civilized ku # 302 ~ wow, I can see a pimple on the butt of the nat on an elephant's ass (from a mile away)

Xmas tree ornaments • click to embiggenRegarding yesterday's entry, re: hyperreality / too sharp, Paul Maxim commented:

... there is certainly more visible detail (HDTV) that can only be described as 'real". It cannot be described as "hyperreal". When I see a blemish on Brian Williams' face while watching the news, that is not an "unreal or vague semblance" of reality. The blemish is there. I can't see it on my old TV, perhaps, but it's still there. Or when I see individual beads of sweat on football or basketball players, that too is real.

So why is that a bad thing? Does it somehow distract from the intellectual or emotional experience?

Sure enough, Brian Williams' blemish, and football / basketball sweat is real. How it is presented / represented is not.

Unless, of course, as mentioned yesterday, you either have the eyes of a hawk or are, in fact, a hawk with 20/2 vision. I am not a hawk and, even though I have incredibly cool looking glasses, I do not have the eyes of a hawk so, to my eye and sensibilities, the presentation / representation of things too sharp / too detailed have both the look and feel of a hyperreality / the hyperreal.

But that said, and more to my point, what the f**k does seeing Brian Williams' blemish have to do with the price of tea in China, or, more specifically, the news? Seeing an athlete's body sweat in great detail and sharpness may be of great value / interest to those of a mysophilia / sthenolagnia or even a olfactophilia persuasion, but, once again, what the f**k does that have to do with the price of tea in China, or, more specifically, the game in progress?

But, once again, that said, Paul is asking the wrong question - why is that a bad thing?

IMO, the real question to ask, re: the preceding, why is that a good thing?

Where's the real value? Would Gone With The Wind be a "better" story in HD? Would seeing fine detail in Rhett Butler's / Scarlett O'Hara's clothing (or the blemishes on their faces) tell us more about their character? Would brighter more vividly colored blood in the hospital scenes tell us more about the ravages of war and human pain and suffering? Would I be a better and more informed person for having watched Gone With The Wind in HD than I would be if I had watched it in SD?

I am simply not convinced that there is any significant value added with the HD experience - be it television or still picture making. Except, of course, for all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ flowing out of the hands of the suckers and into the pockets of the purveyors of such "life-enhancing" shit.

man & nature # 289 ~ here today, gone tomorrow (delayed)

Crown Point Bridge ~ Lake Champlain • click to embiggenWithin a few seconds of my starting to make this entry, an anonymous comment was posted by "photo assignments from afar" on civilized ku # 300 that suggested there was a nearby photo op of a bridge that "looks to have a lot of character." Along with the suggestion was a link to a piece in our local newspaper that reported the bridge demolition that was scheduled for tomorrow has been rescheduled for next Monday.

I was seriously considering picturing the event but had ruled it out because I have too much last minute Xmas stuff to attend to. A Monday explosion makes it a much more doable deal.

civilized ku # 301 ~ hyperreal vs. an actual intelligent approach to life (and picturing)

Entre chien et loup Montreal, CA • click to embiggenIt appears that the wife and I are about to go HD, television-wise. It's not so much that either of us are lusting for HD per se, but rather, now that the HD 16×9 format is the broadcast standard, I'm getting a little irritated at watching the cropped image on a conventional CRT display.

In fact, re: HD itself, I am actually less than enamored of it - in exactly the same manner with which I am un-impressed / bothered by exceedingly (excessively) sharp digital photographic prints. And I don't mean just prints that are over-sharpened. From my recent viewing experience, I mean prints made from the "best" 15mp and up sensors, especially so-called full-frame sensors.

Now it must be stated that my idealized standard for a beautiful color print is a well made analog print, AKA - C print, made from a negative in an enlarger. And, the gold standard of that process is a print made from an 8×10 negative.

Those prints were sharp, but not so much by today's digital sharpness standards - there was way too much glass (camera and enlarger) with its attendant light dispersion characteristics and way too many sharpness-compromising emulsion layers (film and paper) for ultra tack-sharp results. Sharp? Yes. Tack-sharp? No.

However, the hallmark of a well made C-print is an almost "liquid" smoothness of tone and color coupled with its apparent sharpness. If you haven't seen one, you simply can't begin to understand what it means when I say that the prints are positively sensuous in appearance. To my eye and sensibility, the prints have the look and feel (but don't touch) of fine silk. If you haven't seen one, don't hesitate to crawl naked over a mile of broken glass for the opportunity to see one.

With all of that said, there are some inkjet papers that come remarkably close to the look and feel of those old-timey analog prints. In fact, with the added bonus of a much wider color gamut that the digital process (start to finish) has, well made digital prints can actually surpass analog prints in overall perceived image quality.

That is, IMO, unless they are too sharp.

What, you might inquire, is "too sharp"? IMO, a print is too sharp when it represents the world in a manner that is sharper / more defined than the human eye sees it. When a print begins to present a hyperreal view of things - in a word, "un-natural". A print that actually presents a hyperreality rather a reality.

Why does this hyperreal presentation bother me? The answer is two-fold:

1. I just flat-out don't like the way it looks. It doesn't look real / natural - since I am not a hawk with 20/2 vision, my eyes just don't see the world that way.

2. Just as I am not a fan of hyper-color saturated pictures because of implications beyond the merely visual, the same is true of hyperreal sharpness. Why so? It has been suggested by more than a few that -

.... the world we live in has been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more ... the example of a society whose cartographers create a map so detailed that it covers the very things it was designed to represent. When the empire declines, the map fades into the landscape and there is neither the representation nor the real remaining – just the hyperreal ... Hyperreality tricks consciousness into detaching from any real emotional engagement, instead opting for artificial simulation, and endless reproductions of fundamentally empty appearance. Essentially, fulfillment or happiness is found through simulation and imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than any interaction with any "real" reality.

Let me repeat from the preceding for those who may not be getting my point, re: hyperreality - ... fulfillment or happiness is found through simulation and imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than any interaction with any "real" reality.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that, other than the occasional fantasy, getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality is a good thing?

Is there anyone out there who thinks that the consumer / political culture that dominates our current idiocracy is not based upon the idea of getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality?

Is there anyone out there who thinks that the debasement of the earth's environment is not based upon the idea of getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality?

And, last but not least, is there anyone out there who thinks that the idea of getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality is not fostered and abetted by pictures that present the world as a hyperreality?

If so, I'd like to read your POV on the subject.

FYI, read a related article HERE.

crafted ku # 9 ~ ho, ho, ho

(in labor?) Awaiting the virgin birth • click to embiggenXmas is upon us and that brings to mind a joke:

Question: What's the difference between Tiger Woods and Santa Claus?

Answer: Even Santa stops at 3 hos.

With that notion cleared up, I was wondering if any of you had visions of sugar plum encrusted picture making gear on your list to Santa? Is there any gear-lust going on? And if so, what's the reason for it? Just curious.

civilized ku # 300 ~ baby, it's still cold outside

Clouds over Lake Champlain • click to embiggenDuring the winter months there is often a cloud bank that sits above Lake Champlain and winter it is.

While we received exactly 0 inches of snow from the storm that buried much of the Mid-Atlantic region, we do have cold - daytime highs in the single digits and even colder nights. Add a little wind and we're dealing with feels-like-0F temperatures.

civilized ku # 299 ~ baby, it's cold outside

-5F on top ~ Whiteface Mt. • click to embiggenThe past couple of days/nights have been cold. Overnight lows around the area have dipped to -24F.

However, there is a sunny-side to that weather condition. Last evening I braved the elements to attend (invitation only) the unveiling of a new car line at a local dealership. It is a very nice car and we might have purchased one if it had been available in October (when last we purchased a new car).

I took a test drive and upon my return to the dealership, I was greeted by the sight and sound of several people who were pointing at me and announcing, "There he is." My first thought was that the wife was looking for me and had phoned the dealership - we were meeting for dinner after the unveiling - but that was not the case. What was the case was that I was the Grand Prize Winner of a 3-choice (pick 1) vacation package for 2 - a Las Vegas Getaway, a Cancun/Mexico Resort stay, or a Carnival Cruise Line Caribbean Cruise.

So, if we want to get away from the cold and snow, we have the means. However, truth be told, on our list of vacation / getaway destinations, none of those places even rate a passing mention.

Although, over dinner last evening, the wife did cotton up to the idea of the Vegas trip as an opportunity for me to do a picturing trip - other than picturing them, the casinos / streets of Las Vegas have no allure of any kind for me but I have always thought that, if were in the Vegas area, I would go out of my way to do some picture making there. And, of course, there are quite a few places worth visiting outside of the city - the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion National Park, Death Valley National Park, and Area 51 to name a few.

god knows, I've seen enough "perfect pictures" of those places, so visiting a few of them to see what they really look like might be just the thing.

Update on Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 01:26PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Don asked: "...so what is the new car line....?"

We already have one of these - the most fuel-efficient AWD vehicle in the US - which we like very much. So, we (actually, I) were interested to see what their all new Kizashi - the GTS in particular - was like. Suzuki is going after the up-market Audi A4 / Acura TSX crowd - cars with similar performance which when comparably equipped cost up to 150% more than the Kizashi. And, only a few K more than the car we just purchased.

FYI - if an American car maker made a car anything like any of these vehicles at anywhere near the price point we might consider them but, in fact, they don't so there is no consideration to be considered.

food ~ for thought

Carrot peelings • click to embiggenHave no doubt about it, just about everyone has to make a living and there are at least a zillion ways to hang that 'coon on a tree. That said, take the following with at least a grain of that salt.

It came to my attention in this AM's newspaper - yes, we actually subscribe to the local paper and, yes, we actually start just about every day with a read of it - that a local person, Steven Howell, who is described as "the Press Republican Montreal freelancer as well as an adjunct journalism faculty member at Plattsburgh State", has a published book - The Photographer's Guide to Montreal and Quebec City: Where to Find Perfect Shots and How to Take Them.

Well, scratch my back with a hacksaw because I don't know whether to cry or wind my watch.

I mean, I can't even imagine where I'd be, picture-making wise, if I had been privy to similar help when I was a picture-making neophyte. Although, I can deduce from the book's title that I would be a picture taker as opposed to the picture maker that I am now.

I would also most likely understand that, if want to take perfect shots, I should be following in the footsteps / plant my tripod in the tripod impressions of the those who recognize a perfect shot when they see one. Not only that, but, quite obviously, I should also follow their instructions, re: How to Take Them.

The only possible, as well as highly desired/prized, result of that M.O. would be, quite assuredly, perfect shots. Perfect shots that look exactly like the picture-taking impresario's as well as those of everyone else who followed in their footsteps.

Ugh and double-Ugh. And while you're at it, scratch my back with a hacksaw because I don't know whether to cry or wind my watch.

Now, if I were King of the picturing-making world, all How To books would start with a one-page intro titled, Open Your Fucking Eyes & Brain: Making Pictures of What YOU See. That intro would be followed by the 1st (and only) chapter titled, Chapter One: Examples, which would have 100 pages of clean, empty white paper, each with the caption "Fill In the Blank" at the bottom of the page. In the section "revised" edition the caption would be at the top of the page.

Those 100 pages would make for a nice hefty book which would add considerably to its feel-in-the-hand perceived value. Of course, in order to protect that perceived value, the book would have to be sealed in cellophane wrap so as not to give away the book's real value. Otherwise, sales might not live up to normal there's-a-how-to-sucker-born-every-minute expectations.

BTW, FYI & PURSUANT TO YESTERDAY"S ENTRY, don't be a tourist - do the hurty thing, if I were King of the picture-making world, the title of Howell's book would be - The Photographer's Guide to Montreal and Quebec City: How To Be Just A Tourist.

CAVEAT In the interest of complete and honest disclosure and under the heading of just about everyone has to make a living, it must be stated that for quite a number of years I made a big part of my living by cashing checks from the Eastman Kodak Co. for picture-making services rendered. Some of those services were, in fact, pictures made for use in Kodak's seemingly never-ending (great for making an ongoing living) series of How To books. But, operating on the premise that it's easier to get through a day without sex than it is to do so without at least a few juicy rationalizations, in those cases, I was just following orders. That is to say, Purchase Orders which spelled out what the BIG YELLOW BOX (of money) wanted from me. OK? Satisfied?

civilized ku # 296-98 ~ because I live and breathe and am at the center of the Universe

The scene at the bottom of the stairs • click to embiggen