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 tuscany (49)

Tuesday
Jan242012

civilized ku # 2057 / tuscany # 102 ~ late afternoon light

Off of Piazza Signorelli ~ Cortona / Tuscany, Italy • click to embiggenAs part of dealing with a 7 print sale (and office re-design commission), I have been revisiting my picture archives. In doing so, I have come across some unfinished business, re: picture processing.

As I slowly get back into my normal out-and-about routine, I'll be posting a few of these stragglers.

Wednesday
Dec162009

tuscany # 101 ~ don't be a tourist - do the hurty thing

1044757-5086271-thumbnail.jpg
Some time in the past ~ Valiano, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Hot on the heels of yesterday's (a) life in pictures entry wherein we brought up the idea of eye-contact adverts, my attention was grabbed by a series of tv commercials that are airing in the UK for the Olympus EP-1 camera. While the commercials are light on the eye-contact idiom, they are heavily invested in the idiom of celebrity endorsement, in this case, Kevin Spacey.

Now it should be said that I like Kevin Spacey as an actor and I am a "dedicated" Olympus man (my father was a Studebaker man). So, right outta the gate, I am inclined to look kindly upon these short & sweet espistolary-like and seemingly "personal" communiques.

The commercials are packed with little witticisms such as in the "Drive By" piece when Spacey tells us, "Point and shoot? That's a crime. Stay away from point and shooting."

There is also a bit of humour (Brit spelling) in the "Camera Guy" bit wherein Spacey tells us, "I don't want to be the camera guy. Ya know, Mr. super-zuper, 8 pocket camera bag, 15 lenses, 3 tripods, flak jacket ... I don't wanna be that guy."

Each of the 5 commercials ends with the spoken tag, "Don't be a tourist", which seems to derive its tagline status from the "Tourist" spot in which Spacey says that, "I just want to write my number on a life's arm and say, 'hey, you know, call me' ..." which seems to imply a certain level of involvement beyond that of a "tourist".

All that said, Mr Spacey ain't gonna influence my camera buying decisions but I must admit to liking the commercials ... especially the "Like A Memory" one wherein Spacey asks the question:

Do you ever take a photograph that looks like a memory? ... To take a photograph that hurts every time you look at it?

The script writers may have gone a bit too far and got a bit toooo cute with the word "hurt"* and the phrase, "it does that hurty thing"* but, that aside, I have been thinking more than a bit about pictures and their connection to memories. A line of thought that was greatly accelerated by my recent Tuscany POD booking making exercise.

Specifically, I have been thinking about:

Since the advent of photography the photographic image has been regarded as an aide-mémoire. The very act of taking a photograph signals the moment as worthy of remembering and, while objects break, landscapes change, and people die, the photograph endures, allowing it to be used to remember ‘what has been’ .... Some 20th-century theorists ... have disputed the photograph's role in aiding memory, claiming instead that it actually serves the process of forgetting. Roland Barthes believed a photograph can do little more than confirm the existence of an object at some other time, in some other place, while Susan Sontag suggested that with the passage of time a photograph loses its specificity to become a purely aesthetic object open to multiple readings. Ultimately, both Barthes and Sontag argued, because the photograph only records the surface appearance of what has been, and not the complex meanings associated with sensory experience, it cannot rightly be called a ‘memory image’. The iconic properties of the more durable photograph will inevitably replace the myriad details of the experience represented in the image; in the end it is the photograph itself that is remembered.

The picture - a picture of a picture - posted with this entry is quite possibly a very good example of a picture that has "lost its specificity". While I have no idea of the age of the picture, it does appear old enough that many, if not most of the people pictured therein, people to whom there would be specificity associated with viewing the picture ... well, I'd put my money on the idea that most of them are dead and gone.

In any event, when I was viewing the picture, none of them where around to give the picture any specificity. What that left me with was a very non-specificity viewing experience wherein the picture did become a "purely aesthetic object open to many readings."

Or did it?

AN ASIDE One reading that I had when viewing the picture is, "Where the hell are all the woman at?" Other than 2 young girls in the float, there are only 2 woman visible in the entire crowd. Any Italians out there who might give us some "specificity" regarding this issue?

That aside, aside, what I have been wondering about is that when one views a picture, one brings a wealth of personal memories to that viewing. No matter that those memories may not be connected directly to the specific referent in the picture, those memories will quite obviously influence what meaning(s) the viewer will intuit (from amongst the multiple readings) from his/her viewing of the picture. So ....

I tend to think that once a picture has become a purely aesthetic object - every picture I see in a photo book / gallery instantly becomes a purely aesthetic object to me because I certainly have no specific memory connected to it s making - and when that aesthetic object has "the iconic properties of the more durable" type, the readings / meanings can be very closely related to the those of the people involved in the picture and/or its making.

Once again, consider the picture in my picture. Without going into great specific detail, I was once one of kids on the float in that picture. OK, OK, not actually one of those specific kids on that specific float, but I am certain that I know something of what they were feeling and experiencing at the moment of the picture's making. Based on that shared experience, I am certain that one of those specific kids would have a very similar reading of the picture as I have.

I am also reasonably certain that, if one of those specific kids was at my side viewing the picture with me, we would not only share specific readings but also upon relating those readings to one another, we would discover that we shared an similar and somewhat specific experience(s) of the human condition.

Consequently, I am not so sure that I would agree, at least not in an unconditional manner, with Barthes and Sontag that a picture that has become a "purely aesthetic object" loses all of its specificity. In fact, I am not even certain that a picture can become a "purely aesthetic object" at all.

*cutting the script writers a bit of slack on the word "hurty" and phrase "hurty thing", truth be told, they are really not all that big of a stretch from Barthes idea of punctum - that quality in a picture that denotes the wounding, personally touching detail which establishes (with a viewer) a direct relationship with the object or person within it.

Tuesday
Dec152009

fyi - act now, supply is limited

Click here to view this photo book.


I didn't make an entry yesterday because I spent the day making the POD book pictured above. Xmas presents, don't you know.

While the book is not intended as my "definitive" statement, re: my pictures of Tuscany, it is a very good first look. The book is 12×12 with 49 pages and 44 pictures. I could easily see taking that out to 90-100 pages with 80-90 pictures, which would make for a fairly expensive POD book.

However, this book was no so expensive because of a current offer from Shutterfly - full price for the 1st book, a 50% discount on all copies ordered at the same time. By ordering 4 books, my per-book price - including tax and shipping - was a tad over $80US. Or, looking at it another way, the 1st book was approx. $120US and the next 3 were approx. $60US/ea.

So, that said, I have one extra book that I am making available for the low-low price of $60US (+ the buyer's shipping method of choice). What a deal. If you are interested, send me an email. If more than 1 person is interested, I can order more at the same discount (at least for as long as the Shutterfly deal lasts).

I would also be open to a POD book swap for those of you who have one to swap.

BTW / FYI - clicking on "Click here to view this photo book" will take you to Shutterfly where a full screen version of the book can be viewed.

And, as always, comments are welcome and appreciated.

Tuesday
Dec082009

tuscany # 98 - 100 ~ variations on "the light" in Tuscana

1044757-5004596-thumbnail.jpg
Jewelry shops on Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana• click to embiggen
1044757-5004136-thumbnail.jpg
Arno River from Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggen
1044757-5003682-thumbnail.jpg
Arno River from Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggen
IMO, it would be rather ludicrous to deny that light is a prime ingredient of the medium of photography. After all, the word "photography" itself comes from the Greek / Latin words for light and write, as in, writing with light. In addition, it should go without stating that, without light striking light-sensitive media, there would be no photography.

That said, I find the idea that light, because it is a prime ingredient in the process of the medium, is what photography is "about" - as in, photography is about "the light".

Picturing making is no more "about the light" than picturing painting is about the paint.

Sure enough, "the light" can (and does) have a dual role in picturing making - both as part of the process of the medium and as a potentially significant index / sign (amongst other indices / signs) regarding a picture's meaning. No question about it, but ...

... if all that a picture "is about", is "the light" ... well then ... I guess that's all its about. Which, to my eye and sensibilities, is a rather narrow emotional and intellectual framework on which to hang a hat.

Picture makers whose exclusive M.O. is that of "chasing the light" are, IMO, both intellectually and emotionally lazy - cheap-shot artists who rely on the rather easy one-trick-pony technique of a time-worn and schmaltzy / sentimentalized troupe that is guaranteed to get a pavlovian "wow" from the great unwashed masses.

Now, it must be stated that "chasing the light" is most definitely not for the physically lazy crowd nor is it recommended for the technically lazy amongst the picture making throngs. Light-chasers go to great lengths (literally traveling across continents and oceans to iconic locations) to be in the "right" spot at the "right" time where they can then work feverishly to apply gnd / polarizer / warming filter techniques to "dramatize" something or another that is never quite dramatic enough for them as it '"naturally" presents itself. After which there is the virtuoso performance / application of a plethora of post-picturing techniques that serve to further "dramatize" the apparently undramatic and emphasize their preeminent position amongst the ever-swelling ranks of Photoshop Pinball Wizards.

Ok. Fine. Sure. Everybody's got to have a hobby. But, what I can't help but wonder about is that so many fantasy-makers are attracted to a medium that has as a primary distinguishing characteristic, which separates from the other arts, its intrinsic relationship with / as a cohort with the real.

I find it very disconcerting and highly ironic that so many picture makers of the landscape variety - who profess to love and appreciate the natural world - want to make pictures that offer very little regarding the truth and reality of that world.

FYI, the picture of Ponte Vecchio - the bridge street scene - illustrates the fact that the entire bridge street level is lined, wall-to-wall, with small jewelry shops. The wife can be observed looking (longingly?) at some of the wares on offer. None of it was "junk" jewelry, at least not in price.

Tuesday
Dec082009

tuscany # 94-97 - some trees

1044757-5003148-thumbnail.jpg
"Umbrella" tree ~ Cortona, Tuscana• click to embiggen
1044757-5003202-thumbnail.jpg
Tuscan trees ~ Tuscana • click to embiggen

Monday
Dec072009

tuscany # 92 - it was a stunningly beautiful day

1044757-4992737-thumbnail.jpg
Tuscan landscape ~ Bagnoro, Tuscana • click to embiggen
2 frames, auto-stitched in Photoshop.

Tuesday
Nov242009

tuscany # 88-91 - please, take their kodachrome (velvia) away

1044757-4867350-thumbnail.jpg
Near Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggen
1044757-4867401-thumbnail.jpg
Approaching Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggen
There are few, myself excluded, who would deny that Saint/Sir Ansel, with an assist from Fred Archer, made a mighty contribution to the craft of BW picturing. His Zone System, a system based upon 10 "zones" / "steps" of tonal density - 0 = absolute black (no detail); 10 = absolute white (no detail / paper white), became a standard by which most BW prints are judged.

Saint/Sir Ansel considered zones 1- 9 to be the zones which contained all of the "useful" detail / information in a print. The whole point of his system was to make an exposure that, coupled with the right development and the right paper grade contrast, would result in a print wherein all the "useful" detail / information in the actual subject would be captured in the print and "spread out" over the zone 1 - zone 9 density range.

Although we, in the digital domain, deal with a density/tonal range of 0-255, the same basic principles apply - the goal of most picture makers is to make a print with densities/tones spread out over zone 1 - zone 9. Or, to put it another way, densities/tones that range from darks that are almost detail-less to highlights that are almost paper white. A range that in the digital world runs from 10 - 250 on the digital scale. And, as in the BW print domain, most color prints are judged by this 10-250 standard.

But, here's the thing about that - in both the bw and color domains - both digital and analog - the zone-system technique most often applied is to compress the real-world density range into the somewhat smaller density range of film and sensors. The techniques for doing so vary considerably from one medium to the other but the desired result is the same - get as much detail information as possible from a real-world scene onto paper.

However, that said, while many picture makers do an admirable job of that technique (read as a "realistic"* job), the one that so many seem to fail at is the opposite technique - that of expanding the density/tonal range of real-world scenes that are, by their very nature, quite compressed. Those scenes were the light is as "flat" as a pancake. The tendency of many is to stretch the density range right out to the max - 10-250 - even though the actual scene densities are contained within a much more compressed range of 50-200 or less.

To my eye and sensibilities, the resulting prints look very artificially "stretched".

Now, if a picture maker's desire is to give us those nice bright colors ... and ... make you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah (because everything looks worse in black and white), then they're on the right track.

But ... in case they haven't noticed, all the world's not a sunny day. There are days when all those nice bright colors take on a more muted and laid-back appearance. There is difference between a sunny day and a cloudy one. Why try to turn all the world into a "sunny" one?

*"realistic" by definition does not include most of those landscape pictures made by the uber-GND wunderkinds - those pictures with the visual hallmark of mismatched skies and foregrounds, especially noticeable when there is water in the foreground. In those pictures the reflection of the sky is always lighter than the sky it reflects, Here's a clue for the GND-ers out there - that's not how it appears in the natural world. Itaque, it is not "realistic".

But, of course, being "realistic" will not give them those nice bright colors and make us think all the world's a sunny day.

Thursday
Oct292009

tuscany # 87 ~ man & dog, man & bicycle

1044757-4596371-thumbnail.jpg
Bicycle parking in front of a Medici residence ~ Frienze, Tuscanyclick to embiggen
FYI, in this picture you can see what happens to outdoor Renaissance-era art - the sculpture by the entrance - from the effects of both the elements and pollution.