civilized ku # 347 ~ connections

Painted gourd vase and dried flowers • click to embiggenCONNECTION # 1 - While perusing some of the Refrigerator Art picture maker's pictures, I came across this entry, titled Profligatography, in which the Refrigerator Art picture maker reflects upon the notion that:

Compared to the older, chemical-based process, digital photography places no rational limit on the number of pictures that may be taken.

A notion that I have addressed on more than one occasion - see Here and Here - and have, in my worlds, named as discursive promiscuity. However, the Refrigerator Art picture maker, in his entry, goes me one better by giving a name to those engaged in discursive promiscuity / profligatography - the profligatographers.

Good stuff, that.

That said, I am wondering how many of you consider yourself to be profligatographers who are engaged in discursive promiscuity.

CONNECTION # 2 - As a result of my recommendation, re: the work of the Refrigerator Art picture maker, now known to us as Tyler Monson (thanks to Martin Doonan), I was checking out Martin's blog where on I came across his Hyporeality entry which was spawned by my Landscapist entry, the hyperreal / over-sharpened digital pictures which gave him "an idea for a something of an exercise in the opposite direction. At the weekend I went out to take photos that aren't sharp, in fact decidedly out of focus."

To date, Martin has posted a number of interesting hyporeality pictures. Check them out - they're kinda neat.

FYI ~ some more recommendations

from - Original Refrigerator ArtAnn Mitchell ~ American Triptych projectAnn Mitchell ~ American Triptych projectAnn Mitchell ~ American Triptych projectAnn Mitchell ~ American Triptych projectOver the past few days, 2 picture makers have come to my attention - Ann Mitchell via an email submission, and, the 2nd picture maker who has a number of blogs - none of which identify him by name, all of which give ample evidence of his very fine picture making abilities.

Ann Mitchell, whose work has appeared in LensWork and View Camera (amongst others), is a picture maker after my own heart. She works with vintage cameras (as she states, "for their unique visual voice"), alternative materials - in the case of her American Triptych project, Polaroid Type 55, and, quite obviously, she creates triptychs. Hey, IMO, what's not to like?

The fact that her pictures are drop-dead beautiful only adds to the aforementioned MO. And, in her words, while her picture making referents "may shift as I work, there is a common set of interests at the core of each series. Central to all is my interest in our use of the land and the structures we create."

You can (and should) see more of her work HERE.

Nameless picture maker # 2 - who I suspect is pictured here because the shadow of the picture maker seen here has the same rather hirsute features as the subject in the preceding picture - certainly must have a name, but I can't find it. What I can find are a lot of his interesting pictures, here, here, and here.

The only things I know about him and his picture making are (in his words): a. "Having worked almost exclusively in conventional black & white photography for forty years, the advent of digital photography and the virtual darkroom (e.g., Photoshop) has provided me with so many new avenues for expression, with color being chief among them,"; b. that at least some of his pictures "were made with Pentax K10D camera and 21mm moderate wide-angle lens, and fifty years of practice."; and, that he thinks that "if I knew what I was doing, this would be so much nicer" (although I am not certain what the word "this" refers to).

In any event, his pictures are what matters and, on that score, he is batting .999 or better. IMO, his use of color is on the "real" side of the picturing making equation. His eye is honest and direct. And, his presentation is consistent and gives his pictures a unified body of work look and feel.

IMO, there is much to be seen in and much to be learned about good/great picture making from spending some time with the work of both of these very fine picture makers.

Update on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:09AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Martin Doonan wrote: "The second photographer, of Original Refrigerator Art, is called Tyler Monson (I hope he doesn't mind being exposed). I've been following his stuff for some time."

my response: Martin, thanks for that outing.

FYI, I seem to remember getting a picture, via email, in the not too distant past of a photographer making a picture of himself as reflected in a window. I'm thinking now, if my memory is correct, that it might have come from Mr. Monson.

Maybe he'll get wind of this entry - I left him an invitation - and stop by to say "hello" or "fuck off" or something.

FYI ~ some recommendations

Good reads / looks • click to embiggenOver the holidays, while book shopping for gifts, I acquired a few for myself, two of which are shown above. Each book - Ansel Adams In Color and PHOTO:BOX - are worthy additions to interested people's photo libraries.

The Adams' book is an interesting collection of his color work - selected/edited by noted photographer, Harry Callahan - and of his writings on the subject of his personal, not commercial, color picture making. Color picture making was a bit of a sticky wicket for Sir Ansel, primarily because of the medium's inability to submit itself to the high degree of user control that Adams wanted in his picture making endeavors.

Nevertheless, the man did manage to make some very interesting color pictures (especially so considering the technical state of the medium / films with which he worked) - many of which are much more to my liking than most of his tour-de-force BW work.

FYI, this book is an updated / expanded edition - much improved, IMO - of previous editions of the same name.

PHOTO:BOX is billed as "a collection of 250 photographs by 200 of the world's most prominent photographers, ranging from legendary masters to contemporary stars, in an appealing format with a portfolio binding ... Each image is accompanied by an engaging commentary and a brief biography of the photographer ... The book is organized by subject and theme, offering a fresh perspective on the medium: from reportage to nature, and also covering war, portraits, still lifes, women, travel, cities, art, fashion, the nude, and sports. PHOTO:BOX is an irresistible and amazingly affordable survey of photography."

That said, it's not often that a 512 page photo book with first-rate reproduction, paper, and a kinda cool portfolio box binding / enclosure is on offer for the retail price of $29.95US. In fact, if you pay that price, you've been had because it is widely available at prices as low as $19.95US. IMO, it's worth purchasing based on just price alone.

That said, "many of the world's most prominent photographers" doesn't include all of the world's most prominent photographers. I could run down a list of many that are not included in this collection. And, in addition to some notable (and, IMO, very obvious) omissions, there is some repetition of photographers in different subject/theme categories - it's almost as if they couldn't come with enough picture makers to fill the book without spreading some them over multiple categories.

That said, the book is still a worthy addition to any photo book collection. The text that accompanies each and every picture is worth the price of admission, which as mentioned, is simply irresistible.

civilized ku # 346 ~ a Papal art update

Yesterday's news • click to embiggenHot on the heels of Pope Benedict XVI's meeting with and appeal to contemporary artists to seek out visions of beauty, the Vatican - through its newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, and its Vatican Radio - has warned against "absolutizing nature" or "considering it more important than the human person." It also warned against turning nature into a "new divinity" which would "open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms ...."

These warnings / admonitions are part of the Vatican's review - in its newspaper and on its radio - of the movie Avatar.

A Vatican spokesperson was quick to point out that the movie reviews are just that - film criticism, not theological pronouncements - but that they do reflect the Popes views on the dangers of "absolutizing nature". It should be noted that Pope Benedict XVI has earned the nickname of "the green pope" as the result of his frequent references about the need to protect the environment.

That said, I thought I would pass this information / warning along to all of those fantasizing dreamers out there who are "absolutizing nature" in their picture making endeavors. Just remember - the next time you reach for that GND and the Saturation slider in PS (aka, the Devil's workshop), you are guilty-as-charged in contributing to the world's descent into a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism.

And, FYI, I take great delight in having both the Vatican's and the Pope's backing and support in my long ongoing crusade against the excesses of the color-screamist purveyors of eco-porn, Nature Picture Division.

Don's car wash idea

Don's car wash # 1 • click to embiggen
Don's car wash # 2 • click to embiggenIn response to my get with the feelin' y'all, car wash, yeah entry, Don sent me an email with his car wash pictures attached along with the suggestion:

I did the same thing 4 years ago but without the dashboard,and my family thought I was nuts but when enlarged it looked great. No two will ever be alike.

I would like to see others send you some shots from car washes around the world - it would make an interesting book.

That's a great suggestion and all it takes is a little cooperation and effort from the audience out there. How about it? I'll start a Car Wash Gallery (like the Kitchen Sink Gallery) if there is enough interest.

I am certain that together we could create an interesting and somewhat unique body of work that might, indeed, be book worthy. And I don't mean just POD book worthy - with enough effort and imagination this could be book publisher worthy or even gallery exhibit worthy.

Think about for a bit. The picturing possibilities are plentiful - pictures from the back seat, from the front seat(s), out the windshield, out the side windows, out the back windows, with people in the car, without people in the car, car wash workers, car wash buildings inside and out in all kinds of weather, day and/or night ......

civilized ku # 345 ~ now I get it

Kitchen table, chairs & floor • click to embiggenActually, I don't really "get it" but I do think that I now understand from whence it comes.

Yesterday, as scheduled, the cable guy showed up and installed the HD cable boxes. Consequently, last evening the wife and I were able to watch our first HD NHL hockey game. We samples a few other HD programs and, to be perfectly honest, we weren't all that impressed. The wider screen was nice enough but our lives did not change and things went on as they always did/do.

One thing that I noticed was how HDTV has a similar quality to my HD HiFi - it has reached a stage of definition that mercilessly reveals the all flaws in the material. With my HiFi, the difference between a really good recording and a mediocre one is very apparent. So much so that some music that I used to like now sounds like crap. And, downloaded music (ala iTunes, et al) sounds exactly like the down-sampled dreck that it actually is.

The same is true with HDTV - camera technique, exposure and white balance variations, switching from HD to SD cameras during a broadcast (happens regularly with sports stuff), to mention just a few things that I have noticed so far, are readily and, at times, annoyingly noticeable.

And then there is the extremely annoying fact that the broadcast material - programming and commercials - are produced in multiple formats and consequently, during most programs, the presentation switches from full screen to the 4/3 format to letterbox and even to "super" letterbox - black bars top/bottom and left/right.

But, sure enough, and as advertised, the HD stuff was very detailed and very sharp. After working the settings, I was able to obtain a pleasing blend of detail /sharpness and color saturation that did not cause my eyeballs to bleed or require the use of sunglasses. It is nice enough but it does leave me with a kind of "yawn" feeling - nice, but I'm ain't gonna be writin' home about it any time soon.

All that said, here's what I think I have begun to understand - after viewing the detail / sharpness / "grainless" quality of HDTV, it's no wonder that the picture making rabble out there are so obsessed with pixel-peeping when it comes to making still pictures.

I'd be willing to bet the farm that the overwhelming majority of "serious" picture makers out there are way more influenced - consciously or not - by the quality of an image on their HDTV when it comes to their picture making standards than they are by anything "photographic". Like, say, a stunning C print from any of the "masters" of color photography.

And this makes perfect sense because, once again, the majority of "serious" picture makers are viewing and processing their pictures on a HD computer monitor, which is, in essence, an HDTV.

So, I'll let you in a little secret, re: my picture making. From my digital day one, I have been devoted to making digital pictures that do not look like digital pictures and that's one of the primary reasons I have never been in hot pursuit of "state of the art" digital cameras. IMO, as those cameras have become more and more "perfect", re: sharpness and noise, the images they produce have become more and more sterile - so "clean" that they seem lifeless.

The people on my HDTVs - newscasters, talk / entertainment show hosts, et al - have the look and feel of "plastic" androids. Although it is worth noting that they look a little more "human" on the smaller screen HDTV than they do on the big one. This "plastic" quality should come as no surprise in as much as televsion has always been considered a "cool" medium (and I don't mean, "hip").

As I see it, state of the art digital still picture wise, the difference between "digital-standard" pictures and traditional "film-standard" pictures is much like the difference between film-based movies and digital-based made-for-TV movies / programming. In most cases, the digital stuff has no warmth. It comes across as rather cold and sterile - a look that is not very much to my liking.

civilized ku # 340-44 ~ get with the feelin' y'all, car wash, yeah - and the painter's eye

Car wash • click to embiggenIt has been suggested to me that this picture is "stupid" and that it takes no "talent" to sit in a car and make pictures while it goes through a car wash. It has also been stated that this picture can not / will not, not now, not ever, be printed and hung on our living room wall. And, while I'm at it, don't even think about the walls of a certain office that is being redecorated (although, the use of the word "redecorated" in the context of the office in question erroneously implies that it was ever "decorated" in the first place).

However, getting beyond that petty exchange, I must state that this car wash cinctych(?) really appeals to my eye and sensibilities and it does so for a number of reasons about which I would like to elucidate.

I don't often talk / write about my pictures to any great extent - I much prefer to let them speak (or not) for themselves (which should not in any way be interpreted to mean that I don't think that the Artist Statement or Statement of Intent has no value / purpose in the viewing / understanding of pictures). However, I thought a little insight into my picturing MO might be of interest to some.

As noted previously, I carry a camera or 2 just about everywhere I go - that's because everywhere I go, there I am, and I know from experience that, no matter where I am, something is bound to catch my eye / interest. That's because I recognize that I have what William Henry Fox Talbot called, "a painter's eye":

A painter’s eye will often be arrested where ordinary people see nothing remarkable. - William Henry Fox Talbot

And, IMO, with a "painter's eye" and a camera at hand ...

... most perceptive photographers can make compelling pictures out of uninteresting moments. - Alex Tehrani

Now, that said, let's get down to brass tacks about the notion of "perceptive photographers" and "ordinary people", an idea that I think is summed up quite nicely by Jerry Uelsmann:

A camera is truly a license to explore. There are no uninteresting things. There are just uninterested people.

At this point, let me add a little something to the idea of "uninterested people". Unfortunately for the cause of making compelling or, at the very least, interesting pictures - and I might add, for the cause of creating an interesting, informed, and involved life / citizenry - the world is filled to the breaking point with "uninterested people". People who "look" but never "see". Or, as the Rock Man stated, people who are just interested (in a very limited manner) in seeing what they want to see as opposed to understanding, really understanding that "there ain't nothing pointless about this gig".

That said, and in any event, IMO, the more interested the picture maker, the more interesting the pictures and the more the picture maker uses his/her license to explore, the more he/she is capable of seeing.

Given those picturing making qualifications, what is it (for me) in a purely visual sense that "arrests the painter's eye" in "uninteresting moments", the thing that uninterested / ordinary people deem to be "unremarkable"?

I can't speak for others, but for me, the thing that I often see that most others miss is a sense / feeling for "decisive moments" wherein specific referents are illuminated in a unique or special manner. More often than not, I mean "illuminated" in a literal sense - the light and/or a combination / juxtaposition of color (or both) seem to instantaneously hit my eye like a big pizza pie and it's off to the races. At other times, it's about space and arrangement of shapes.

And, if the picturing gods are granting me picturing grace, it's about all of the above eye-grabbing visual elements that come together and create a quality that I call visual energy.

But, let's get specific - re: the car wash cinctych. In retrospect - after viewing the processed files - it became apparent to me that what caught my painter's eye as I sat in the driver's seat was (in no particular order): the juxtaposition of the motion / energy that was happening on the windshield (windscreen, for the Brits in the room) with the static quality of the dashboard; the juxtapostion of the vivid "hard-etched" light/color of the instruments with the soft subtle "liquid" light/color of the various fluids on the windshield; the evolving colors of the light and liquids (over the flow of the 5 pictures) versus the fixed / static colors of the instrument panel; and, in an emotional / intellectual sense, the juxtaposition of the literal / well-defined with the abstract / ill-defined.

I also knew as I was picturing, that the pictures would have another very important quality that I value highly in my pictures (and in the pictures made by others) - the why/what the fuck? effect. As in, why the fuck did you make that picture? and its companion question of what the fuck were you thinking?

Well, I made the picture because I was thinking that in this "uninteresting moment" there would mostly likely be an interesting surprise to be had. My painter's eye told me that the light, the color, and the textures were all very interesting in a purely visual sense. That, to the interested person, a sense of tension, juxtaposition, contradiction, color and light would lead to a feeling of discovery and amazement that can be found in by exploring "uninteresting moments". That, in fact, "there are no uninteresting things".

That, when it comes to everyday life and living, "there ain't nothing pointless about this gig."

And, what the hell, if it's worth a song - a song that peaked at number three on the disco charts - it's worth a picture or 5, don't ya think?

in the kitchen ~ lens research and development

Grease jar ~ 17mm @ f2.8 • click to embiggen
Grease jar ~ 20mm @ f1.7 • click to embiggenThese pictures should in no way be considered as a "comparison" between the Zuiko 17mm f2.8 lens and the Lumix (Panasonic) 20mm f1.7 lens other than the difference in perspective and DOF between the 2 lenses. I did try to picture the beautiful and picturesque grease jar at the same magnification in each picture in order to see the difference between them, re: the previously stated criteria.

From the perspective POV, I tend to like the ever-so-slightly (but noticeable) more WA look of the 17mm over that of the 20mm - keep in mind that, in the 4/3rds' world, that is an effective focal length difference of 6mm (34mm v 40mm, effective focal length). However, I do like the more narrow DOF obtained with the 20mm @ f1.7 than that of the 17mm @ f2.8.

Maybe if I put them together on the couch tonight, pour a little wine, and put some romantic music on the hifi ....