by mating good/great pictures with good/great graphic design.

That said, prior to working in the graphic design field (as a designer / art director / creative director), I was well aware of the work of Milton Glaser, one of the all-time giants of the graphic design universe. Somewhere along the line (far far back in my picturing and commercial life) I read a piece about Glaser in which he was quoted as stating that the colors red and black were the only colors needed for good/great graphic design - as in his timeless (in continuous use since 1973) and widely recognized I Love NY logo design.

Most certainly, Glaser was stretching a point but that point was well taken, nevertheless.

Now I am not suggesting that it was the words of Milton Glaser that raised my awareness of the visual power of the color red. However, after reading them, I did become much more consciously aware of and much more deliberate in the use of that visual power.

That said, I strive to never use the color red as a cheap visual trick. Like, say, isolating red in a full color spectrum picture and then de-saturating all the other color to emphasis the red. I can state that, in my pictures, the color red is an honest / found element, never to be fiddled with in PS for visual effect*.

FYI, in the Grapes picture accompanying this entry, the bright red objects in the upper left are as I found them - I did not place them there.

In the making of this picture, I was first drawn to the grapes and the quality of the light falling on them. Consequently, my first notion was to make a picture that was tight in on the grapes and the plate, to exclude the surrounding elements. I did, in fact, make a few pictures just in that manner.

However, after viewing the picture on the camera LCD, I deemed the picture to be nice enough but rather too relaxed / placid / restful, aka: yawn inducing, for my eye and sensibilities. At that point I decided to bring the Mickey Mouse Pez dispenser and the mini Coca-Cola carton into play and, without question, their inclusion livens things up quite a bit, visually speaking.

Some might think that those items visually overwhelm the main referent (the grapes) to the point of being visually annoying / disruptive. To which I would respond. "Yep. Sure enough." I wouldn't have any other way.

Why would I do such a thing, you might ask? The answer is simple - I hate falling asleep when viewing pictures, my own included. I want to be emotionally / visually / mentally pricked, prodded, rattled, confronted, challenged and otherwise invigorated when viewing pictures. I want my eyes, mind, and heart to dance across the visual field to be found on the 2-dimension surface of a print.

I want pictures to wake me up. I spend enough time sleeping and don't want the dumb-ass picturing adage of "simplify, simplify" to put me in a coma-like picture viewing state.

*other than to make it as true to the real red (as found/seen in a scene) as the medium and its apparatus allow.

civilized ku # 2086 ~ one of these things is not like the other

From the Duquesne Club Cookbook • click to embiggen
Fruit bowl # 1 ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Fruit bowl ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenIn yesterday's entry, making pictures ~ one way or another, John Linn wrote/asked:

You seem to suggest there is a dichotomy: the "found/seen" and the "inside their heads" picture makers, but it seems to me these are the extremes of a continuum. "What is real" is obviously in the first camp, but isn't the picture maker that uses Photoshop beyond curves and balance, IE modifying picture elements... what most would call "photoshopping", really just moving from the real to the imagined?

It certainly is not correct to present photos as being real or documentary that have been manipulated, but what about the concept of "artistic license"? Isn't that just a step toward "inside the head"?

Getting right to the nub of it, to my eye and sensibilities / way of thinking, there is an absolute dichotomy between the found/seen and the inside the head pictures. While most likely there is a continuum within the boundaries of each picturing MO, I believe there is a sharp well defined difference between the two picturing camps.

To wit - either you picture what you see and present it as true to that referent as the medium and its apparatus allow or you don't. It's either one or the other. IMO, there is no middle ground*.

Re: the term "artistic license" - defined as a colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact .... made by an artist to improve a piece of art. (nota bene the use of the words "distortion of fact") - is used in the medium of photography by those who (in John's words) "present photos as being real or documentary that have been manipulated". The distortions are most often accompanied by the statement, "It's how I felt."

This is especially so in the landscape / nature genre, which is fine by me if that's what floats your picture making boat. However, "artistic license" or not, the pictures are still a distortion of fact and, to my eye and sensibilities, firmly over the line into the "inside the head" picture making MO. Nothing wrong with that unless, of course, your intent is to present your appreciation of "the beauty of the natural world" with a picture of it that beauty is a fabrication / fantasy as conceived "inside the head" of the picture maker**.

IMO, the two pictures which accompany this entry demonstrate, quite well, the difference between found/seen and "inside the head" pictures.

Both pictures are still life pictures. However, the fruit bowl picture is of the found/seen variety. Despite the fact of considerable after the picturing fact processing (or, more accurately because of it) - as evidenced by the before and after pictures - the picture is as true to the real world referent as the medium and its apparatus allow. No arranging or artificial lighting were employed in the making of this picture. It is what it is, which is to say it looks like what I aw when I "found" it.

On the other hand, the food still life from the Duquesne Club Cookbook is a complete fabrication inasmuch as everything about it is fabricated. The light I used to make the picture was carefully crafted for maximum visual effect and affect. The props were all carefully chosen and arranged. And, of course, the food was prepared and presented / arranged to within an inch of its life.

While the picture is certainly a true representation of the results of all of that fussing around, it is, nevertheless, most certainly not a "found" picture. The picture relied heavily upon "artistic license" in its making (a making involving 4-5 hours of prep). It is a stylized image of food in a setting which a viewer can "interpret" as "real" but, in most cases, an informed viewer understands the illusion involved in what they are seeing.

All of that said, I will once again ask the question - have any of you tried your hand at making pictures of what's inside your head?

*"there is no middle ground" - this statement should not be interpreted to mean that one picture making MO is "right" and the other "wrong". In the making of pictures with the medium of photography and its apparatus, it's all about intent. The only "wrong" is presenting a picture as true when, in fact, it is a fabrication.

**IMO, that exercise is little more than a demonstration of a picture maker's ability to make a pretty picture with the intent of drawing attention to the maker rather than the referent.

civilized ku # 2079-80 / food ~ a loose canon vs. focused

Sign post at Macs ~ Keeseville, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Carrot on plate ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Red tangle ~ Au Sable Point / Peru, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenWithout a doubt, the canonical vernacular of the medium of photography is extremely diverse. One could even say that it is indeed, as a canon, a very loose one at that.

Within the medium's very wide-ranging boundaries of related-to-the-real images made with a mechanical device on a light sensitive surface, there is plenty of room for creative improvisation and tomfoolery. It is no stretch at all to state that, with a mechanical device at the ready and the world at large (and everything in it) at hand, if one can imagine it, picture-wise, one can create it. However ......

.... it never ceases to amaze me how many picture makers run into a dead end / a wall / a what-to-picture brain lock. One might think that, with the world and everything in it as one's picture making oyster, there would be an endless array of picturing opportunities. More than enough to fill up a life time of picturing, no matter how long that life might be.

Unfortunately, when it comes to making meaningful / good pictures or breaking out of a what-to-picture funk, one of the most oft heard / read dictates of the medium's canon - to concentrate / focus on a referent which interests one most - might just be the problem. Setting aside the fact that a whole lot of people (to include a whole lot of picture makers) are only interested in themselves, there are a fair number of people / picture makers who have no real passionate interest in their lives which can serve as the fuel for a blazing fire.

Add to that fact, there is a danger inherent in picking a referent one cares about and then falling into the trap of working to that particular genre's dictates and mores (as defined by the "purist" gurus of any particular genre). What one could end up making are pictures that one has been told are good pictures rather than actual good pictures.

In my experience, it seems quite clear to me, from my viewing of and "studying" the pictures of many of the medium's Greats - as well as the near Greats, potentially Greats, never-to-be-discovered Greats, and garden variety Greats, the one simple characteristic they all share, picture making wise, is their passion for making pictures. Not necessarily a passion for making a particular kind / genre of pictures, just a plain and simple passion for making pictures.

IMO, that passion is the stuff from which good pictures are made. Picture making wise, the fuel that feeds the fire. The obsession which drives the mind and soul.

And armed / driven by that passion, one is free to make pictures of not only what one wants to picture (unconfined by genre, with the world and everything in it as one's picture making oyster) but also, perhaps more importantly, make those pictures in a manner dictated by how one wants to make them, not how one is told to make them.

IMO, that's the recipe for making good pictures.

civilized ku # 2068 ~ remnants

Remnants - tea, cheerios and milk, and sherbet with toenails ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenI have surrendered to the fact that I am constitutionally unable to walk into my kitchen without seeing a picture making opportunity. To a certain extent, I feel as though I am beginning to channel my inner Sudek.

Josef Sudek, aka: the Poet of Prague, is one of my all-time favorite picture makers. Most of his picture making life was spent roaming the streets, parks, gardens of his beloved Prague. One writer referred to this as:

... his exploration led him through the streets and sites of Prague, working, it would seem, from the outside in.

However, later in Sudek's life, as age and limited mobility set in, the same writer opined:

... he began orchestrating from the inside out, concentrating on private subjects - the window of his studio, the garden outside, simple still lifes within.

To be certain, I am not at all hindered by neither age nor limited mobility. I still have a very active picture making life of working from "the outside in". However, in a picture making manner not evident earlier in my life, I also seem to be increasing attracted to working from the "inside out"*.

In light of this development, I find it necessary to start a new picturing category titled simply home. While there are many pictures here on The Landscapist which could be retroactively labeled with that tag, I will not be expending the time and effort to do so. I would much rather spend that time and effort editing / organizing those pictures into a suitable folder in my archives.

However, from this day forward, I will be including that tag with my pictures when appropriate.

FYI, you can see some of Sudek's "inside out" pictures here. Although, be forewarned, even though I think them to be rather obvious (easy to spot), they are not categorized as such within this random overview of his work.

*Armchair psychologists should feel free to chime in on why this is so. In fact, I encourage it because it could be a very interesting topic, re: why people picture what it is they picture.

civilized ku # 1196-98 ~ red knife

Stash Cafe ~ Old Montreal, CA • click to embiggenA dinner, under a red lamp shade, comprised of 3 appetizers - assorted perogies, potato pancakes, and fried kielbasa and onions.

civilized ku # 1180 / food ~ an election day tradition

Remains - chicken biscuit and gravy dinner ~ United Methodist Church / Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIt's a tradition here in the good ol' US of A, on election day, for one organization or another - schools (PTAs), churches, firefighter associations, et al - to prepare (and sell) dinners for those who visit nearby polling places. They are generally fundraisers for the respective organizations / groups. So, yesterday (election day) I picked up 2 chicken biscuit with gravy, mash potatoes, pees, squash, cranberry sauce, Waldorf salad, and apple or pumpkin pie dinners for our dining pleasure.

Not a bad, in fact, a very tasty deal for 8 bucks.

FYI, this picture was made under the dreaded CFL illumination. A scene like this with whites, neutral grays and blacks is idea for nailing a WB setting for CFLs.

decay & disgust # 44 ~ chicken bones

Chicken bones • click to embiggen