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 from February 1, 2012 - February 29, 2012

Wednesday
Feb292012

civilized ku # 2098 ~ bobbin' 'n weavin' / shuckin' 'n jivin'

Hockey locker room ~ Fort Covington, NY • click to embiggenThe announcement of the new Oly µ4/3 camera, the E-M5 / OM-D, has come and gone and I've managed to avoid any gotta-have-it fever. That's not because I'm strong of mind and heart - the camera certainly has enough significant upgrades / features to make it highly desirable - but rather because I am really happy with the form factor of the E-P(x) / PEN cameras. That is to say, the compact RF-ish look and feel of those cameras.

I may be wrong but it seems logical that the upgrades - new sensor / IS / fast AF - to be had in the OM-D will make their way into the PEN system body (E-P4?) in the not too distant future. If that comes to pass, I'll have a much more difficult time avoiding the gotta-have-it virus. However ...

... when and if that happens, there will another much bigger decision to be made - the not so insignificant consideration ($$$$$$$$) of upgrading a lot of other stuff in order to able to handle the files from that camera.

I have been cruising along, happy as a clam, with what might be considered lost generation hardware and software. As an example, the newest version of my RAW conversion software will not run on my current OS and even moving up to an E-P3 would require the new version and hence a system upgrade. I am loath to go that route because of the complications / problems that would/could come with a system upgrade - print drivers and peripheral drivers to name just 2 of the possibilities.

I have acquired another Mac Pro (used) which came with the necessary system upgrade installed. My plan is to slowly migrate to that machine, taking it one step at a time to see just what issues might arise. Eventually, I would like to be using that machine as my primary work horse but ...

... the OS on that machine is still a couple of steps in the past. Will the RAW conversion software company support that OS when and if a new PEN appears? Maybe, maybe not.

The newest about to be introduced Mac OS is going to be a real boondoggle (you can read about it HERE). According to a number of sources, if you upgrade to Lion (OS X 10.7.x), there's a good chance at least one of your programs or peripherals will stop working because Lion will not run PowerPC-coded programs. What that means is that software companies will abandon PowerPC-coded programs like rats from a sinking ship.

Long story (of computer woe) short, what that means for me is simple. I'll keep on keeping on bobbin' 'n weavin' with my current dance partner(s), crossing my fingers and hoping it all holds together for as long as I do. Or, until I hit the lotto.

Wednesday
Feb292012

civilized ku # 2096-97 ~ night skating

1044757-16881383-thumbnail.jpg
Night skating / 1980 Olympic Speed Skating Oval ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
1044757-16881411-thumbnail.jpg
Birch tree / 1980 Olympic Speed Skating Oval ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
On the same night I drove into Lake Placid for a hockey game (civilized ku # 2087-91) I made these 2 Juha Haataja-like night pictures.

Tuesday
Feb282012

civilized ku # 2094 ~ seeing red, pt. 2

Grapes ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenAs I suspected, yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 2092, caused Colin Griffiths to clarify his previous statement, re: "I really suspect that there is something different about the way you and I see the colour red." In yesterday's comment, Colin stated:

I don't think I explained myself very well ... [I]t's not a matter of the technical nature of the colour red ... ®ather, that you have an ability to notice and capture red objects in such a manner that makes them appear ... almost incongruous within the image ... it's as if you are pointing something out to me that I'd never noticed before.

my response: If I now correctly understand Colin, what he seems to be stating is that my use of the color red within the frame of my pictures (and my awareness of it in a picture making environment) is different from the manner in which he does so - that I use the color red as a kind of exclamation point within the frame in a manner that he does not. And, as somewhat of an aside, he also suggested that some familiar-to-both-sides-of-the-Atlantic objects might, in fact, be made of different colors.

To be certain, I agree with both of Colin's points. Having traveled to Europe and Japan, I can state that there are colors in use on public signage and the like that are more or less different from similar objects here in the States. No real surprise there.

Re: my use of the color red (and red-ish) in my pictures - I do use red in some of my pictures as a visual exclamation point of sorts. That would be especially noticeable in scenes where the red referents in question are in a neutral or near-neutral color environment - yesterday's Fire hydrant picture as an excellent example. And, while the environment is not very neutral, the reds "dancing" about the frame in the Between periods / Saranac Lake HS vs Lake Placid HS picture (civilized ku # 2087-91) is another good example of reds keeping the color field of a picture rather lively.

As some many know, the first 25 years of my commercial life was devoted to making pictures for advertising agencies / commercial clients. However, the following decade-and-a-half was split, about 50/50, between commercial picture making and creating graphic design for similar clients as a designer, art director, and creative director.

However, prior to working in the graphic design field, I was well aware of the work of and worked with (making pictures for) many good/great graphic designers / art directors. It was always my desire and ambition to work on projects (large and small) together with quality graphic designers / art directors - there is nothing worse than making a really nice picture and then having it mutilated by its use in bad/questionable design work. Conversely, there is little better in the commercial world than the visual synergy created by mating good/great pictures with good/great graphic design.

1044757-16855739-thumbnail.jpgThat said, prior to working in the graphic design field (as a designer / art director / creative director), I was well aware of the work of Milton Glaser, one of the all-time giants of the graphic design universe. Somewhere along the line (far far back in my picturing and commercial life) I read a piece about Glaser in which he was quoted as stating that the colors red and black were the only colors needed for good/great graphic design - as in his timeless (in continuous use since 1973) and widely recognized I Love NY logo design.

Most certainly, Glaser was stretching a point but that point was well taken, nevertheless.

Now I am not suggesting that it was the words of Milton Glaser that raised my awareness of the visual power of the color red. However, after reading them, I did become much more consciously aware of and much more deliberate in the use of that visual power.

That said, I strive to never use the color red as a cheap visual trick. Like, say, isolating red in a full color spectrum picture and then de-saturating all the other color to emphasis the red. I can state that, in my pictures, the color red is an honest / found element, never to be fiddled with in PS for visual effect*.

FYI, in the Grapes picture accompanying this entry, the bright red objects in the upper left are as I found them - I did not place them there.

In the making of this picture, I was first drawn to the grapes and the quality of the light falling on them. Consequently, my first notion was to make a picture that was tight in on the grapes and the plate, to exclude the surrounding elements. I did, in fact, make a few pictures just in that manner.

However, after viewing the picture on the camera LCD, I deemed the picture to be nice enough but rather too relaxed / placid / restful, aka: yawn inducing, for my eye and sensibilities. At that point I decided to bring the Mickey Mouse Pez dispenser and the mini Coca-Cola carton into play and, without question, their inclusion livens things up quite a bit, visually speaking.

Some might think that those items visually overwhelm the main referent (the grapes) to the point of being visually annoying / disruptive. To which I would respond. "Yep. Sure enough." I wouldn't have any other way.

Why would I do such a thing, you might ask? The answer is simple - I hate falling asleep when viewing pictures, my own included. I want to be emotionally / visually / mentally pricked, prodded, rattled, confronted, challenged and otherwise invigorated when viewing pictures. I want my eyes, mind, and heart to dance across the visual field to be found on the 2-dimension surface of a print.

I want pictures to wake me up. I spend enough time sleeping and don't want the dumb-ass picturing adage of "simplify, simplify" to put me in a coma-like picture viewing state.

*other than to make it as true to the real red (as found/seen in a scene) as the medium and its apparatus allow.

Tuesday
Feb282012

(un)civilized ku # 2093 ~ living large (or not)

At the Cabin Fever Fiesta ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenLast Saturday evening, starting at 5:00PM, the wife and I were committed to attend 2 of the social highlights of the season - the annual American Legion Chicken BBQ Fundraiser (American Legion Post 504, Au Sable Forks, NY) followed by the Cabin Fever Fiesta Fund Raiser for the North Country Cultural Center for the Arts.

What a night. The accompanying picture can only hint at the excitement of the evening.

Monday
Feb272012

civilized ku # 2092 ~ seeing red / or any color for that matter

Fire hydrant in the snow ~ Ray Brook, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOn the entry, civilized ku # 2085, Colin Griffiths made the somewhat odd (to my way of thinking) statement:

I really suspect that there is something different about the way you and I see the colour red. To my eyes (an on my carefully calibrated Spectraview screen), your reds usually look closer to orange than I would expect given the subject matter. I'm really not criticizing, just observing!

My response: First, let me state that I am not criticizing his statement. If he is seeing closer-to-orange reds on his well calibrated monitor, I believe him. IMO, there is absolutely no disputing his statement. Although, it is worth noting that the ice rink stairs picture accompanying civilized ku # 2085, on which he made his comment, contains no real red - the EXIT sign is backlit by a tungsten light which I did not correct for in converting / processing the picture. Therefore, it does appear to have an orange-ish color cast.

However, on my well calibrated monitor (gretagmacbeth - Eye-One), after checking quite a number of my pictures with red referents, I see reds with considerable variations in shade/hue. Some have significant yellow content - taking them closer to the orange-ish (but still red) - while others have little yellow content - taking them closer to a more "pure" red. And, the red and green content vary considerably, as well*.

I checked the red color numbers in a number of my pictures to verify what I already knew - the color red has a considerable number of variations / hues. FYI, the so-called "pure red" as indicated in the PS Swatches Palette reads by the numbers* as 204R / 34G / 41B, which, in the CMYK world of inkjet color printers, reads as 1%C / 99%M / 97%Y / 0%K** (nearly equal parts M and Y). Whereas, the fire hydrant in the picture accompanying this entry reads as (depending upon where you place the cursor) 127R / 31G / 47B, Although, in different parts of the hydrant the numbers can vary quite a bit.

Numbers aside, there are several reasons why I consider Colin's statement to be "somewhat odd" (but, let me emphasize, in no way "wrong")...

When viewing pictures on the web, there are too many variables which make judging color to be a somewhat risky business. Some, but not all, of those variables include: different monitors and how each displays color; different monitor calibrations / settings (as an example, D50, D65, or D70 standards) and how those effect how colors are displayed; different browsers and how each displays colors; sRGB versus AdobeRGB settings (both monitor and jpeg settings); and, viewing environment lighting conditions and variables.

Even when viewing prints, lighting conditions matter, re: the perception of color. The only tried and true method of viewing color is under the printing industry standard of 5000K (daylight) illumination. And that is how I judge color in my pictures. While I trust how my monitor displays color, to my eye and sensibilities, the proof is in the print-based pudding because, for me, the print is the thing. All of my color RAW conversion / processing is performed with the print in mind and the web be damned.

So, all of that said, I don't put a whole lot of stock in what I see (color wise) on the web. IMO, those pictures are mere simulacra of the real thing, aka: the print. Which of course, is also a mere simulacra of the the real thing, aka: the real world,

But then, according to Baudrillard, in postmodern culture our society has become so reliant on models and maps (pictures are both maps and models) that we have lost all contact with the real world that preceded the map. Reality itself has begun merely to imitate the model, which now precedes and determines the real world.

So, why get hung up on red?

*color content is measured by the numbers using the PS Info window - the single most important PS color tool. Numbers don't lie.

**current inkjet printers have expanded upon the CMYK color world to include additional inks such as (but not limited to), light/vivid magenta, light cyan, orange, green and multiple shades of black (K).

Friday
Feb242012

civilized ku 2087-91 ~ anything for hockey

Between periods / Saranac Lake HS vs Lake Placid HS ~ 1932 Olympic Rink - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen1044757-16786766-thumbnail.jpg
Snowy drive # 1 ~ Au Sable Forks > Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
1044757-16786748-thumbnail.jpg
Snowy drive # 2 ~ Au Sable Forks > Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
1044757-16786815-thumbnail.jpg
Snowy drive # 3 ~ Au Sable Forks > Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
1044757-16786845-thumbnail.jpg
Snowy drive # 4 ~ Au Sable Forks > Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Last Thursday evening, I drove into Lake Placid to meet up with the Cinemascapist and Hugo to attend a high school hockey playoff game. There was a bit of a snow storm that made the driving interesting although I thought it made for nice pictures.

Re: nice pictures - as most know, I'm not one for gear talk but, giving credit where credit is due, one of the things I really like about µ4/3 gear is the small / lightweight / fast prime lenses that are available (with even more on the way). I truly appreciate these little gems.

Currently, I have 4 of these primes (1 is a 4/3 lens that I use with an adapter) and I plan to add 2 more - either the 12mm f2 or the 14mm f2.5 and the soon to be available 75mm f1.8. Once that plan is complete, I'll have a system very much like my Nikon F3/FM system (that would be the system that sits around unused), a system that was a delight to use but was a pain in the ass, figuratively speaking (a pain in neck and shoulders, literally speaking) to carry around.

FYI, it's also worth noting that the Nikon system would not have given me the opportunity to make the snowy drive pictures. Chances are good that I would not have had a fast enough film in the cameras for the light conditions and, even if I had a fast film in the bag, there was no way I could have changed it on the fly, as I did with the ISO setting on the Oly E-P(x).

And then there is the matter of the in-camera IS - these pictures were made with a 1/13 shutter speed, hand-held (with 1 hand while driving with the other hand). I seriously doubt there would have been any non-camera shake / blurred pictures if I had been using the Nikons.

BTW, lest it be said that I am a Oly µ4/3 fan-boy, let me state, "Long live compact mirrorless cameras with fast primes and in-camera IS."

Thursday
Feb232012

civilized ku # 2086 ~ one of these things is not like the other

From the Duquesne Club Cookbook • click to embiggen1044757-16762531-thumbnail.jpg
Fruit bowl # 1 ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
1044757-3696633-thumbnail.jpg
Fruit bowl ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
In 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.

Thursday
Feb232012

civilized ku # 2085 ~ mono a chromo

Ice rink stairs ~ Norfolk, NY • click to embiggen