urban ku # 191 ~ platitudes

Scaffolding & trees ~ Brant Park, NYC • click to embiggenIf I lived in NYC, I'd most likely make about a zillion pictures a day. The city is one gigantic tableaux of picture possibilities. I suspect that NYC is not alone in its picturing possibilities. Paris, London, Tokyo, and, for that matter, to a lesser extent so is my humble (by comparison) home hamlet of Au Sable Forks.

Priscilla Ferguson-Forthman postulated what is essentially the same notion when she opined:

The entire visual world is an incredibly interesting place. If that is not sufficient "subject" for you, then I propose that you are in a 'world' of trouble, and had best get out while you can, because this game (of photography) is not for you.

But, for me, here's the thing about that notion that has informed my picture making in cities like NYC or, for that matter, wilderness / countryside places like the Adirondacks where I live. I like my pictures dense. That is to say, I like my pictures packed with information and the more discursive that information is, the better.

Some guy by the name of Matthew Summers-Sparks has given this idea a name - he calls it Dense Photography. In a recent article in The Morning News, he claims that by adopting the dense-photography method of picturing, he is able to "compress many of the sites of this beautiful city into just four handy photographs" - the city being his home town of London. The key word in that statement is "many". Obviously all of the "sites" of any city (and in all probability even my little hamlet of Au Sable Forks) could never be capture in just 4 pictures.

That said, his point regarding dense-photography with which I totally agree, is this:

While I appreciate the closely packed nature of dense photography, what I enjoy most are the memories and idiosyncratic elements that can be incorporated into the shots.

As anyone who has taken the time to view my pictures should know, I really like dense pictures - both those that I make and viewing those made by others.

What I have discovered from a zillion comments - primarily from "photographers" - is that many aren't on board the same train. Most 'photographers' seem to have trouble understanding the notion as is evidenced by their nearly universal consternation when viewing my pictures. The question - "I can't figure out what this picture is about." - almost always arises.

The best that I can determine is that dense-photography violates one of the basic tenets of the rules of photography - the one that states quite simply, "simplify". A rule which, to my way of thinking, simply means that the viewers of your pictures are most likely to be "simpletons", at least so when it comes to looking at pictures.

The idea is that by keeping it simple, the simple-minded will be much better able to figure our what a picture is about. Apparently, the last thing a picture maker should do is tax or challenge the eye, mind, and soul of the viewer. It is apparently much better to speak in simple platitudes than it is to present complex thoughts and ideas - a notion which runs quite contrary to that of Philippe Halsman's thoughts on the matter:

This is the essence of a work of art: that you never touch bottom. If a picture has for everybody exactly the same meaning, it is a platitude, and it is meaningless as a work of art.

My thoughts, exactly.

urban ku # 190 ~ a mini rant & a question

Main Street - Lake Placid • click to embiggenJust because it was so damn pleasant last evening, the wife and I went out for a light dinner and a bit of walk on Main Street and I must say, it was delightful. The weather, the food, the views, and the wife's company were all together near perfect.

There was, however, one fly in the ointment.

As is my wont, I was adorned with 2 cameras. The only difference being that now, those 2 cameras are of the "pro" model variety - each with a battery grip attached. Which means that I can no longer float like a butterfly and sting like a bee since I have 2 anvils draped from my neck and/or shoulders. Other than a small amount of physical discomfort, the most annoying side effect of toting these behemoths around is the propensity for complete strangers to feel that they must comment on them - "Whoa! Those are some cameras you got there!", is the most oft heard exclamation.

This would not be a totally bad thing if it helped me to pick up chicks, but, alas, it's almost always men who comment. I'm still waiting for the sound of a Mae West type voice asking, "Hey big boy, is that spare batteries you're carrying, or are you just glad to see me?"

That said, what all this set me to thinking about was another of my gripes about digital dslrs, especially "pro" dslrs.

I used to think that my trusty Nikon F3 with motor drive attached was a big thing. Not so, when compared to a pro dslr. And, my Nikon FM with motor drive looks like some kind of mini-cam by comparison. What's up with that? Aren't we living in the wondrous age of miniaturization?

Let's consider my Olympus cameras. Olympus makes some of the smallest dlsrs on the planet. In fact, they claim that their new 420 is the smallest and the about to be introduced full feature-ladened 520 is not much bigger. So, it's readily apparent (and not just from Olympus) that good things can come in small packages. I mean, the 520 has all the goodies one could ever want - a flawless dust removal feature, in-camera IS, live view, a nice size LCD, programmable everything, etc., etc.

So why is it, when Olympus (and others) makes a pro dslr, it becomes the incredible hulk?

Sure, it's weather sealed and built to demolition derby survivable standards. And (I think this is a big part of the problem) it has a computer brain in it - if the Nikon F3 in its day had the same computer power, it would have required an 18-wheeler to move it around - that can do everything but butter toast.

Sure, but here's the rub - as a photo pro, I don't need or want a computer brain in my camera that can do everything but butter toast. I'm a pro. I can work miracles with a light sensitive surface (film or sensor) and manual shutter, aperture, and focus controls. That it. That's all I need. In fact, that's all I want so that I don't have to muck around through a veritable rat's nest of features and options.

It seems to me that, not unlike every other electronic device on the market (don't get me started on cell phones), camera manufacturer's design departments are run by their marketing department. Everything must be loaded up with every conceivable option (and gimmick) on the planet just to impress the rubes and, I suspect, just because it can be done..

I also suspect that there are a fair number of pros and advanced amateurs out there who would be very willing to pay a fair amount more for hell of a lot less - a rugged, semi-compact, 'stripped-down' camera that has the best feature of all, the capability to just do it.

How about you? Would you prefer a simple, compact, pro quality dslr?

Now you'll have to excuse me. I have to go drive around in my car and communicate with a satellite that is orbiting the earth just so I can find the exact GPS coordinates of place to get a manicure.

Update on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 09:54AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Anil Rao wrote: "Why on earth were you hanging two cameras around your neck during that outing? Wouldn't just one be enough?"

My response: One camera would, indeed, be enough but; a) I was deep in the comparo mode - Oly E-3 v Pentax K20D, and, 2) how else would the wife recognize me if we were to be separated?

urban ku # 189 ~ it ain't easy being green

Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenIf not the first, one of the first celebrity photographers - that is a photographer who, while picturing celebrities, becomes a celebrity (think Annie Lebowitz) - was David Bailey - a British photographer who not only captured but actually help create the "Swinging London" scene of the 1960s.

The lead character, a London fashion photographer, in the 1966 movie Blowup was based almost entirely on David Bailey. The movie was writer/director Michelangelo Antonioni's view of the world of mod fashion, and an engaging, provocative murder mystery that examines the existential nature of reality through photography.

In any event, I found this quote from David Bailey:

It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary.

The quote set me to thinking about yesterday's entry, re: "those who lack in mind and sight" - It is entirely possible or, actually, entirely probable that, while there are undoubtedly a lot of people with nothing interesting to say, many people with cameras are making pictures with nothing interesting to say, not because they are shallow people, but because they just can't get past making pictures that they have been told are good pictures rather than picturing what they see.

Now it seems to me that the first step towards picturing what you see is the desire to make pictures that don't look like what every other picture of (insert your chosen referent here) on the planet look like. This just might also be most difficult step as well. I mean, who doesn't want to be loved and one of the steps towards that goal, according to conventional wisdom, is to be ... well .... not too different from the "norm". Being different from what conventional wisdom dictates is the norm just sets up barriers to acceptance or understanding from the masses who believe that they get "safety and security" by adhering to the norm.

So, IMO, if being different as a person doesn't come naturally, it's going to be difficult to be different as a picture maker. It's not easy to defy the prevailing cultural wisdom of what society at large deems to be beautiful or interesting, especially here in the good ole US of A, where an addiction to and preoccupation with the next big thing / spectacle is the prevailing norm.

Shock and awe, flash and dash are the order of the day. Gone from public life - and, I suspect, from a large segment of private life - are the appreciation and understanding of qualities such as subtlety, quietness, delicacy, and introspectiveness. And, worst of all, if it ain't easy to "understand", it ain't worth understanding.

The surface of things is everything. First impressions are the only impression. Nothing, except money, is worth "working" for. Everyone wants to live on Easy Street.

So be it, but guess what - it does take a lot of looking - both inside and out - before you learn to see the ordinary for what it is - the very staff, and the stuff, of real life.

urban ku # 188 ~ it just is

It was a sunny day • click to embiggenIn another example of an item / topic making its way around the internet, Joe Reifer's Going deeper may require more abstract excursions blog entry is, as they say, sweeping the nation.

It seems that, at least in educated circles, his notion about photo blog blather, blabber, and banality has resonated with those for whom photography is more than entertainment. References to his post can be found all over the place, including one that held a big surprise for me (read to the bottom of the entry).

For those of you who have not taken the time to read Joe's entry, let me give you the simplified Cliff Note summary - Joe was looking for inspiration regarding "what inspires so many of us to carry around these little boxes". In his quest for such, he found precious little of it in all the usual internet photo blog places. So, he's going to look for it somewhere inside himself.

Simple enough. Or, is it?

IMO, Joe wasn't asking a photography question at all ... unless you understand that his referent (photography) is merely a metaphoric device for the connoted (implied) subject of his question. At its root, Joe's question is about life - what it means to be human. Nothing less than a sentient being's quest for meaning - a life worth living.

In photography terms, it seems that Joe just want to make pictures that have meaning and convey a truth about what it means to be human. In seeking to do so, he is looking for a connection to others who are seeking the same thing in order to establish a bond that helps create and foster a synergistic energy that invigorates the spirit and motivates the mind and body so that he can "just do it." IMO, Joe is pursuing nothing less than the basic human desire to be part of a tribe and to be of some worth to the community.

OK, you say, but enough of the commie-pinko, anti- American, socialist, pointy-headed, liberal BS. What inspires you to carry around these little boxes?

For me, the desire / need to carry around these little boxes is 2-fold.

The first inspiration, and by far the hardest one to "understand", is undoubtedly subconscious. I would even call it preternatural - what some might call a "gift". Simply put, I was born to "see". I can't explain it any other way, that is, unless you want to delve into the science of genetics/DNA - which I will, in a purely anecdotal way.

There simply has to be something to the fact that 4 generations of Hobson men were / have been "born to see".

My grandfather (generation 1), unbeknownst to me (generation 2) until after his death, was a skilled and avid amateur photographer. Even though I have absolutely no conscious memory of him ever making a picture, I do have several albums of early childhood family pictures - all taken, processed, and printed (BW & color) by him. I discovered his interest in photography after I had begun my own, so it's fair to say that his photography background had absolutely no (conscious) influence the development of mine.

The same can not be said of my son (generation 3) Aaron's interest (and unbelievable success) in photography. He grew up with at least a tangental awareness of my photographic endeavors. But, despite that reality, he evinced absolutely no interest in picture making until little over a year ago, when he purchased a camera and, within 8 months time, found his vision with his Cinemascapes, which are now being exhibited, written about, and collected all over the world. Keep in mind that Aaron has had NO training in things photographic or things Art. None. Nada. Zip.

It is also worth noting that Aaron's day job is as graphic designer / art director - a position that he did not want to apply for when it was advertised because it required a college degree. He has only a high school GED - I pulled him out of high school after his sophomore year because it was such an incredible waste of his time, energy, and talent. Aaron apprenticed to me doing design work, something for which he seemed "gifted", and, in doing so, built a design portfolio that simply blew away all those of all the college grads who were vying for the position he now holds.

Now, here comes the somewhat, to me, scary part - my grandson Hugo (generation 4), son of Aaron. Simply put, this kid, at 3.5 years old, has a visual awareness and acuity that gives me the willies, goose bumps, and standing hair on the back of the neck. He is the very living, breathing definition of a true visual / picture thinker. Where this will lead him is, at this time, anyone's guess but I do worry about his future education experience.

For those of you who made it this far, thanks for bearing with me. I share this personal experience with you for 2 reasons:

1) I say phooey on those who think that Artists are not "special". In a very real way, it is a "gift" that not everyone shares in. A "talent" for Art is a very real thing and, at least when it comes to reaching the highest level of artistic expression, a preternatural disposition (no matter when it emerges) for "seeing" really does matter. And...

2) I wonder if any of you have a similar experience, personal or observed in others.

PS - stay tuned. Tomorrow, the conscious part of what inspires me to carry around those little boxes.

urban ku # 187 ~ variables

St Francis of Assisi • click to embiggenA short while ago, I wrote about digital capture as an "immature" medium.

My assessment was based on many factors but prominent amongst them was the fact that there is so little consistency in image capture from one camera manufacturer to another, not to mention the lack of consistency within any given manufacturer's model line up. Add to that the fact that the results obtained from any given camera can vary considerably depending upon which RAW converter software that is used (and how you use that software), what you end up with is a very high tower of digital babble.

That said, I will concede the fact that with enough experimentation and fiddling around one can probably achieve similar results from a wide range of camera and RAW converter software combinations. I use the word "concede" because it would require a monumental amount of time and money to do a thorough comparison of the possibilities.

That said, my experimentation and fiddling around have currently - always subject to a change in the digital weather - led me to the regular use of 2 different RAW converters to get the results I am happy with.

RAW converter #1 - As my primary RAW converter I use RAW Developer by Iridient Digital. This is a Mac only converter and RAW processing is all that it does. No libraries, no web gallery creation, no printing / book making capabilities - just RAW processing. I like it because it produces the most neutral and film-like conversions that I have seen to date. The only thing that it lacks is a good highlight recovery function - an addition that is coming in the next update. So ...

RAW convert #2 - For highlight recovery I use Adobe ARC via Bridge. Overall, I do not like the conversions from ACR - too much saturation and a very un-film-like look, but, in my experience, this software seems to offer the best highlight recovery available. With the current state of the art in digital sensors - less than ideal in dealing with extreme highlight values - highlight recovery is what I most often need.

In today's picture of St. Francis of Assisi, the entire upper right quadrant of the picture had lots of blown out detail - the white siding on the house and the pool sign and building facade were especially bad. ACR brought them back to respectable values.

In order to have the best of both RAW converter worlds, after processing the image in both converters, I lassoed the entire UR quadrant from the ACR conversion (with an 80 pixel feather) and dragged it into the RD conversion file while holding down the SHIFT key for perfect registration.

Merge the layers and, viola - a picture with color negative-like dynamic range.

The moral of this lesson is simple - spend enough time (and some not insignificant amount of money) experimenting and fiddling around and, even with an immature medium, you can find a way to get what you want - at least until the next inevitable and never ending update of one (or all) of the variables in the equation.

Questions; Do you shoot RAW? Do you use only one RAW converter? Have you tried others? Or, with in-camera jpegs becoming better and better, do you just push the button and let the camera do the rest?

urban ku # 186 ~ I dislike mural photography

Best Western ~ Lancaster, PA • click to embiggenWay back when - seems like half a century ago - one of my first blog entries was about quiet photography in which a writer, Gary Badger, mentioned "the muralist syndrome" - the relatively recent preoccupation in the Art world, photography division, with BIG prints. That is, really BIG prints, which until quite recently were often referred to as "murals". I have never been a fan of "murals" but, over the past year or so, I have become increasingly appreciative of really BIG prints, that is, prints larger than "standard" bigness of 20-30 inches or so.

That said, I am still very suspicious / unappreciative of BIG just for the sake of bigness. Some pictures take on an added dimension when printed BIG. These pictures manage to avoid turning into "murals" - think corporate lobby "wallpaper" pictures - when presented as BIG prints but for a while now I have been struggling with trying to understand why this is so.

One thing I have noticed about good BIG pictures is that they also "work" when presented as small pictures. These pictures do not need to be BIG to "work". As I mentioned, they just seem to gain an added dimension when viewed BIG. Maybe the reason for this is simply that a good picture can "work" at any size but, when it is presented BIG, it just seems to demand more attention. After all, we humans seem to be genetically imprinted with a fascination with BIG - BIG cars, BIG houses, BIG cathedrals, BIG guns, BIG dicks/tits, BIG production numbers .... you know what I mean ...nothing exceeds like excess.

That said, what is surprising to me is that "quiet" pictures - pictures of the ordinary - can remain "quiet" and intimate even when printed BIG or at least it seems so to me.

Have any of you made a really BIG print of your work? If so, have you noticed a new "dimension" to the picture? Can a BIG print be "quiet" and intimate?

urban ku # 185 ~ accidents do happen

Specialty store of the year - Milford, PA • click to embiggenI'm back home and my brain is pretty much out of the press check from hell fog it was in for the past few days.

And, because of that fog, I re-read and re-read the article that I mentioned in the previous post. At first I thought that maybe I had missed or misunderstood something - surely someone wasn't seriously suggested that, in essence, you judge a color photograph's success / goodness / quality by converting it to BW and then judging it. But, no matter how many times I read the thing, that does indeed seem to be the point.

The idea that you judge what something is by turning it into something that it is not is, as I stated previously, rather daft. In fact, IMO, it is quite daft. The only reason that I can think of that someone would suggest this idea is that they simply do not understand the radical differences between the skills necessary to make successful color and/or BW pictures.

Each genre has its own distinct visual vernacular, its own way of seeing - both in the making and in the viewing. On a purely visual level (form), ignoring content, most successful BW pictures rely heavily on the expert use of tonal values and contrast. Color pictures, on the other hand, rely heavily on the expert use of ... well ... you guessed it - color.

Make no mistake, these are two very different skill sets. If you are to be successful in either genre, you need to understand what is required by each approach and work accordingly. This concept of knowing the difference has become more than a bit muddled in the age of digital capture wherein all pictures start out as color images. In order to edit and print in BW, one must convert the color values to bw values after the act of picturing.

This way of working has led many, if not most, picture makers to consider BW as an effect not as the unique way of seeing that it actually is - you need only witness the never ending stream of this comment found on so many photo forum sites - "I think this photo works better as a BW picture than it does as color picture.", or its inverse, "Do you think this photo works better as a BW picture than it does as a color picture?"

Simply stated, this comment(s) displays a complete ignorance of the BW genre, or, for that matter, one could argue, a rather significant misunderstanding of the how and the why of making a truly good body of work (color or BW) - rather than the occasional and "accidental" making of a single good picture (color or BW).

Again, simply stated, if you want to consistently make good BW or color pictures you must have, at the very least, a basic understanding of the visual vernacular of the genre of your choice. Otherwise, you are little more than an "accidental' photographer.

Any thoughts on this?

Update on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 01:29PM by gravitas et nugalis

FYI, Milford PA is a small village (pop. 1100) in the extreme NE corner of PA. It claims to be the home of the conservationist movement (courtesy of Gifford Pinchot) and actually is the resting place of the blood-soaked (still visible) American flag that was draped on President Abraham Lincoln's booth at Ford's Theatre the night he was shot.

If neither of those inducements are enough to get you to visit the place, you might also consider the fact that, in September 2007, Frommer's Budget Travel named Milford, Pennsylvania, second on its list of "Ten Coolest Small Towns in America".

Truth be told, I knew none of this until yesterday when I "accidentally" - not by mistake - passed through Milford on my way home from the press check from hell.

urban ku # 184 ~ say what?

Best Margarita, NYC - click to embiggenI am posting this entry a bit early because I'll be driving home most of tomorrow and I wanted to float this topic so you can think about it for a bit.

On Friday AM, I'll post an entry about this bit of nonsense. This piece seems to be an excellent example of ignorance regarding medium specificity - in this case, the BW medium and the color medium, photography division.

The notion that one can/should determine if a color photograph is good by converting it to BW, then judging if it is 'good' as a BW photograph, and, if it is not good as a BW photograph, it certainly can not be good as a color photograph, is, quite simply, rather daft.

It seems to me to be like trying to determine if a blues riff is good by judging it as played on bagpipes.