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 July 1, 2010 - July 31, 2010

Friday
Jul302010

some ku, some civilized ku, and some thoughts

1044757-7926003-thumbnail.jpg
Wild flowers and low fence ~ Lake Placid Resort GC - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7926042-thumbnail.jpg
Water hazard ~ Westport GC - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7926068-thumbnail.jpg
Mall parking lot ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-7926075-thumbnail.jpg
Young woman sipping ~ at The Cottage - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7926083-thumbnail.jpg
Golden light / clouds after rain ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7926094-thumbnail.jpg
Crab apples ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7926110-thumbnail.jpg
Assorted crap ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
There are times when, at the end of the week, I have collected quite a number of pictures (made during that week) that I have not been able to post as separate entries. That is to state, pictures in addition to ones that I have made that week and posted in that week's entries. Over time I have NOT posted a large number of pictures that have disappeared down that particular hole.

So, in attempt to rectify that situation, I have decided to post an end-of-the-week/weekend entry that is just the pictures (and a few words) that are "left over" from that week's picture making.

As always, I am very interested in comments, re: the pictures. As a matter of fact, I am considering moving to a more picture/few words oriented format - maybe, maybe not, depending upon what I have to say on any given day. Part of the reason for that possibility is the fact that over the years, - yes, years - that I have been doing The Landscapist, I (with reader comments) have covered a lot of ground, re: the medium of photography.

It's not that there isn't anything left to write but I find it rather frustrating that in the blog-o-sphere - and by no means just on The Landscapist, there is a wealth of information in the form of past entries that, for all intents and purposes, just sit there unread.

Unlike a book, it's not the easiest thing on the planet to go back and review what has been written and/or posted, picture-wise. Here on The Landscapist there were at least 1600 entries since January, 2007 - all still available for the reading. However, my stats show that the overwhelming number of visitors - approx. 10,000 page views / 6,800 unique visits per month - read just the current entry(s) and little else - a clear case of what-have-you-done-for-lately if ever there was one.

Now, it should NOT be inferred in any way that this a rant/rap against The Landscapist visitors. It is more a case-in-point, re: the blogosphere.

What this case-in-point suggests to me is that I should devote some time to editing my entries with an eye toward making a book, a real book - a kind of best-of-The Landscapist book. Or, maybe, a 2-3 volume set of books.

Like, I don't have enough to do just organizing 2,600+ pictures (into just a few well-defined catagories) that I have made over the past 7 years.

Thursday
Jul292010

civilized ku # 604-06 ~ yesterday, after rain 

1044757-7914281-thumbnail.jpg
Adirondack chair ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

1044757-7913986-thumbnail.jpg
After rain ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Last evening a thunderstorm past by our neighborhood just to the south. The southern sky was rather dark and stormy, the sky to the north was initially bathed in that "amazing golden light". That light become much more red as darkness descended.

Once again, the light was chasing me, not the other way around. In fact, I didn't have to step off my front porch to make this diptych - very convenient. Although, I did have to get out of my chair.

Wednesday
Jul282010

civilized ku # 600-03 ~ yesterday, après golf

1044757-7897590-thumbnail.jpg
From my bar stool ~ The Cottage - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Last week I had the distinct pleasure of meeting and having dinner with long-time Landscapist follower, Matt Dallos and his lovely girl friend? / fiancée? (her name and precise status escape me, which par for my course). Aside: today's triptych is not from that encounter.

During our evening-long conversation, the subject of Simon Norfolk's recent pictorial in the Sunday NY Times Magazine came up. I had mentioned that I was much impressed with his pictures and that I also had his Afghanistan: Chronotopia book (you can find it HERE) in which he presented pictures that were very much like those from Yemen (in the NY Times piece).

When I say "pictures that were very much like those from Yemen", what I am referring to (amongst many other picturing attributes) is the fact that, after deciding to make pictures of the ruins of war by "drawing upon ideas from 17th century and 18th century French landscape painting .... in particular, that amazing golden light" as well as early photo-era pictures of ruins, Norfolk went on to make all of his Afghanistan picture in early morning light - 4AM to be exact. While the Yemen pictures may not all have been made at 4AM, none appear to be made in the cold hard light of day.

Norfolk, much like Mona Kuhn (as mentioned in yesterday's entry), is committed to making pictures that are very much influenced in one way or another (more or less) by, in the painting tradition - Romanticism, Impressionism, and, in the photo tradition - Pictorialism.

For over a year or more, I have been executing a slow drift toward a somewhat similar approach to making pictures, albeit more like Kuhn (narrow DOF) than Norfolk (amazing golden light) although less like Kuhn (referents = people) than Norfolk (referents = places minus people).

I attribute that drift to my purchase (and my subsequent almost exclusive use thereof) of a Lumix 20mm f1.7 lens that I use almost exclusively at f1.7 for its narrow DOF.

No matter how you slice and dice it, a narrow DOF pretty much lands one in the Romanticism, Impressionism, and Pictorial side of the fence. Add "amazing golden light to the mix" and, if you're not careful, a rapid descent into the realm of making pretty pictures can result. Although, IMO, both Norfolk and Kuhn (and me) have managed to stay on the right side of that fence.

They have managed to do so by making pictures that are both illustrative and illuminative.

You can read more about Norfolk's intent HERE. In order to read more about Kuhn's intent you'll have to purchase issue # 9 of Color magazine. That said, my intent with the narrow DOF thing is to continue making pictures in the postmodern tradition, referent wise (the everyday, the commonplace, the banal), but to, in fact, drift from that approach, postmodern-cold-hard-light-of-day wise.

IMO, and that of many others, the cold-hard-light-of-day - at times, literally, at other times, figuratively - look at things tends to impart a rather cool, disinterested, and detached view of/attitude about things - as somewhat matter-of-fact kind of approach. While that has been my picture making intent for quite a while, I am drifting toward what I want to appear to be (and actually is), a warmer and somewhat involved, caring (as in, it matters), and interested view of things - a slightly softer look at things.

BTW, please feel free to comment on this entry's triptych, re: my notion of a "somewhat involved, caring (as in, it matters), and interested view of things".

Wednesday
Jul282010

civilized ku # 597-99 ~ printing

1044757-7896576-thumbnail.jpg
Former clubhouse, renovated in the Adirondack Rustic Tradition ~ Whiteface GC - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

1044757-7896590-thumbnail.jpg
Whiteface GC - 17th hole / rain shelter ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
On yesterday's entry, re: printed pictures/photo magazines, Dennis Allhouse (no link provided) commented/inquired:

I gather you print larger than 'native' size ie you've made references to sizes like 22 inch square images. What is your technique? Here I supposing that you must be uprezzing by one means or another, so I'm curious as to your approach.

My response: My first approach is to ignore all the gearhead, techno-fan, pixel-peeping stuff, re: inkjet printing, that is spread like a plague all over the internet.

Instead, my approach has been to make prints using various techniques (file sizing and sharpening) and then ... gasp ... look at them as a "casual" - read as, non picture maker - viewer would look at them. That is to say, look at them from a "proper" viewing distance that allows for taking in the whole of the picture (even though one's eye will inevitably move about the print's surface).

Using that approach, I have arrived at an approach that yields very very nice 24×24 inch prints - 22×22 inch centered image on 24×24 inch paper. The resulting prints/images appear to be quite sharp and artifact free. That's because they are quite sharp and artifact free. It is worth noting that, if I had an Epson 9800 (44' wide-format printer) instead of an Epson 7800 (24' wide-format printer), there is no doubt in my mind that much larger prints could be made using the same approach.

In short, my approach is as follows:

1) apply "normal" sharpening during RAW conversion/processing (in RAW Developer).

2) apply "normal" sharpening* as the very last step in PhotoShop processing:

*for me, normal sharpening in PS = convert image to LAB and, on the Lightness channel, apply Unsharp Mask - Amount 500, Radius 0.2, Threshold 0. Converting to LAB is extremely important - something that is rarely mentioned in all the gearhead blather about sharpening techniques. In LAB, the Lightness channel contains only the tonal/contrast image info, not any of the color info. Consequently, one can apply much higher levels of sharpening without any of the "halo" that results from applying the same level in RGB.

3) Using the Image Size function in PS, I turn on Resample Image and select Bicubic, set the Resolution to 180 pixels/inch, and the Width/Height to 22'. My file is uprezzed from 56.8Mb (native) to 89.7Mb.

4) convert to LAB.

5) apply the same "normal" sharpening to the Lightness channel.

6) convert back to RGB and print.

7) view the print and make any sharpening adjustments (more or less), if needed (rarely ever needed). IMPORTANT - first, revert to step # 4 in the History window, which will undo the previously applied sharpening, and then reapply new levels.

All of that said and done, I would guess that a gearhead, techno-geek, fanboy/girl might be able to apply some other more involved and convoluted uprezzing approach that might produce a print that is sharper when viewed from a pixel-peeping distance. However, that is not at all important to me and what I am doing with my picture making endeavors.

Not to mention the fact that it is also not very important to those who view my prints since they are usually forewarned that, if I catch them pixel-peeping one of my pictures, I will kneecap them with an aluminum baseball bat and then drag their crumpled body back to a "proper" viewing distance.

Tuesday
Jul272010

civilized ku # 595-96 ~ food for thought

1044757-7882000-thumbnail.jpg
Anthony's ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-7882421-thumbnail.jpg
Crabcake and Beet $ Horseradish Risotto w Leeks ~ Interlaken Inn - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
I often wonder / ruminate upon the notion of how the digital domain in its entirety - the internet, picture making, television, communications, social networking, etc, - has influenced and changed the manner in which humankind relates to the real world of flesh and blood, touch and feel, sight and sound, light and dark, and the here and now. Most recently, the current state of photography magazines has been on my mind.

As I have stated many times, I am a fan of printed pictures and pictures on the printed page (in the form of books and periodicals). IMO, printed pictures are superior to those presented/displayed in the digital domain in every way.

First and foremost, if one is committed to making pictures that accurately display one's vision, re: color, contrast, tonality, et al, and that are viewed as such, printed pictures are the only way to go. To be certain, printed pictures can look different when viewed under differing light sources but those differences don't hold a candle to the viewing variations encountered in the digital domain.

There is also a world of difference between turning the pages of a book and clicking through thumbnails of pictures on a screen.

That said, one of the things I was wondering about on the subject of photography magazines is the question - how many of you actually purchase and read/view photo magazines? If you do, which ones do you purchase? If you don't, why not?

The only magazine that I purchase - each and every issue - is Color, a relatively new periodical. For the most part, Color hews to a pretty fine line that skirts the excesses - both with pictures and commentary - of the camera club world and that of the academic lunatic fringe. The reproduction, design, and paper/binding are of very good quality.

Other magazines - although not every issue - do find there way into my hands and home - Aperture, Contact Sheet, and Focus magazines, to name a few. There are other picture pubs that I have purchased when I come across them in big-city book stores.

That said, I don't subscribe to any picture periodicals because, unfortunately, there is no telling how they will survive the trip from publisher to my house. I haven't had a copy of LensWork since they went to subscription-only availability for just that reason. I really don't need the aggravation of going to the post office - we have no home delivery in our town - and picking up high-quality periodicals that are bent, spindled, or otherwise mutilated*.

All of that said, in the current issue of Color, there is a good article about the pictures of Mona Kuhn** wherein she stated that she makes prints of all the images (from a shoot) that interest her, regardless of whether or not they will make it into the final edit...

...I pin the prints to my studio wall and look at them daily to decide which one carries a message closer to my heart. I still like to have it physically in my hand ... because eventually it will belong to this life (the print) and not the digital one.

My thoughts, exactly.

In any event, I think that, for one reason or another, photography magazines are an endangered commodity. IMO, if, in my lifetime, they cease to exist, it will be a sad day for those who appreciate printed pictures.

*not intended as an anti-US Postal Authority rant. If anything, it is minor rant, re: the manner in which publishers ship their periodicals. If they offered a cardboard container shipping option, I would gladly pay extra $$$ to use it.

**after viewing her pictures - which I tend to like - I can't help but wonder if she knows any overweight people.

Tuesday
Jul272010

civilized ku # 592-94 ~ Saturday rain - light and color

1044757-7881593-thumbnail.jpg
Saturday rain # 1 ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-7881661-thumbnail.jpg
Saturday rain # 2 ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-7881667-thumbnail.jpg
Saturday rain # 3 ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-7881675-thumbnail.jpg
Saturday rain # 4 ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
On Saturday afternoon, within approximately 5 minutes and 1 mile, the weather went from a sudden heavy downpour, to a short sun shower, to no rain with a heavy overcast sky.

Tuesday
Jul272010

picture window # 50 ~ Mirror Lake

1044757-7881393-thumbnail.jpg
Mirror Lake ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

Monday
Jul262010

civilized ku # 589-91 / ku # 791-92 ~ light

1044757-7871019-thumbnail.jpg
The photo crew in action ~ Bog River / Low's Lake primitive area - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7871488-thumbnail.jpg
Flora with extra light ~ Bog River / Low's Lake primitive area - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
1044757-7871124-thumbnail.jpg
Evening light / window view ~ Interlaken Inn, Lake Placid - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
During our recent canoe trip in the Bog River / Low's Lake primitive area, Hugo and I worked together to make some pictures with artificial light as an supplementary light source - a kind of painting with light thing, albeit during daylight hours rather than night-time light as it is most often used.

Many natural-world macro picture makers use artificial light during daylight hours although, their intent is use it as a fill light to soften contrast and increase detail. That was not my intent, My intent was to use the artificial light as a kind of "kicker" light that might be mistakenly be thought of as being random streaks of warm natural light - much like the warm natural light streaks in the window pictures.