decay # 42 ~ vision / craft / on seeing

Moldy pineapple and saran-wrapped sweet potato ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIn yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 888, the idea of answering questions about specific pictures was introduced (again). That notion was advanced in light of the fact that answering questions about my general picturing making MO - both picturing and processing - would be difficult at best. However, there are a few thoughts to share relative to my general approach to picturing and processing.

1. I always picture in RAW format. Simply put, RAW provides the conscientious picture maker with the most information laden image file possible, to include dynamic range and color depth.

2. When picturing under "normal" conditions, I almost always use 1-stop ISO bracketing. This technique creates 3 files of the subject that cover a 3-stop range - ideally, 1-stop under, normal, and 1-stop over image files. This technique allows for a relatively simple cut-and-paste processing procedure that can "correct" or give images more shadow and/or highlight detail (if needed or desired).

3. When processing RAW files and the subsequent conversions in PhotoShop, I always aim to produce a file with the most realistic / natural / "clean" color and tonal range as possible. This often requires a fair amount of selective corrections / adjustments which means that I will select (isolate) specific colors and/or tonal range segments (highlights, shadows, midtones) and make independent corrections /adjustments to those areas of a picture - as opposed to making global/overall corrections / adjustments to the image file.

4. When processing RAW files and the subsequent conversions in PhotoShop, the single most important tool is Curves, used in conjunction with the Info Palette. If one is serious about good color and tonal corrections / adjustments, understanding the use of Curves is absolutely mandatory. There is no substitute.

The use of any color/contrast tool that employs sliders - Levels, Color Balance, Brightness/Contrast, Shadow/Highlight, et al - is strictly amateur night at the circus. Using sliders is like using a sledge hammer as opposed to a surgeon's laser scalpel, aka: Curves. The only slider-based tool I use is the Hue/Saturation palette and, FYI, I use H/S almost exclusively to desaturate selective color(s) as opposed to saturating them.

All of that said, virtually every one of my pictures you view here on this blog was made using some or all of the aforementioned techniques (+/- a few others). However, no 2 pictures are pictured / processed exactly alike. Each and every picture requires its own specific application of technique(s). There is no formula.

The only overarching canon / dictate employed in the making of my pictures is that which is specific to my eye and sensibilities. And those dictates are the result of decades of experience in the making of color pictures.

FYI, the decay picture above was made using all of the aforementioned tools / techniques. As always, they were employed to create an as-true-to-the-real representation of the subject as the medium and its apparatus will allow because in truth is beauty.

picture windows # 59 ~ on seeing

-20˚F outside ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIn addition to the fact that I am always looking for "picture windows" in order to add to my picture windows series (and a host of other factors), I made a picture of this window because my eye was "pricked" by the complimentary colors in the outside view with those on the interior view.

FYI, 3 exposures blended manually.

Update on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 08:57AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment:
John Linn asked: "I assume you shot on a tripod, brought the images into PS as layers and selectively erased non-ideal exposures?"

my response: Yes, I used a tripod - fyi, I needed a 5 stop difference in exposures in order to cover the brightness range.

I did not bring the entire images into PS layers. Instead, after establishing a base layer (aka - background layer) that was the best exposure of the interior scene, I selected areas of the bracketed exposures that were the best exposures of: 1) the exterior scene, and, 2) parts of the window frame and dragged those selections (holding down the shift key for precise registration) into the interior scene file.

After that, it was a bit of erasing (although layer masking could be used) the exterior / window frame layers in order to create a realistic blend of all the exposures.

civilized ku # 801 ~ random thoughts / on seeing

Hollywood Xmas decorations ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI am certain that there has been some disappointment on the part of some Landscapist followers relative to the on seeing series of entries - a series that is in equal measure far from refinement and far from finished.

That said and to give you an idea of the struggle involved in fully articulating my process of seeing, consider the words of Sir Ansel ...

... it is increasingly clear to me that my art relates more and more to a sublimation of my closeness to the natural world, it's events, light itself, and the positive... it is a personal expression based on observation and reaction, that I am not able to define except in terms of the work itself.

The only caveat I would offer to that notion is that my "sublimation of my closeness" is to the world in general as opposed to Sir Ansel's closeness to the natural world.

Like Sir Ansel, my personal picture making expressions, as I have stated many times, are based upon "observation and reaction" - seeing and picturing. And, again as I have stated many times, the less picture making thought involved in that process, the better. Unfortunately, it's very challenging to define that process - a process that is so embedded in my subconscious that it almost seems to be beyond defining.

Rest assured, if you care at all, that I will continue to try to construct a more cogent definition or at least a more refined description of that process.

civilized ku # 800 ~ random thoughts / on seeing

Fireplace mantle • click to embiggen

...with most of my photographs, the subject appears as a found object, something discovered, not arranged by me. I usually have an immediate recognition of the potential image, and I have found that too much concern about matters such as conventional composition may take the edge off the first inclusive reaction. ~ Ansel Adams

More evidence for the idea of "keeping it simple", picture making wise, in order to better connect with your referent, that "first inclusive reaction", and the "immediate recognition of the potential image". As the saying goes, "just do it".

civilized ku # 792 ~ wherein I almost wax poetic about Sir Ansel / on seeing

Carrot peelings • click to embiggenOver the weekend while we were having a birthday dinner with The Cinemascapist and family, we noted that the hotel bar & grill / pub (very much ground level, sidewalk front, glass walled, open to the public, part local hangout) in which we were eating only had wi-fi for registered hotel guests. I thought it a bit odd but the The Cinemascapist did not because, in his words, "wi-fi is outdated ... you don't need wi-fi because everybody has an iPhone so nobody needs no stinkin' wi-fi."

Say what? Even assuming that he meant that everybody has a so-called "smart" phone, the simple fact of the matter is that not everybody has one. Not by a long shot.

But, that matter aside, what I later got to thinkin' was that, re: electronic media generation wise, so many picture makers' picture viewing - both of their own and those made by others - is done, almost exclusively (and, most often, alone), on a screen of some kind or another. However, I don't care how big, how hi-def, or how impressive the screen might be, the simple fact of the matter is, for most picture viewing purposes, looking at pictures on a screen is a vastly inferior substitute for looking at printed pictures.

A host of other printed picture viewing considerations aside, one of the primary reasons that is so is because viewing pictures on a screen denies the tactile reality of printed pictures as objects / things in and of themselves.

Two examples thereof:

1. A few entries ago, I posted 2 of my Polaroid pictures. I deliberately did not create a pop-up link to bigger versions in order to preserve at least a modicum of the "real" Polaroid viewing experience - what I would call the "preciousness" of their diminutive size.

However, what can't be conveyed on screen is the tactile sensation, in the case of manipulated Polarods, of the "brush strokes" - actually surface indentations caused by whatever instrument one uses to push the emulsion around - that are part-and-parcel of the viewing experience. In addition to that sensation, there is the simple pleasure of holding a small Polaroid print in your hand and, in social circumstances, passing it around for others to hold and experience. And, perhaps, to engage in some lively real "live" chat regarding what you see and feel.

2. I sure that most of you have seen plenty of Sir Ansel's pictures online / on a screen. But, if you have had the experience of looking at an actual print of Sir Ansel's work, you understand that his prints are, in and of themselves, objects/things of incredible beauty (no matter what their actual referent might be). My first such in-the-flesh experience with an Adams' print almost caused me to pee my pants, not to mention the fact that I wanted to physically caress the print and/or shed my clothes and rub it all over my naked body and ............

That said, and other than my oft-stated advocacy for making prints and/or photo books of the results of one's picture making endeavors, I bring this all up as an addendum to the recent entry on photographer's block.

IMO, it is much easier to slip into a state of photographer's block if your own pictures are stashed / hidden away on a hard drive and if your looking at them is limited to on-screen viewing. There simply is no substitute, improving your vision/seeing wise, for printing them and putting them, at least those you consider to be the best thereof, on a wall for viewing.

And let me be perfectly clear about printing them and putting them on a wall. Relatively "quick and dirty" proof prints, printed out on a relatively cheap and simple photo printer, hung on a wall with tape or tacks, will fill the bill quite nicely. The point is to get them on a wall for you (and anyone else who might be interested) to look at and reflect upon on a relatively constant basis.

Think about it. If you don't respect the results of your own picture making endeavors - however developmental / experimental / works-in-progress they might be - enough to bring them out of the (digital) closet and into the real world / tactile light of day, how can you expect anyone else to ever take them seriously.

A question - have you outed any of your pictures? That is to say, out of the digital domain and into the real picture viewing world. If not, why not?

polaroid ~ an old picture making friend / on seeing

Lighthouse ~ near Woods Hole / Martha's Vineyard

It's impossible to state how much I miss Polaroid film, especially the SX 70 variety. And no, that stuff someone is making now is not a suitable replacement.

That said, in my mind, Polaroid Photography is a entirely separate / much different picture making medium than Straight Photography. Even if you don't squish the emulsion around and make "straight" Polaroid pictures it is still distinctly different than plain old Straight Photography. Again, in my mind, Polaroid Photography, family-style snapshots aside, is best suited to making pictures of impressions of things rather than true representations of the real.

For those of you who might be laboring under the false impression that I am a diehard Straight photography purist, think again. There is an enormous and very impressive body of work / Art out there all of which is made with one Polaroid process or another. And, IMO, it stands the Art test of time very well.

It has always been my opinion, like that of Walker Evans ...

Nobody should touch a Polaroid until he's over sixty.

According to Evans, it was only after years of work and struggle and experimentation, years of developing one's judgment and vision, that the instrument could be pushed to its full, revelatory potential. Using the SX-70, and leaving aside the intricacies of photographic technique, Evans stripped photography to its bare essentials: seeing and choosing.

Personally, I would take out the "over sixty" caveat and go with the "years of work and struggle and experimentation, years of developing one's judgment and vision ... stripp[ing] photography to its bare essentials: seeing and choosing" part.

IMO, the saddest part of Polaroid's demise is the fact that it was a picturing making medium that could really help the in development of one's judgement and vision / seeing and choosing for those who didn't quite have it. More's the pity. And IMO, this is one thing (of many) that "the market" got wrong.

FYI, Evan's Polaroid book is out of print (I have mine) but it can be had, albeit at rare-book prices. That said, it is really worth having - Xmas is coming. Treat yourself.

On the other hand, what could be labeled as the Polaroid Bible, picture wise, THE POLAROID BOOK, is still available at a ridiculously low price. If you can't afford the Evan's book, this one is definitely a must have.

Polaroid ~ impressions

Collen and a young Cinemascapist ~ Lake Ontario - near Rochester, NY

single women ~ photographer's block / on seeing

Single women • click to embiggenYesterday, the subject of "photographer's block" was raised by DON. While Don did not elaborate on what he considers photographer's block to be, I assume that he meant the inability to conjure up the motivation to make pictures. That definition may also include the lack of desire to make pictures. It is also worth noting that photographer's block could be caused by issues entirely unrelated to the act of picture making - life events that have emotional, mental, or physical impact that just flat out gets in the way of making pictures.

In any event, the net result is no picture making, at worst, or aimless going-through-the-motions picture making, at best. In the case of the latter, the resultant pictures will most likely seem not to be worth the effort and time it took to make them.

I must admit that I have never suffered from photographer's block. In my commercial work, I either made pictures or I didn't eat. In my personal work, I have yet to run out of ideas and/or referents to picture. So, I'm not exactly the person to be asking for advice on this issue, but ...

Recently, as I was roaming through my picture archives (via Bridge), looking for a few specific pictures, I noticed a few pictures that I had never before thought of as "related". What I noticed most was that, IMO, they were strong attention-getting pictures and, after opening them together on my screen, they were even stronger as a group than they were individually.

Now, even though 4 pictures do not a body of work make, before I knew it - I would say less than 1/200th of a second, lots of ideas came flooding into my head about making a series of such pictures that would, in fact, constitute a body of work. Ideas and notions that began to scratch a nagging itch that had been going unattended for quite a while.

In fact, it might not be stretching the point to label that lack of attending to the itch as a form of photographer's block. The itch in question was a low-level but constant drumbeat, picture making wise, to make pictures involving people - no, make that featuring people (or, a person). However, the problem was that I simply did not know where to start.

Think about it. It doesn't get much more vague than wanting to make pictures featuring people. The possibilities are nearly endless - portraiture (formal or casual), street photography, staged tableaux, candids, women / men / children (or any combination thereof), clothed/naked, young/old, and on and on.

The possibilities seemed rather overwhelming and as a result, a sort of stasis set in and I was left hanging, seemingly waiting around for some sort of spark. As I mentioned, truly a sort of photographer's block. Although, truth be told, I was making lots and lots of other pictures (in general), many of which were/are for other ongoing bodies of work. Consequently, I wasn't in an overall picture making funk.

All of that said, here's the point - it is often stated that, to make good/great pictures, one must pursue a personal picture making passion. That is, making pictures of something one is passionate / cares about. Whatever that is, stick with it and picture it to death. From that commitment there is a good chance that a good/great body of work will emerge. And, IMO, there is nothing more satisfying, picture making wise, than creating a body of work.

But, what if you just can't muster up the energy to get out and make pictures? Even though I had a somewhat passionate desire to make pictures featuring people, I just couldn't seem to get it in gear. I was rather clueless until the recent run in with some of my past picture making endeavors.

However, what really interests me is the fact that the answer was there along, and I do mean all along. In fact, decades long ...

In addition to the fact that I am a natural born looker (of anything and everything), I am also a male of the species which is to say (amongst many other male traits and characteristics) that I like to look at women. I believe that that looking was what led/helped me to become, in my commercial picture making world, a much sought after picture maker, fashion and beauty wise.

However, even with that experience, it never really occurred to me to just do what comes naturally - look at women and, DUH, make pictures of what I am looking at. DUH!!!

Fortunately for me, I have done just that on a few occasions - as witnessed by the above pictures. And again, fortunately for me, I "discovered" these pictures which have provided the impetus for me to break through my "block".

In any event, if you can't work up the enthusiasm to get out and make pictures in an effort to find a passion and break through your own photographer's block, maybe a look back at pictures you've already made - pictures you made because, hopefully, something interested you - and identify a referent that would hold your interest long enough to create a body of work. Or, at the very least, fan your picture making fires enough to get you out making pictures again.

Now all I have to do is convince the wife that hanging out looking for "single" women - a woman by herself, not an unmarried woman - really is a picture making endeavor.