man & nature # 163 ~ the last of dancing and singing, singing and dancing

Any beer port in a storm • click to embiggenCome rain or come shine, the American Legion, Medos A. Nelson Post 504, Au Sable Forks, NY (just around the corner from my house) is always open for those in need of a bit of relief.

The wife has even gone so far as to suggest that I join the post and campaign for election to the position of Post Commander. After which, my regime would mandate good beer and much younger (and comely) barmaids. Although, that's not where her interests lie - she wants to join the American Legion (women's) Auxiliary so she can get one of those snazzy hats and march in the local Labor Day parade.

That said, with all due respect I must say that the legion post and its members are a valuable community resource and a center for many charitable and social events. Such is the beautiful stuff of everyday life in a small town - bad beer and all.

And, while we're at it, anyone want to debate the concept of "good" and "bad" beer?

man & nature # 162 ~ even more dancing and singing, singing and dancing

Rainy day evening ~ in the gloaming • click to embiggenThe 2 most favored (by me) compliments I receive about my pictures are:

1. Why'd you take a picture of that?

2. You should spend some time with Photoshop and .... (pick one - add contrast, add saturation, punch up the color ...)

And it's a good thing that they are my favorites because I hear / read both of them quite frequently.

My like of comment # 1 stems from the fact that I rarely answer that question immediately which most often leads the inquisitor to start to try and answer it him/her-self. It's fun and oft times amusing - in a very good way - to hear the mental / emotional process involved in trying to figure it out. In short, the picture in question causes them to think and to question and, above all other responses / reactions to my pictures, that's the one I value most.

As you might deduce, comment # 2 comes from other photographers. Most often from those of the "interpretation" school of picture making which places a high degree of emphasis upon a very "perfect" presentation of an idealized world. My delight in answering this question - immediately and on the spot - stems from the fact that I in fact do spend a lot of time with my pictures in RAW Developer and Photoshop with that time spent towards obtaining results that are biased towards the real as opposed to the ideal. FYI, by "ideal" I mean both the photographic (read as "technical") ideal and the idealized view of the natural world.

Today's picture is a case in point. It was made at the end of a rainy day - there was still a light drizzle in the air - at a time when the light was beginning to fade - the gloaming. I was attracted to the dense and "murky wood" feeling created by the lush foliage and the fading light.

My camera produced a RAW file that, when viewed in RAW Delveloper, had too much contrast and somewhat vivid yellows in the greens. So, the emphasis in my processing (in RD and PS) was devoted to reducing contrast - compressing, not expanding the tonal range - and cleaning up the yellow end of things in order to reveal a wealth of different greens.

I mention this in light of yesterday's entry regarding the interpretive crowd and the nearly universal manner in which they "interpret" the gloaming.

When picturing their most favored referent - the glorious grand landscape at dusk / sunset / sunrise - their love of GNDs (graduated neutral density filters) or its HDR / multi exposure blending equivalent is everywhere and readily apparent. The trademark look is one of dramatic skies, color and saturation amped up to 11 on scale of 1-10, and foregrounds that have the appearance of being lit by a gigantic overhead light box of unimaginable proportions - the net effect of which is to brighten and "open up" the foreground to such an extent that it simply looks and feels totally out of character / relationship to the real thing.

Once again, let me state, more power to them. Do what you have to do to keep your boat afloat.

But here's the thing that I know from 30 years experience of using a handheld 1˚ spot light meter for all of my metering needs, 35mm cameras included. The tonal range found in the gloaming is incredibly short. So short in fact that Saint Ansel ushered in a shooting/processing/printing system for BW picturing that, in part, was directed at "correcting" this natural deficiency for BW picturing.

That's because BW picturing relies on the separation of tonal values, obviously not color, to make things "pop". The "murky wood" found in the gloaming would indeed be very murky in a BW picture if some corrective measure were not employed in the BW picture making process.

But we're not talking BW here, we're talking color. And that's where we have an advantage over our BW brethren. The gloaming is most often filled with a wealth of different colors, subtle color to be sure, but nevertheless color which "naturally" makes things "pop".

But, here's one of my big gripes with the interpretive crowd - the word, "subtle", much less a picturing making practice employing such a concept, is just not part of their program. And, as I mentioned yesterday, this could just fall under the heading of "different strokes for different folks", but, once again, I see it quite differently.

Pictures, as even the interpreters state, are indeed an extension / expression of one's mind, heart, and soul. And, therein is where my real gripe is found - we are culture that is now living with the ravages of the avoidance and sublimation of the reality of the real world. The I-see-myself-in-the-big-car-the-big-house-with-the-big-bucks-and-all-the-big-stuff, living large with the life of an American Idol/Idle (and hopefully living large with The Next Supermodel). Ahhh, yes. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

As a culture / society, we have been living a life based on the-next-big-thing as reflected in the stuff we want, the entertainment we pursue, and the idealized version the lifestyles of the rich and famous we chase - I call it a delusional interpretation of the good life. Enough is never enough. Nothing exceeds like excess.

Here's my point - call it entertainment, call it art, call it just fooling around, but the pictures one makes are a reflection of one's self and are made within and reflect the parameters of the cultural /societal paradigm of the moment. IMO, the pictures that come from the interpretive crowd are both a reflection of and an encouragement for the continuation of a cultural / societal paradigm gone bad.

That is why, aside from my preternatural disposition to do so, I choose to picture "a piles of twigs" - like Robert Adams, I believe "that beauty is commonplace" and that it can be found in the mostly unlikely of places - in the so-called mundane, in the so-called commonplace, in the simplest of places and things that make up everyday life. In fact, beauty can be found in what is, for the overwhelming majority, the very fabric of their everyday life on this planet.

IMO, there is something profoundly wrong with a cultural / societal paradigm that preaches the mantra that the very fabric of our daily life is boring / mundane and must be avoided at all costs. And, because I have been taught that everything you do matters because everything is connected, I don't have much respect for pictures that advance that concept of what is essentially an advanced course in extreme self-loathing.

FYI, my problem with the interpretive school is with it as it is most commonly practiced. Obviously there are some from that school who practice good selection and interpretation without resorting to the wretched visual and pictorial excesses employed by the visually illiterate.

man & nature # 161 ~ more dancing and singing, singing and dancing

Creeping foliage on utility pole in the rain • click to embiggenFor the those of you who are relative newcomers to The Landscapist - the recent bump in my stats tell me that you're there - I'd like to use this opportunity* to explain / expand what I'm trying do here.

*this opportunity: is instigated by this comment (from another blog):

The real photographer attempts to capture what he or she visualizes not what he or she sees ... [P]hotography is like any other art form is a visual expression by an individual. Photography has never been pure or exactly what the human eye sees ... [W]ith modern digital cameras and software we finally have the ability to express what we visualise, just like the painter or any other artist.

The comment was left in response to an entry in defense of HDR image rendering techniques wherein the author, Darwin Wiggett, states:

The sooner we accept that photography is an interpretation, the easier it will be to accept interpretative techniques.

BTW & FYI, I have had a number of virtual conversions with Darwin and he has left a few comments on The Landscapist way back in the early days.

Now, before I get to it, let me state clearly what I am not trying to do here on The Landscapist - I am not trying to take away the interpretive practitioner's crayons nor am I trying stamp out all the fun they are having using them. If that's what picture making means to them, they should assemble the largest set of crayons they can find and keep on coloring the world in any way they see fit or, as they say, choose to "interpret" it. Have at it. Go for the gusto, etc.

That said, what am trying to do is provide a venue where those picture makers who are tired of following that escapist / fun-loving herd (or who just don't want to go there from the start) can hear/read a different point of view about the picture making possibilities of the medium of photography.

That said, on with the show ...

The notion that "photography is an interpretation" is a bit of a self-serving justification / rationalization for all kinds of "interpretative" activity and, quite frankly, is only a working definition of the medium for the "real photographer[s] who attempts to capture what he or she visualizes not what he or she sees."

On the other hand, for those picture makers who are more interested in what they see as opposed to what they want to see (visualize), a much more accurate notion of the medium would be that "photography is a representation" of what they (to include me) see. For those picture makers, the act of selecting (what they see) is much more important than the act of "interpreting" (what they see).

Now that difference could be considered to be nothing more than an example of "different strokes for different folks" and, to a certain extent, it is. But - here's the fun part wherein I am going to piss some people off ....

I see the difference between the representation crowd and the interpretation crowd in quite a different manner. IMO, good "selection" beats good "interpretation" hands down any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Why so? OK, you've made it this far so hold on tight ...

Simply stated, so-called "interpretation" is the lazy person's way of trying to make an interesting picture.

The interpretation crowd is very bad at selection - all they ever seem to select is the same old referent - one variant or another of the "grand and glorious" landscape (over and over and over again) - as a kind of picture putty onto which they can apply their interpretation - an interpretation that relies almost exclusively on technique. As the commenter stated, the interpreters rely on "modern digital cameras and software ... to express" themselves.

To my eye and sensibilities, this "interpretive" approach to the medium is somewhat wanting.

To wit, the layering on of technique during the picture making process is, quite simply, an attempt to mask the failings of an inferior ability to see selectively.

To wit, when it comes to picture making, seeing selectively is far and away the most difficult thing to accomplish.

To wit:

... eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that REAL photography starts and most photographers quit. ~ Brooks Jensen

FYI, that's my emphasis on the last sentence and the word "real" because I completely agree with Jensen - this is the point at which "real photographers" begin to explore the real/ greater possibilities inherent in the medium of photography.

To wit:

Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace. ~ Robert Adams, from Beauty In Photography

And, yo - interpreters, riddle me this - Why is it that every picture I see that is made by a self-proclaimed interpreter - who claims to be following their very own personal visualization - looks exactly like every other picture that I see made by all the other interpreters?

Could it be because of a severely limited selection of referents together with the application of a de rigueur palette of techniques?

Could it be the shortage of real imagination amongst the ranks of interpretive crowd and a return to the good old days of Pictorialism seems like good idea?

Or, is it that am I at fault here with my respect for and adherence to the medium's unique characteristic (the one that truly distinguishes it from the other Visual Arts) - its inherent and inimitable characteristic as cohort with reality?

civilized ku # 174 ~ what you see isn't always what you get

Bringing the outside inside • click to embiggen"Literacy" has always been understood first and foremost to mean the ability to read (and write). As associated with the word "literate", it also implies "educated". One could also say that a fundamental point of the process of getting educated is to become literate. One can also be said to be literate, as in having knowledge or skill in a specified field - a field not necessarily associated with reading and writing. Such as, he is very literate in computer usage.

What the word is not often associated with is pictures, especially so in the realm of general education. Sure, at institutions of higher learning - college, university, et al - there are specialized courses in what might be called visual literacy, but the fact remains that, for most people, a picture is just a picture. The exception to that is the personal snapshot of a loved one (to include animals) or even a beloved place (the old homestead, et al).

However, when confronted with a picture of, say, a plate of eggs and bacon on a greasy-spoon booth's formica table top, virtually all of the visually illiterate will struggle, assuming that they even try, to come up with any meaning beyond the obvious. It's just a picture of a plate of eggs.

The idea of visual illiteracy is not by any means a new concept. Take this as an example:

The illiteracy of the future will be ignorance not of reading or writing, but of photography. - Anonymous - cited in: “Germany - The New Photography 1927 – 33

And, at some point in time after that statement was put forth, this one was also offer up:

I think a photography class should be a requirement in all educational programs because it makes you see the world rather than just look at it. - Author unknown

To cut right to the chase, it seems to me that both of these statements have their genesis in the phrase, "more than meets the eye", and furthermore, that most are not very good at visually "reading between the lines". Or, to be more accurate when speaking of pictures, "seeing beneath the surface" of things.

Again, cutting to the chase relative to my point in bringing this up, our current economic crisis (at least from the consumer debt POV) is due to the fact that so many of us bought into, literally and figuratively, the pictures of the "good life" as offered for view by those who stood to gain the most from the embrace of that idea of the "good life" - the business class purveyors of that concept of the "good life".

In short, advertising / marketing pictures (and related visual media representations) as pure propaganda for a false notion of the "good life" - that is to say say a life predicated on spent-and-get, no matter the consequences to personal financial security, the planet / environment, the cultural / societal implications of self-centered aggrandizement, and so on.

I can't help but wonder where we might be if only we were more visually literate.

man & nature # 159 ~ accepting your fate

Pouring rain through the car window • click to embiggenAs is often my wont I headed out during yesterday's rain torrent with the idea of picture making in the rain. And picture-make I did.

However, the rain was coming down so fast and furious that I had to give up on the idea of getting out of my car to make pictures. So, rather than giving up on the idea, I decided to picture from the driver's seat. At first the intention was to lower the window - after having maneuvered the car into some pretty strange positions on the roadway - and have at it.

That idea lasted through only 2 picture making attempts (successful) because both me and the car interior were getting soaked even with the briefest of exposure to the rain. So, it was at that point that I decided to just go with the flow - that is, making pictures through the flow of the rain cascading down the driver-side window.

And I have to say that I am rather pleased with the results, 2 of which are displayed herein.

Update on Monday, June 15, 2009 at 12:28PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Cedric wrote: "I reverted to this sort of photography recently when we went through prolonged rain periods in my part of the world. Like you I quite enjoyed it though mine came out somewhat differently as I focused on the rain rather than the scenery... 1, 2, 3

Cedric, thanks for sharing.

man & nature # 158 ~ he's back

Donnelly's Soft Serve ice cream stand, Donnelly's Corners • click to embiggenI'm back.

The worst is over and as a matter of fact the worst wasn't all that bad, just time consuming. And, most of that time was spent waiting for downloads and installations to happen. It's worth mentioning that the single most time consuming task was backing up my Applications folder, my Home folder, and my Font folder and that this was done as a precautionary procedure, not as a mandatory one.

I was informed by Apple Support (which, BTW, cheerfully refunded my support fee after I asked why I was paying them to fix a problem that they caused) that backing up those folders was not necessary when performing an Mac OS Archive and Install installation. However, since they indicated that would not come to my house and spend 2 days reinstalling everything, I went for the back up.

That said, the Archive and Install when soothly and after a few additional bits of Apple software updates, I was up and running almost as before. I did have to re-calibrate my monitor, a few Photoshop bits required re-installing, and a couple minor system settings required re-setting but that was it.

I also feel that I must state, primarily for Seinberg's benefit, that this incident is the very first one that I have experienced since I began using Macs back in 1992. Of the very few other problems that I have experienced almost all of them were limited to 3rd party software (like the recent Epson driver issues).

And, every single problem I encountered, to include this one, was a simple user fix - a software re-install or a or software update install and things were A-OK.

That said, I wouldn't give the troubles that my Windows friends have to a monkey on a rock.

man & nature # 157 ~ a question for y'all

Rustic checker board and table • click to embiggenI'm sitting here on the front porch thinking and a wondering and it's occurred to me that, more than once, I have read / heard the phrase, "mind's eye". Way more often than not, photography-wise, it's used in a manner like:

... the making of the final image is to replicate what the photographer saw in their mind’s eye ...

I must admit that I have no idea what that notion means - primarily attributable to the fact that, when I'm picturing, my mind is "seeing" exactly what the eyes in the front of my face are seeing. Add to that the fact that I try to keep my mind as quite as possible when picturing in order to be receptive as possible, I am truly at a loss as to what the "mind's eye" is (as used above).

This is very different from my experience when looking at pictures, especially so when I am confronted by interesting pictures. At that time, the picture in question causes my "mind's eye" to "see" all manner of associated pictures that reside completely in my head. Much more often than not, interesting pictures also instigate other physical senses with imaginary responses - I can smell the earth, I can feel the heat, and, on some occasions, I can actually feels like I'm standing right in the picture maker's shoes.

So, that said, I definitely have a "mind's eye", in fact, it's a very active one. It's just that it goes to sleep when I'm picturing.

Now, lest I be accused of being disingenuous re: the aforementioned "replicate what the photographer saw in their mind's eye", I suspect that at least one meaning of that phrase as used in that statement is the notion of the photographic modus operandi of preconception or pre-visualization. An idea that I understand to mean that one pictures with the notion of the resultant / desired print as a guiding determinate.

But, beyond that guess, I am at a loss to divine any additional meanings.

So, therein is my question - does anyone out there understand the idea of the "mind's eye", especially as it is used in the aforementioned statement? Does it have meaning for anyone out there, re: your picture making?

FYI, this is a sincere question. I am genuinely interested in honest responses.

man & nature # 156 ~ chance rewards the prepared

The ever-elusive Great Northern Chairball • click to embiggenWith all due respect to the wife's comment about "be there", I feel compelled to mention that other school of picture making - f8 and work your ass off.

Not all pictures are the result of just being there. Some require much pre-planning, lots of local / locale knowledge, patience, and hard work. Wildlife photography as well as chasing-the-light landscape picture making come to mind as examples of such. Scouting locations, reading weather reports, knowing the habits and habitats of your prey - animate and in animate - are all part of the deal. And then, even after careful planning and prep, getting the shot still requires a nearly endless supply of patience as well as a heap of stick-to-it-iveness.

Such was exactly the case with my near decade-long pursuit of the perfect Great Northern Chairball picture.

I have been trying without any success to get a good look at this elusive creature, much less a picture of him/her (sex identification is difficult to determine without an autopsy), for going on 10 years. Until last evening, all I had managed was a fleeting and serendipitous glimpse of one scurrying (rolling? tumbling?) across a roadside clearing. Before I could stop the car it had disappeared into the forest.

That's when I knew that I had to have a plan.

After spending quite a bit of time trolling online Great Northern Chairball message boards, I discovered that these creatures have quite an appetite for, quite naturally, upholstery. That made perfect sense - in no small part because my only sighting had happened just down the road from an upholstery repair shop.

So, a plan was hatched. I could do one of 2 things; 1) my camera kit could include bits and pieces of scrap upholstery with which I could bait my prey, or, 2) I could identify the location of upholstery shops in my area - which are nearly as rare as the creature I was stalking - and, when the light and conditions were right, I could lie in wait for my prey in a portable upholstery blind.

Over the years I gave both ideas a try, once again, without any luck at all. Although, it should be noted that the techniques did show some promise for success. On a few occasions, I did hear some distinct creaking off in the distance which, thanks to info on the message boards, I knew to be sure signs of a foraging chairball.

And that's when it occurred to me - why not set out some upholstery bait and set up an upholstery blind at the same time? Sometimes the obvious answer only becomes obvious once it has become all too obvious.

So, 2 days ago, when the light was expected to be just right for the following couple of days (I knew all about the right light from trolling online photo forums), I set out my bait and set up my blind next to the dumpster at the upholstery shop in Upper Jay. A place, where just a week or so ago, there was a reported chairball-car near collision. I figured it was best to give my prey a bit of time to get comfortable with the set up.

an aside: Why Upper Jay, which is comprised of a church, a post office, a library, a motel, and a dozen houses and is in the middle of nowhere - its picture is in the dictionary under the phrase, blink-and-you'll-miss-it - has an upholstery shop is a real mystery, but that's a story for another day.

In any event, last evening there was an air of expectancy in the air so I set out with my carefully selected the-camera-matters gear, climbed into the blind ) after freshening up the bait and slathering on a thick layer of gooey Chairball-Stop Scent - $50 for a 6 oz. bottle, available in fine upholstery shops everywhere), and settled in for the kill.

Much to my surprise and utter delight, within less than 10 minutes, the creaking sounds of a chairball on the hunt reached my ears and a very short time after that, he/she made its appearance. I was so excited and surprised that an involuntary "WOW" escaped form my lips whereupon the wily and cautious chairball immediately froze in its tracks - no doubt, trying to blend into the scenery - a mere 10-12 feet from my blind. It remained still for 10-20 seconds and I was able to capture the picture that you see here.

However, the sound of my dslr shutter/mirror scared the daylights out the chairball and it disappeared from sight in a flash accompanied by the rattling and clanking of a Great Northern Chairball in full flight. Very exciting to say the least. In hindsight, I probably should have used the classic and much more quiet Leica M6 (and BW film). The Great Northern Chairball seems to be as sensitive to and quite touchy about the sound of mirror slap as a PGA golfer in mid-swing.

So, sure enough, you've got to "be there" but, remember, do your homework and be prepared. It's not all just about f8 and be there.

FYI & BTW, I am so enamored of the Great Northern Chairball that next time I'm bringing along a nail gun. I really want to have one these beautiful creatures stuffed and mounted for display. I'm thinking either on the front lawn or, better yet, on the roof of my car (it's way too big for a hood ornament .... although, there's always a Great Northern Chairball chick ...)

Update on Friday, June 12, 2009 at 10:12AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jimmi Nuffin wrote: "3 Chairs for you!!… On capturing this photo. I have read somewhere that in order to track a chairball, that you should look for its stool."

my response: Damn, I wish I had thought of that one.