life in pictures # 10 ~ Starbucks

Starbucks Coffee ~ NYC< NY • click to embiggen

ku # 675 ~ yikes

Nature is chaotic / Ice break up ~ in the Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenAs mentioned, we've had no appreciable snowfall since December. It's been cold with the exception of one 3-4 period in mid-January when it rained and rained and rained and temps reached as high as 50˚F.

During that period there was a significant ice breakup on the rivers which caused some flooding and quite a number of ice jams. However, unlike Spring melts/breakups, during which the ice continues to melt/break up until its gone, after the January event, we returned to steady cold / below freezing temps, so the ice jams have stayed in place and most of the rivers have re-frozen.

What this means is that when the real Spring thaw happens we're going to be in deep shit, or, if you prefer, deep water that comes from massive ice jams. It should be interesting because the existing ice jams are kinda frozen in place as truly gigantic ice fields that won't be so easily broken up.

It's gonna be fun.

coma girl ~ one of the best gifts ever

A fake coma girl • click to embiggenSince December 25th, I have been meaning to picture my Xmas present from Coma Girl (FYI, follow the link or it makes no sense at all), aka - Maggie / aka - the step-daughter.

Xmas gifts don't get any better than this. Thanks, Mags.

ku # 674 ~ a few answers

Nature is chaotic in the Adirondack PARK, NY • click to embiggenOver the course of the past few entries, a number of questions have arisen that were not germane to the topic at hand. So, I'll make a stab at answer a couple of them.

Bill Gordon (no link provided) asked: ... you mentioned the mCamerabag...is that the name of the bag and if not what one did you decide on that would carry the camera and two lenses?

I went to B&H to purchase a smallish camera bag for my m4/3rds gear and came away with one that sorta fit the bill but was, in fact, really the best compromise available. I felt that is was still too big for my needs but it was quite a bit better than any camera bag that I currently owned.

Then a few days later, as I was walking through a Best Buy store (on my way out to my car), I came across a camera bag section that had a number of video / camcorder bags on display. It was there that I found a near-perfect m-style camera bag - the Lowepro Edit 140.

I say "near-perfect" because: 1) it has a rather gimpy strap, and 2) it has only one divider. However, with the addition of the strap and the velcro-secured / adjustable dividers from the "compromise" camera bag, it is now "perfect".

Anil Rao asked: ...Based on the frequency of your posts, you seem to be producing a whole lot of pictures, all which look really well made (at least when viewed on the computer screen). I was interested in knowing how many of these pictures do you end up printing.

I make a lot of prints. However, the overwhelming majority of them are stacked - with tissue paper interleaving - on a work table because I have yet to find a reasonably priced solution to the presentation problem. Most of my current printing is 24×24 prints. Presentation costs - mounting, matting, framing, glass, etc. - for that size print can be staggering. Especially so considering that a matted 24×24 print is closer to 36×36 in size.

Consequently, I have taken to simply putting unmounted prints on the wall, sans mat and frame, with clear pushpins. It's not very elegant, but it works and, most importantly, prints tacked to the wall is much better than prints in a pile.

ku # 673 ~ idiots, one and all - pt. II

Nature is chaotic ~ in the Adirondack PARK, NY • click to embiggenAnd, once again, I quote:

... Nature is chaotic. Nothing seems to happen with any order or reason. Most scenes are a jumble of elements, competing with each other for attention ...

OK then, I'll grant that the nature photography "expert" in question - the author must be an expert because he was also one of the authors of The Ultimate Guide to Digital Nature Photography - is engaged in "selling soap" and that creating a sense of chaos relative to the problem that his particular brand of soap solves is an honored tradition in the fine art of huckstering, but, come on .... everything in nature happens for a reason even if we humans don't understand or know what the reason is. And, just because we may not know / understand the process doesn't mean that there is not any order to the process.

Sure enough, the author of the preceding statement used the phrase, "seems to happen" as a qualifier of sorts, but, once again, come on .... we know that all that stuff happens for a reason and with some form of natural world order. Simply stated, there is no "seems" about it. If you think there is, then you're an uniformed / uneducated idiot.

So, it just seems to me that the statement is a very bogus starting point relative to looking at the natural world with the intent of picturing it. The statement is very akin to how centerfold / fashion picturing is undertaken. Forget the reality, make a fantasy. Forget the truth. Tell a lie. And then, when questioned about your motives / methods, pass it all off as a harmless "interpretation". After all, everyone knows that it is not real, right?

As for the bit in the statement about "scenes are a jumble of elements, competing with each other for attention" - elements of the natural world are not competing with anything for attention. They are just going about their business of surviving. Even granting that the statement's author meant that a lot of the various elements in a scene capture our attention, isn't that part nature's elemental character?

Why dismiss it? Why work to eliminate it your pictures? Isn't that missing the "point" - the idea that for us to survive, we must embrace, appreciate, and respect the natural world with all of its complexity and, to some extent, its mystery? As opposed to, as our master of the WOW! picture would have us do, embracing and appreciating just the parts that we "understand", aka - the parts that conform to a humankind sense of "order" and "reason". Or, in other words, all of the pretty parts and screw (consume and destroy) the rest.

ku # 672 ~ idiots, one and all

Nature is chaotic ~ in the Adirondack PARK, NY • click to embiggenAnd I quote:

Let's face it—Nature is chaotic. Nothing seems to happen with any order or reason. Most scenes are a jumble of elements, competing with each other for attention. The single greatest challenge for the nature photographer is finding a way to tame the chaos, and to impose a sense of order.

While paying a visit to an online nature photography site to see if the shit had hit the fan re: the exhibit Bird Watching - an exhibition of bird pictures by Paula McCartney, I came across the preceding statement. It was part of a teaser for an online nature photography workshop offered under the title of MAKING WOW! IMAGES -Six Steps to Taking Great Nature Photographs.

However, let me address first things first, the shit hitting the fan thing. A few years ago, I stirred up quite a dust up at the nature site when I began posting images in the fauna gallery of decayed flowers that were made on my flatbed scanner (so called, scanner photography). The fauna moderators / police went ballistic because they were judged to be a "slap in the face" to all of the hardworking fauna shooters who trek out into the field toting all kinds of specialized gear - reflectors, diffuser screens, wind screens, flash equipment, and so on.

There was quite a heated debate amongst myself, the moderators, and the site owner as to whether such images should be allowed to be posted. Long story, short - the pictures were allowed and in very short order the moderators and a few of the fauna "purists" headed for the hills and started their own site, where, I presume, no such grievous affronts to fauna picture making purity are allowed.

In any event, I have to think that if word of McCartney's pictures should come to the attention of the avian picturing purists - which is probably a long shot at best, because McCartney's pictures of artificial birds in natural environments are definitely part of the Art milieu which is a place not often frequented by avian picture makers - there will be a hew and cry along the lines of that in the fauna gallery. I am certain that part of that clamor will be about why-the-hell would anyone pay that kind of money for fake bird pictures?

All of which brings me to the dumb-ass statement about the "greatest single challenge" for the nature photographer - that of imposing order on the chaotic natural world.

As you can deduce from the sub-title - six steps to taking great nature photographs - the nature photography expert believes that there are 6 steps to taking (not making) great pictures. Great pictures are, of course, WOW! pictures. Right from the start, it is well worth noting that amongst those 6 key ingredients, there is not a single mention of the heart, soul, and mind of the picture maker.

But, what really got me going was the fact that, in the real world, even though the natural world is full of chaos, one should avoid picturing that chaos. Instead, one should impose a form of human "order" upon that natural world in order to make it more appealing - much easier, in a visual sense, to grasp and ultimately to consume.

And isn't that exactly what we're doing in and to the natural world - imposing a form of human "order" upon it in an attempt to make it easier to consume?

And, BTW & IMO, Paula McCartney's pictures are beautiful looks at the chaos of the natural world and pictures that call into consideration / contemplation humankind's relationship to it.

FYI - stay tuned, in the next entry I'll have more to say on the moronic idea that in the natural world "[N]othing seems to happen with any order or reason. Most scenes are a jumble of elements, competing with each other for attention."

life in pictures # 9 ~ He's a real Nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere prints for nobody.

Champion ~ Bell Centre, CA • click to embiggenAs is to be expected an entry on another blog, re: a new 18mp wunder-camera, generated a very large number of comments. Some of the commenters agreed with the entry creator that 18mp was simply overkill for an "consumer"-level dslr. Others were quite favorably impressed with this next-best-thing.

I, of course, was in complete agreement with one commenter - Mike Korvak - who stated:

.... don't you see the relationship that has been built between the high-tech forces of the world? 18mp in a consumer camera will require the user to buy a faster/larger capacity computer, larger/faster memory cards, a higher quality "pro" printer, new image manipulation software, and of course, lenses of greater quality to "match" the level of camera. And do not forget the banks and credit card companies who will reap the benefits of all this consumer purchasing. OOPS, one more interest that will be the recipient of great rewards..the landfill companies where all the outdated no longer worthwhile equipment will wind up. All this so the consumer user soccer mom can put her camera in "point-n-shoot" mode to capture little Johnny in the game of his life (at 7 years old). Sorry to be such a cynic, but I have reached my personal level of excessive consumerism tolerance. Get real America!

However, so much of the pixel-count yammering had me wondering - why is it that there are lots more "serious amateur" painters / illustrators making really interesting paintings / illustrations than there are "serious amateur" picture makers, AKA - photographers, who are making interesting pictures?

To be certain, that question / implied opinion is NOT based on any scientific survey - it is based solely upon my personal observations in the many "small-time" craft/art galleries that I visit on a regular basis. When doing so, I am often tempted to purchase (and occasionally do so) a painting / illustration but I am never, or at least so rarely that it seems like "never", tempted to purchase a photographic picture.

IMO, part of the reason for than situation is that so many "serious amateur" picture makers are so wrapped up in their picture making machines - my camera is better than your camera - and picturing making accoutrements - my lens is sharper than your lens - that they are both mentally and emotionally incapable of making an interesting picture. They invest all or most of their time in the mechanics of the medium and pay scant, if any, attention to what make an interesting picture interesting. Instead, when it comes to actual picture making, they stick to the tried and true - pretty pictures of pretty scenes.

In truth and in fact, there probably are more interesting "serious amateur" photographic pictures (vs. painting / illustration) out there than meets the eye. However, "small-time" (by which I do not mean "schlock") craft/art galleries have limited wall space and they tend to show what they think will sell and "pretty" pictures will outsell "interesting" pictures (in such settings) almost every time. Especially so, because "pretty" pictures are a dime-a-dozen and, most often, priced to match. That, and, as the saying goes - no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

Consequently, there is much in the way of interesting pictures that simply doesn't see the light of day (properly filtered, of course) in small-time craft/art galleries. Unfortunately, much of the work of "serious amateurs", photography-wise, is caught in a no-see-um land between a rock and a hard place. The "rock" being the small-time craft/art galleries and the "hard place" being the big-time art galleries.

But, that's a whole other story.

civilized ku # 391-94 ~ better safe than sorry

Hugo views, but does not touch The Cup ~ Lake Placid, NY • click to embiggen
The keeper of The Cup + Pens '90/'91 ~ Lake Placid, NY • click to embiggenOver the weekend Lord Stanley's 117 year-old Cup came to Lake Placid for a visit. So, quite naturally, on Sunday AM after Hugo's 2 goal mini-mite performance - Saranac Lake vs. Malone - we made a visit to see, but not touch*, Lord Stanley's Cup.

One of the most interesting jobs in all of sports just might be that held by the guy - Mike Bolt - in the center picture of the above triptych. His job, which he shares with 3 other Hockey Hall of Fame employees, is to escort The Cup where ever it goes - and it's worth noting that The Cup goes all over the world on a very regular basis.

But, the most interesting places that The Cup goes to has to be to each and every member of every year's Stanley Cup winning team. Each player gets to have The Cup for a day - where ever they wish to have it and, this is the interesting part, to do with whatever they wish. And, where ever it goes and whatever happens, Mike Bolt is there to witness it all.

When asked if he really is with The Cup at all times, Mike responds. "We're there the whole time, yeah. People ask, "What if a player wants to sleep with it?" I say, "Move over."

Needless to say, The Cup has been to some interesting places and been part of some interesting "adventures". Mike should write a book.

*FYI, Hugo did not touch The Cup because of The Curse - if you touch The Cup before you WIN The Cup, you will never win The Cup.