man & nature # 13 ~ after the rain

Late day after rain • click to embiggenAs Joe Reifer takes a respite from the blog-o-sphere, I have taken to visiting Miguel Garcia-Guzman's Exposure Compensation on a daily basis. I would highly recommend it.

While Miguel does present regular entires about "new finds" that are worth checking out, its his BLOGS SPEAKING PHOTOGRAPHY blogroll that I find very interesting - and, no, it's not just because The Landscapist and Aaron Hobson's blog are on it.

By checking out a couple of the listed blogs a day, I have worked my way through the list. It is a wonderfully eclectic list and rarely fails to produce a daily surprise or two - highly recommended.

man and nature # 12 ~ stare

Green hose and wicker chair • click to embiggenStare.

It is the way

to educate your eye,

and more.

Stare,

pry,

listen,

eavesdrop.

Die

knowing something.

You are not here long. ~ Walker Evans

Update on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 08:15AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Kent Wiley wrote: "She never fails to let us know her P-O-V, does she Mark?"

my response - I can't get no respect. If it ain't Paul Maxim ragging on my ass, it's the wife trying to drag it back into the real world.

man & nature ku # 11 ~ a sometimes thankless task

Birch Tree Lodge • click to embiggenSpeaking of questioning and/or dissatisfaction with photo blogs and blogging, Mauro raised the point that most often comes to my mind when I think about chucking the whole thing:

In blogs there is always some kind of imbalance. You, the producer, write about things that, from your point, have been already achieved. We, the consumers, read about things which, as in your case, can give us more insight, let us feel a little bit less alone etc.. It is a no win game for you and we always win some more bits of information.

There is, indeed, an imbalance in the blog-o-sphere. For the most part, when it comes to receiving comments, the blogger gives way more than he/she gets. In the photo blog-o-sphere, this is especially true when one writes about things other than gear and technique.

Many has been / is the time when I get rather, well ...let's just say, "disappointed" in the number of comments from readers of The Landscapist. I mean, with an average of over 400 page views a day, you would think that more than just a handful of "regulars" might have something to offer in return for the extended effort I make to share my thoughts, ideas, opinions, and ramblings on the medium of photography.

However, I don't take it personally and I know that many other bloggers experience the same thing. So, I try to keep it in perspective.

Despite this imbalance, I have lumbered on. Although, I'm not certain at this point whether that is strictly the result of inertia. As I mentioned previously, I do get something out of blogging, even if no one ever left a comment. My blogging about things photographic is my way of thinking out loud, if you will, and just by thinking out loud and writing things down, I have figured a few things out and have come to some kind of grip on things that I have not figured out.

And, if you haven't figured it out yet, I am all about communication and connection - that's why I picture. Initially, that's why I picked up a blogging pen. While there has been some connection and communication, I have had to console myself with other redeeming blogging values.

And, oh yeah, lest I forget, Mauro - thanks for the comments. I really appreciate it.

man & nature # 10 ~ variables #2

Rustication • click to embiggenOn uesterday's entry, Tom Frost (AKA, Stu Newberry?) called for a reality check of sorts when he opined, "Uh, chemical photography is "immature" in the sense that people's ability to use it (the RAW conversion for you digital people) varies tremendously. Also, I don't think anyone would expect the same results from Velvia vs Kodachrome or Tri-X vs Bergger BPF 200, not to mention the variables in development. Oh, and don't forget, then there's the printing..."

He has a point but it seems that he missed my point - sure enough, there were/are variables aplenty in the film capture domain. Although, it should be noted that the variables with color photography are severely restricted to the choice of what film to use. Unlike its BW film counterpart, color film processing is pretty much a by the book / numbers affair. A little push here, a little pull there with E-6 chemistry was possible but not so much with C-41, but, again unlike BW film, those 2 chemical processes were just about the only choice you had.

Be that as it may, my point was/is this - your results from color film, negative or positive, were determined by the film you used, NOT by the camera you used. If you wanted the Velvia look, you used Velvia in any camera of your choice and, viola, you got the Velvia look. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax, Leica - pick a brand, any brand and you still get the Velvia look. The same holds true for Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Vericolor, Ektacolor, etc. - what you use is what you get no matter what camera you use it in.

That's the standard / consistency I am referring to.

To a lesser extent, this also applies to BW film domain as well - sure there are a zillion film / developer / paper combinations that can be used to obtain a wide range of results, BUT, in each and every case, you started with a known quantity, i.e., a film / developer / paper with known characteristics (no matter what camera you used the film in) from which to do your voodoo magic.

In the digital capture domain there has been a huge paradigm shift - the camera itself determines the color, dynamic range, hue and saturation, contrast / tonal characteristics, etc. of your image capture. So, in a very real sense, one must be both educated and aware of these differences between various camera brands (as well as the differences even within different models of the same brand) when making the choice of what camera to use.

In the digital domain, the camera is no longer a relatively neutral mechanical device. Each and every camera adds its own flavor to the mix.

And god help you if you choose a RAW converter that doesn't work well with your camera flavor - as an example, ARC in particular doesn't seem to work well with a number of camera brands, or, at least, with a number of camera brand models. I and many others have noticed that some manufacturer's propriety RAW files, when processed in ARC, exhibit a characteristic called "watercoloring". A condition in which colors tend to smear and get blotchy much like watercolors do on paper.

The biggest part of these problems is the fact that every camera manufacturer has its own proprietary file format. IMO, this serves only the camera manufacturer as a purely marketing device, not the picturing public as a picturing device. That is why I fully support the idea of DNG - a "universal" format that promises at least some level of "consistency" from which the individual can then go to town in the digital darkroom to create any possible result that their heart might desire.

Then, and only then, will the photographer be truly free from the dictates of what software engineers (and film engineers / chemists) think our pictures should look like.

man & nature # 9 ~ ups and downs

Flowers and hydrant • click to embiggenI have been spending some time surfing the web for photo blogs of interest - man, there is a lot of crap out there. A few gems have surfaced but along the way a few bummers have showed up. Two in particular, struck a note of interest with me.

One entry on What Was I Thinking is about photographer Chip Simons - a photographer whose work I have known about for quite a few years, mostly through commercial photography publications. His work always seemed kind of "out there", which I liked, and he seemed to be doing quite well in the commercial photo biz.

In any event, I haven't been following much about the commercial photo biz for a number of years, so this piece caught my attention when I came across it. Be sure to read his Bio for the whole story about a photographer who had and lost it all.

Then there was this piece, An Argument Against Photography, which is basically the opposite of the Chip Simons piece - a rant from a photographer who never got it (at least not yet) ....

These pieces are apropos of nothing in particular - I just found them interesting.

man & nature # 8 ~ a "glossy picture" of sorts

Roadside nature • click to embiggenDid anyone watch the PBS program, THE ADIRONDACKS?

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.

Update on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 02:59PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Gordon McGregor asked: "Are the PBS documentaries available for us non-TV subscribing people?"

my response: Yes. You can buy the DVD Here

man and nature # 8 ~ return to an old habit

Green • click to embiggenNot that you may have noticed here on the web, but I have a new camera and a new lens.

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?

man & nature # 6 ~ quiet and mysterious beauty

more signs of Spring • click to embiggenA batch of new photo books arrived on Tuesday and amongst them was a delightful surprise.

A book that I included, almost as an afterthought, in the order turned out to be the shining star of the bunch - Beyond The Forest~ About A People Believed To Be The Descendants Of The Children That Were Led Out Of Hamlin, photography by Clare Richardson. I didn't even look at it until 2 days after it arrived but, unlike the other books, "important' works by "important" photographers, this little book - 40 pages with 17 pictures - captured my attention like none of the others that I had ordered.

Simply put, the book is an exquisitely wonderful reminder (if you need one) of how powerful and involving - even in this era of the 'staged' photographs - "quiet", straight, and straightforward pictures can be. There appears to be absolutely no hocus-pocus involved in their making. There are a few portrait-type pictures and few involving people wherein the subjects are obviously aware of the camera but they certainly are not models hired to pose for effect.

Part of what really grabbed me about the book was not just the delicious photography but how those pictures where elevated to a higher realm of the imagination by the 3 "introductory" paragraphs (the only text in the book):

He lives in a world of silence. A world of hard work and necessary patience; waiting on the weather and growth. They call him Mr. Pipe, a diabetic, water passes through him. His mother worries he shall never marry. He loved the butcher's daughter once, but her father sold the mountain. Claiming the common ground, he felled the forest and sold the oak. A rich man now, his daughter should marry well, a businessman from the town, perhaps. Spurned, the boy strung up a lifeless scarecrow in his own image, a reminder to the girl of her father's betrayal.

The butcher's wife says the photographer is barren, and has come to buy the children to operate her domestic machines. She welcomes the photographer, preparing a meal with the greatest of care and measure.

The forest taken, the horizon is restored. It offers no shelter now. An emptying landscape. As claims are made, fences erected and the horizon breached. Only Mr, Pipe remains, the others have now gone, they spoke of a life beyond the forest.

FYI, the pictures were made in a small farming village in Transylvania. Literally translated, Transylvania means "beyond the forest". The children that were led out of Hamlin are those that legend has it are the children who followed the Pied Piper.

I purchased the book because of a single picture that accompanied the book description. It just caught me eye. I knew nothing of the book's content. Now I can't seem to put it out of mind as my imagination wanders and wonders. And all of that because of a delightful and intriguing combination of pictures and words.

Words, yes, words. A word that seems to strike terror, fear, and loathing into hearts and minds of most photographers. Even though a picture may be worth 1,000 words, don't ever ask a photographer to write a few about their own pictures. No, not that! Because, as everyone knows, a picture that needs words is a failure. After all, photography is a visual medium.

IMO, the world would be a better place if those who couldn't write a coherent and interesting 1,000 words about their pictures had their cameras wrenched from their hands and smashed into a zillions bits (or a zillion bytes if it's a digital camera). Or, better yet, how about if you couldn't even buy a camera unless you submit 1,000 words about the pictures you intend to make with it. And, oh yeah, one of the rules is that, if you even mention equipment in your 1,000 words, they poke your eyes out.

Of course, even in that perfect world, anyone would be able to buy a 2mp P&S. After all, I am the benevolent one.

Update on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 08:51AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: someone named Robert left a 1000 word essay as a comment. At the end of his essay, he asked; "Can I buy a new dslr now?

my response: A good effort, Robert, but unfortunately, the answer is "No". While you did mange to avoid mentioning equipment in your essay, you did use the word "pretty" - a mortal sin of the highest order - to describe the pictures you wished to make with your new dslr.

Sorry. Better luck next time.