matches # 4 ~ pictures on my mind

Matches / HIT • click to embiggenYesterday, I purchased the New Times Sunday edition, something the wife and I used to do every Sunday. Then came the came the online subscription paradigm for the NYT and we subscribed, primarily because we perused (never reading in-depth) the daily NYT editions online. However, shortly thereafter, we stopped purchasing the Sunday NYT, paper edition.

A short while after purchasing our iPads, the wife and I also ventured into the ebook arena. Before long, purchasing books made out of paper became a thing of the past in our household. No doubt that situation was helped along by the disappearance of our local Borders bookstore but the convenience and ease of purchasing ebooks and the fact that our entire book library fits in the hand ... well, needless to state, we got sucked, hook / line / and sinker, right into the ebook thing.

Not long before purchasing the Sunday NYT, paper edition, I had also read a book - Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln - made of paper products. That reading experience + the recent Sunday NYT experience - the look, the feel, the weight, the very smell of paper and that act of turning actual pages - and I'm here to tell ya, I have most definitely been re-introduced to the joys of paper products, printed word wise.

There is absolutely no positive comparison between the experience of reading the Sunday NYT at the Sunday morning breakfast table with that of trying to read the same on an iPad. Not to mention the visual and tactile pleasure of whiling away another few Sunday hours with a cup / cups of coffee and the printed version of the Sunday NYT Magazine. After all, one of the pleasures of that magazine is the preponderance of notable and noteworthy pictures and, to my eye and sensibilities, if a picture ain't actual, it's virtual, and, IMO, actual trumps virtual in just about every part of life one might care to mention. Including pictures.

A picture on a computer screen is one thing (although, it's not actually a thing), the same picture on paper is quite another thing. I've made my feelings about the difference known on a number of blogging occasions. As time goes by, my feelings on this subject have intensified as my experience with virtual versus actual pictures increases. I have nearly reached the point of never wanting to see a picture on a computer screen ever again.

While the computer + the www. makes possible the viewing of a lot of pictures that one might not ordinarily see, I am nevertheless reminded of the adage regarding quantity vs quality. In my book, as opposed to in our cultural inclination, that's no contest - I'll put my money on quality almost every time.

And, for me, the inescapable fact is that I can't seem to help but feel diminished rather than enriched by the endless flow of virtual pictures.

FYI, next up, my thoughts on a printed log (a plog?) versus a virtual blog.

Update on Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 08:03AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: John Linn wrote: "Is your little camera man throwing us the finger?"

my response: Thanks to the medium's inherent ambiguity, which can leave much in a picture open to individual interpretation, that's one way of looking at it. The way I see it is that the camera-head matchstick man is wielding the Flaming Sword from the Holy Temple of Truth and Beauty in Reality.

Others may see it differently.

still life ~ matches # 3

Matches / cigar rings • click to embiggenIt appears from a first test that the Pentax K20D is better suited for the matches series than the Oly EP cameras. In this case, there is just enough additional fine detail resolution to make the Pentax the front runner, detail wise.

However, there really isn't much in it, re: the physical dimension of a 300dpi file. That is, the Pentax gets most of its additional mp in the horizontal plane, very little of it in the vertical plane. Consequently, it doesn't offer much advantage over the EPs in the way of embiggening, print wise.

That said, I'll continue the series with the Pentax until I make a decision about the Oly OM-D E-M5.

still life ~ matches # 2

Matchbox / matches • click to embiggenIn the first matches entry, I mentioned Irving Penn's cigarette butt / litter pictures and some of things he had / did, re: those pictures. One thing I didn't mention was the fact that Penn pictured his referents with a large format view camera - most likely an 8×10 VC (but it could have been an 11×14 VC - he used some esoteric equipment at times) - and I am picturing with a µ4/3 format camera.

On the face of it, there would seem to be something of a mismatch, IQ wise, between the 2 different formats. On the (sur)face of a print, there is not so much as one might expect. At least that is so up to the 24×24 inch prints I am making. However, there is no doubt that Penn's large format negatives would offer much more enlargement capabilities than my M4/3 files could.

That said, I am considering 36×36 inches as the ideal print size for this series. While I am not always a proponent of the adage "bigger is better", I do like the visual effect created by picturing small referents and printing the results large. In doing so, small details loom out-of-scale large in a manner not normally seen in real-time observation of the actual referents.

The looming large aspect of small details very often causes a viewer of such pictures to "move in" to the print for an even closer look at those details. It should be understood that, in this case, I'm not stating that this propensity is wrongheaded, as I invariably do in the case of most of my pictures wherein I am picturing the entirety of the moment as opposed to any specific details of that moment - pictures that are meant to be viewed whole cloth / all-of-a-piece.

While I am most certainly arranging and picturing my matches referents to be viewed whole cloth / all-of-a-piece, I can not deny that most viewers will be inclined to step closer to a print for a more closeup inspection of the details. While the 24×24 prints from my 12MP EP series cameras fill this bill quite well*, I am certain that the newer and improved 16MP sensor in the E-M5 would meet the demands of 36×36 inch print size in a much better fashion.

In light of this "move-in-closer" eventuality and considering the size I wish to print to, I am giving some thought to postponing serious in-depth attention to this series until I acquire an Oly OM-D E-M5. On the other hand, I will probably run a comparison test between the EP Olys and my little used Pentax K20D with its 14.6MP APS-C sensor. If the K20D fits the 36×36 inch print bill, I'll be able to avoid making the acquisition of the E-M5, a camera which, other than this picturing situation, I am not particularly eager to own.

All of that said, everyday, I still look longingly at my 8×10 Arca Swiss view camera as sits on a tripod in my photo workroom.

*the tiny printing around the center illustration is quite legible on the 24×24 inch size print.

matches # 1 ~ mimeme / mimesis (meme)

Matches • click to embiggenIrving Penn had his cigarette butts and litter, I'm doing matches and related ephemera. Penn pictured in B&W, I'm doing color. I'm purchasing some cotton gloves, don't know what Penn did.

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.

still life ~ the light

Orange with "hard" light • click to embiggen
Orange with "soft" light • click to embiggenMuch has been said, IMO ad nauseum, about "perfect" light. As far as I'm concerned, there is just light. However, that said, there is such a thing as the "right" light, but, the "right" light is dependent upon your picturing intent.

That is to say, depending upon your referent and how you wish to portray it, a particular type of light - soft / hard / warm / cold / back light / front light / strong directional light or some combination thereof - might be employed to best convey your feelings about your referent.

George Eastman said it best when he stated ...

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography.

Of course, there are those who have made a fetish of certain kinds of light. In the landscape picture making world, many picture makers limit their picturing to a short window, morning or evening, of warm romantic light. Their view of the natural world is a truncated vision, all warm and cuddly and devoid of nature's many other moods. For them, high noon and other times of day are dead zones where, apparently, nothing ever happens.

IMO, light chasers (as many label themselves) have a limited knowing of light. They love "the light" and, in all too many cases, their pictures are about "the light". Their referent seems to be a just a prop for "the light". But, of course, good pictures are more than just about the light.

In my experience, those who know light best are often studio based picture makers. In their picturing world, they make/control the light. In doing so, they come to understand light in all its many facets and very often, when (or, if) they venture out from the studio, they make the best landscape picture makers.

For them light is a many-splendored thing to be embraced in all its various manifestations. They tend to make the best of what light they encounter - light is just light and consequently they know the key to photography.

still life ~ analog hue&saturation tools

Analogue hue&saturation tools • click to embiggenAs an addendum to civilized ku # 1136 (autumnal splendor) wherein I took aim at edge-to-edge screaming-color cliche-ridden autumn foliage pictures, and, civilized ku # 1137 (scraggy beauty) wherein I took aim at the "rule" to simplify, I proffer this entry wherein I unequivocally state that I hope I never again see a picture of a single red/yellow (or red+yellow) leaf on wet rock in a stream.

Now I'm not saying that a single colorful leaf cannot come to roost on a wet rock in a stream but .... on the other hand, I'd be willing to bet at least a part of the farm on the idea that most such leaves have had a little human intervention in their nesting habits. Part of my suspicion rests upon the fact that virtually all pictured rock resting leaves are also rather perfect in appearance, exhibiting no evidence of the ravages of nature and the insect world which are most often inflicted upon them.

I am also not saying, if making such pictures is what shakes your booty, you should stop making them on my account. After all, we all have to start somewhere. My advice would be to keep on making leaf-on-a-rock pictures until you can't stand it anymore. It's easy to do, just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again (ad infinitum) until you come to the conclusion that there just might be another way to look at and picture autumn leaves.

As that guy who just died stated, "Think different."

still life # 14 ~ /on seeing

Still Life ~ Duquesne Light (Pittsburgh, PA) Ad • click to embiggenThis might be rather shocking to some, but, over the course of my 30 year commercial picture making, virtually all of my pictures were vertical rectangles - very few square pictures amongst them. Obviously, that's because every picture was for publication on pages that were vertical rectangles - magazine ads, annual reports, marketing brochures / catalogues, books, and the like. Other than some pictures made in the panoramic format (mainly for editorial and annual report work) and some square polaroid pictures (editorial work), the only exception to the vertical rectangle format was pictures made for use across a double-page spread which were made in the horizontal format.

That said, the reason for today's vertical rectangular picture is for the purpose of, once again, grappling with the notion of composition*.

Vertical rectangular format aside, the salient point about the picture, composition wise, is that it is a still life picture. A picture in which the composition is entirely manufactured. The act of combining parts or elements to form a whole (read * at the bottom of this entry) was entirely arbitrary inasmuch as there was no "map" or directive given by the client (Duquense Light - a transmission and distribution of electric energy company). The only requirement for the picture was "to make a picture that represents our company's services in support of contractors and architects".

So, after rounding up a bunch of appropriate props - many more than pictured here, I set about playing around with them in order to arrive at a visually pleasing arrangement. In doing so, I was assisted in no small part by my "sense of harmonic proportions" (see civilized ku # 773), not to mention about 20 sheets of 4×5 Polaroid film. Never once did I consider / consult "the rules of composition".

Now, lest anyone think this recounting is an exercise in self aggrandizement / promotion, here's the point ....

It has been noted that some of the picture-making instructional books have examples of various compositional rules / styles and that some of them also have suggested "exercises" that are supposed to help one improve / one their picture making skills.

Well, after posting the gourd & dry flowers picture in civilized ku # 776, I got to thinking about the thousands of still life pictures that I made in my commercial picture making days. Even though I used my seemingly preternatural sense of harmonic proportions to make those pictures - pictures that made my clients very happy, what occurred to me was to wonder whether the process of making a still life picture, composition wise, could be "reverse engineered" in order to help someone without a preternatural sense of harmonic proportions develop such as sense.

After contemplating that possibility, I am convinced that such an "exercise" - making a still life picture - could be a tremendous aid in developing a sense of harmonic proportions.

Think about it. You start from nothing, gather a few items, and arrange them - from a fixed camera POV, not from your eye's POV - in an aesthetically pleasing arrangement. In the digital world, you can picture each and every arrangement variation (instead of using a lot of polaroid) for "analysis" on the camera's LCD (chimping) and on the computer screen, or, eventually, in print.

Think about it. In the absence of any guide / map, AKA - "rules", you have to depend upon the "feel" of how the things look / work together to form the whole. Some arrangements will look and feel disjointed, awkward or "wrong". Others will look and feel synergetic, harmonious, or "right".

Think about it. There is no hard-and-fast "right" or "wrong" in this exercise. Much depends upon your own innate / native sense of right" and "wrong" but that, in fact, is precisely the point - you will begin to identify your personal sense of "right" and "wrong". You will begin to sense / understand what works for you which should be the basis for developing your own personal way of making pictures of what you see.

Think about it. Developing the ability to make a successful still life "composition" and recognizing it as such, will eventually help you - out in the "found" picture making world - recognize / see, relative to your referent and your intent, a combination of parts or elements that form a visually pleasing whole.

Think about it, and, please let me know what you think about it.

*as stated previously, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "the rules of composition" but I don't know what word to use, other than "composition", when discussing the structure of a picture. So, when I use that word, it should be understood in the simplest manner - the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. And, IMO, there are about a zillion-and-a-half ways of combining parts or elements to form a whole, picture making wise. In fact, when it comes to great / good / interesting pictures, I would venture that there are as many ways of combining parts or elements to form a whole as there are pictures.