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 life in pictures (19)

Thursday
Jan212016

civilized ku # 3038 / single women / life in pictures ~ people, people everywhere

1044757-26806812-thumbnail.jpg
Le Club Chasse et Pêche (The Hunt and Fish Club) ~ Old Montreal, QC / CA • click to embiggen
1044757-26807543-thumbnail.jpg
single women ~ • click to embiggen
1044757-26806876-thumbnail.jpg
life in pictures ~ Queens / East Village / NYC, NY • click to embiggen

Right from the get go let me write that I am not a devotee of street photography. For the most part that is simply because it all looks sorta the same to me. For another part, it could be argued that I just simply have not made the time and effort to really "understand" it.

That is not to write that there are not notable exceptions to that feeling, there are. For instance I have Robert Frank's book, THE AMERICANS. However, as the photographer Ed Ruscha said (which sorta supports my feelings on the subject of street photograhy):

Seeing THE AMERICANS in a college bookshop was a stunning, ground-trembling experience for me. But I realized this man's achievement could not be mined or imitated in anyway, because he had already done it, sewn it up and gone home.

Although ... it must be noted that Frank was inspired by an early photographer's work, Walker Evans' American photographs (I have this book as well). While it could be said that Frank mined Evans' seeing / vision, Frank's work - "meaningless blur, grain, muddy exposures, drunken horizons and general sloppiness" as described in Popular Photograph magazine - stands in direct contrast to Evan's formal / precisely framed view camera work.

Over the years, many have tried to mine or imitate Frank's work but, iMo, only a very few have succeeded in creating the same impact and feeling elicited by that masterpiece of seeing.

All of that written, I nevertheless do practice what might be considered as a variant of the street photography genre. Which is to write, and as evidenced by the pictures in this entry, that I enjoy making pictures of people pictured unawares, i.e. - not aware that they are being pictured. A manner of picturing which is one of the hallmarks of the street photography genre.

My one primary deviation from the genre is that I do not confine my picturing to the street / outdoors. Outdoor, indoor, it's all the same to me. Which, I guess, is just another example of my picturing promiscuity.
Sunday
Mar312013

life in pictures # 18 ~ happy, happy

MetroPlus Health Plan ~ Queens, NY • click to embiggenOne thing that the life depicted in my life in pictures have in common is that everyone in the depicted life is either happy as a clam or incredibly self assured. If only real life were so swell.

But then again, pictures never lie. Right?

Thursday
Mar282013

life in pictures # 17 ~ once again, the same but different

The Face ~ Queens, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOnce again I have come across a current NYC gallery exhibit which parallels one of my bodies of work. In this instance, it's my ongoing life in pictures body of work and that of Natan Dvir's Coming Soon. The difference between his work and mine is almost exclusively one of scale.

These recent discoveries of the-same-but-different bodies of work are starting to make me wonder and a bit crazy.

Part of my problem with others, with work based on a similar concept, beating me to the exhibition punch is the fact that I don't concentrate my picturing efforts on a single body of work. My M.O. is to keep quite a number of my bodies of work in play, picturing wise, over an extended period of time, building the body rather slowly. Whereas most of the others tend to dedicate themselves to a single picturing pursuit.

That written, there is absolutely nothing wrong with building a single body of work as one's main endeavor. Perhaps I need to pick a single body of work on which to concentrate in a determined, focused and exclusive manner.

Wednesday
May252011

life in pictures # 16 ~ redeux / RAW vs JPEG

1044757-12383680-thumbnail.jpg Chanel / Rouge COCO shine ~ 1st & E4th - NYC, NY • click to embiggen1044757-12383904-thumbnail.jpg
Chanel / Rouge COCO shine / JPEG ® v RAW (l) ~ 1st & E4th - NYC, NY • click to embiggen
As you might recall, while I was in NYC / NJ, I was making and posting work-in-progress pictures. They were labeled as work-in-progress because I was processing the pictures using some "antiquated" equipment and outdated software - a 10 year old MacBook, OS v10.2, PS v7.1, and long-gone ImageReady (save for web) v7.0 - with which I was certain to obtain good but not best results. Although, I figured the results would be good enough, and they were, to post as on-the-road, work-in-progress / awaiting "high-end wringer" processing pictures.

In addition to the equipment / software "handicap", there was also the issue of having to picture in JPEG format - the MacBook had no RAW converter, without which there was no opening RAW files in PS 7.1. Not wanting to end up with only JPEGs, I set my cameras to record RAW + JPEG. FYI, I was also using ISO bracketing, so each release of the shutter created 6 files on my memory card - I was eating up memory space at a prodigious pace.

In any event, at the time, there was a request from John Linn:

I think it might be an interesting exercise for you to post a few of your "work-in-process" results along side your "high-end wringer" results and let us guess which is which.

So, here you have it. Although, I think a guessing game would kinda be a waste of time inasmuch as the "high-end wringer" version should be quite obvious.

That said, I would like to state that, despite the equipment / software handicap, I was quite pleasantly surprised by the work-in-progress results. There was very little I couldn't accomplish, re: results from my "high-end wringer" wise, with the use of some workarounds and various tricks of the way-back-then, state-of-the-art trade.

That is not to state that there are no differences between Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Indeed, there obviously are - over all color balance being the most obvious/critical - but none of the differences are such that the intent of my life in pictures picture making is seriously impeded, comprised, or negated. Technical virtuosity differences aside, IMO, they are both in the same aesthetic ballpark.

All of which brings me to the RAW vs JPEG thing.

I make all of my pictures in RAW. While RAW files contain more information than JPEGs, the primary reason for picturing in RAW is because I don't like machines to make decisions for me. Any machines. Any decisions.

That is not to state that some machines make some good decisions. For instance, I tend to trust the ABS / EBD / ESC system in our cars - although never as a substitute for attentive driving. However, when it comes to all things aesthetic, I want to be the decider. I am not interested in accepting what a software engineer believes is an acceptable-to-the-most-people aesthetic average regarding color, saturation, white balance, or contrast, just to name a few decisions that a picture making machine (camera + software) makes for you when you go the JPEG route.

Sure, you can set some in-camera JPEG parameters but those are sledge hammer tools relative to the surgeon's scalpel tools at your disposal in the RAW converter / PS virtual darkroom. The skillful and considered use of those virtual darkroom tools - in my case, with the goal of achieving the most natural, un-effected /affected, and accurate to the real pictures the medium and its apparatus allows - can raise your pictures to the "next level". Or, at the very least, to a level which meets your own personal aesthetic desires.

HOWEVER, as my recent dip into JPEG waters has demonstrated, there is still quite a bit of meat left on the JPEG bone after in-camera JPEG processing. IMO, more than enough to satisfy even the most observant and critical viewers of fine art pictures. That is, more than enough if one is inclined to do some judicious after-the-picture-making fact processing.

As mentioned, I used ISO bracketing during my recent experiment. That allowed me, without over-processing problems, to do (if neeed) some highlight / shadow exposure blending. Subtle WB, color/saturation corrections, sharpening - all localized, if desired - were also possible. The key to successful JPEG picture processing is to: 1) set the camera parameters to produce a result as close to your aesthetic intentions as is possible, and 2) keep your post picturing processing to a minimum using as light a touch as possible to get where you want to go.

IMO, whichever route, RAW vs JPEG, you choose to go, careful attention to in-camera JPEG parameters with some light post picturing processing or the skillful mastery of the full monty RAW converter / PS virtual darkroom, the resultant prints are bound to be of exceptionally high quality. That is to say, the technical quality of those prints will never be a hindrance in the expressing your aesthetic vision.

Does that mean that I am going to be making in-camera JPEGs?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Other than for making and posting on-the-go / work-in-progress pictures, it just ain't gonna happen.

BTW & FYI, coincidentally, over on TOP today, there is an entry, Virtuous Techniques? which addresses the same topic. A coincidence which, as the entry author, Ctein, states is "perhaps just another example of great minds lying in the same gutter.

Tuesday
May102011

life in pictures # 16 ~ good questions

1044757-12150357-thumbnail.jpg
1st Ave & E 4th Street (work-in-progress) ~ NY, NY • click to embiggen
On the entry civilized ku # 947, John Linn wrote:

Many fine artists (painters) use photography as a tool to work out subject and composition ... many painters WOULD selectively use the bits and pieces they find work best for their art ... they are creating a vision that is an interpretation of the scene. I have a artist friend who talks about seeing with his "minds-eye" which is different that his in-fact eyes.

In your opinion is this the essential difference between a painter and a photographer? A photographer should be responsible for interpreting reality without distortion?

... is there a place in the world for the photo illustrator who can pick and choose his/her images as long as there is no intent of misrepresentation?

Re: "the essential difference between a painter and a photographer" - as I have stated many times, the unique and defining difference between painting (and other non-photo visual arts) and photography is photography's relationship to / characteristic as a cohort of the real. No other visual medium / art possesses photography's ability to capture a moment in time with such precision and accuracy.

While painters may base their art on the real, photographers have the ability to instantly, directly, and accurately depict the real. In both instances, the resultant picture is a representation of the thing pictured inasmuch as neither picture is the thing itself. However, that said, a painting is a much more "interpretive" representation of the thing than is a "straight" photograph of the thing.

And, while a painter gets to select (what they "see" with their "minds-eye") which elements of the real he/she wishes to include in their interpretation of a thing/scene, a "straight" photographer only gets to select what part of the real (what they "see" with their "in fact-eye") he/she wishes to include within the frame. It should go without stating that these 2 acts of selecting are entirely different disciplines.

Re: "...should (photographers) be responsible for interpreting reality without distortion? ... is there a place in the world for the photo illustrator who can pick and choose his/her images as long as there is no intent of misrepresentation?" - there is no licensing authority for photographers which gets to state what a photographer may picture or how they may picture it.

One could argue that, in the Fine Art World, there are picture police - critics, academics, gallery owners, museum curators, et al - who try to enforce picture making strictures. However, with the exception of those who make pictures with the picture police as their primary audience, most picture makers follow their own vision and let the chips fall where they may. However, in the Fine Art World (as opposed to the anything-goes Decorative Art World), most picture makers are acutely aware of the medium's relationship to / with the real.

With that defining characteristic firmly embedded in their "in fact-eye", they (photographers who are artists) set out to depict the real in a realistic, yet interesting and engaging, fashion or, in some cases (artists who use photography - akin to Linn's "photo illustrators"), use that characteristic to realistically depict what is in their "minds-eye" (staged pictures, as an example). In either case, the medium's readily apparent visual ability to accurately record the real is one of the major hallmarks of successful picture making / photo pictures.

Add to all of that blather, the fact that I consider the making of good/great/interesting pictures without resorting to "distortions" - cheap tricks, gear gimmicks, fanciful effects and manipulations, et al (aka, "misrepresentation", intentional or not) - to be the most difficult thing to accomplish in the picture making world. And, FYI, I do not consider doing so a "responsibility" but rather an act of respect for "what is", aka - the real, instead of a fanciful interpretation of what I wish it to be.

That challenge and respect in picture making is why I hold those who resort to picture making "distortions" in such low picture making esteem. They are aesthetic simpletons (OK, that's a bit harsh but ...), no matter how technically challenging or difficult the making of their pictures may be. But, that said, what they make is art and there is "a place in the world" for them. That place is in the world of Decorative Art (looks nice on the wall above the sofa, matches the colors in the room, makes one feel "good", and so on) but rarely in the world of Fine Art.

Tuesday
Jan042011

life in pictures # 15 ~ working working

1044757-10081970-thumbnail.jpg
Sale ~ Cherry Hill Mall - Cherry Hill, NJ • click to embiggen
A number of questions, re: my upcoming exhibit, have been asked. I'm taking a short break from crunch time stuff, so I'll try to answer them as best I can.

Bit first, Anil Rao stated that, "I wished I lived closer so that I could see the framed prints1044757-1044757-10082031-thumbnail.jpg
come one, come all • click to embiggen
in person in a gallery setting". Which reminded me that I wanted to extend an invite to anyone who's so inclined to make it to the opening or, for that matter, to the gallery at anytime while the exhibit is up. That could be for quite a while, perhaps even indefinitely, if I have my way - I've made an offer to rent the space and small studio space behind it.

FYI the attached invitation isn't the finished piece - I have yet to add the address and the fact that I am arranging live music at the bar, 20 Main, across the street from the gallery. Suffice it to say that, if anyone out there is coming, the gallery is on Main Street in Au Sable Forks and you would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to miss it.

Question # 1 from Sven W - when selecting the exhibition images, what is the criteria you are using?" Since the exhibit is titled The Forks / there's no place like home, criteria # 1 is that the pictures be in or around Au Sable Forks. After that, I am picking pictures that best represent how I see, tossing out those pictures that, while nice enough, are more like those you might see in a calendar of Au Sable Forks.

Question # 2 from Sven W - "are you planning on posting an online gallery of your final 24?" and a somewhat related one from Anil Rao - I am hoping that you will do us a favor and post some pictures of the opening reception and also of the work hanging on the walls." The answer to both questions is "yes" - there will be an online gallery and I will have pictures from the opening and of the gallery when the pictures are hung.

Question # 3, 4 from Dennis Allshouse - "do you have a fixed size 1044757-10082966-thumbnail.jpg
folio case • click to embiggen
for the hanging prints
...?" and "How are you boxing the portfolios?" I am hanging 2 print sizes - 12 24×24 inch prints and 14-20 12×12 inch prints. The portfolios will be in a folio box as per the photo on the right.

FYI - both the folio and the exhibition photo book will be available here on The Landscapist.

That's about it for now. So it's back to crunch time for me. Hope to see a few of you at the opening.

Tuesday
Aug102010

life in pictures # 14 ~ LIES

1044757-8066631-thumbnail.jpg
Belvedere Vodka/LIES ~ NY, NY • click to embiggen
While in NYC I was able to add a couple pictures to my life in pictures series (to see more, click on life in pictures under Journal Categories in the sidebar).

In this scene I was struck by the fact that someone put into a word what I am putting into my life in picture pictures, AKA - the connoted.

Wednesday
Mar172010

life in pictures # 13 ~ it's back

1044757-6173952-thumbnail.jpg
Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back • click to embiggen
The EP-1 is back and I must state that I'm impressed with both the service and the speed with which Olympus dealt with the matter.

The camera shipped from here last Thursday, arrived at Olympus on Friday, shipped back from Olympus on Monday, arrived here on Tuesday. Between Friday and Monday, Olympus replaced the image stabilization mechanism and updated the camera software.