ku # 607 ~ the temptation

A marshy Summer thicket • click to embiggenAs of the year 1964, in his book, The History of Photography, Beaumont Newhall stated in the 4 pages about color photography (at the back of the book) that:

The greatest users of color film are amateurs: it is estimated that 40% of all snapshots are in color. To the commercial photographer color has long been indispensable ... [M]agazines are using more and more color editorially ... [S]urprisngly few photographers, however, have chosen color as a means of personal expression ...

Since that was written, color photography has, as is very evident, become the preferred medium of choice for personal expression. In fact, with yesterday's announced passing of Kodachrome film, color photography has since passed through one era of picture making into another. That is, of course, from film to digital.

Now, I should point out that I don't buy into the notion of the so-called digital revolution. Anyone who thinks or postulates that picture making has changed in any substantive manner with the advent of "digital" is most likely engaged in the business of selling of something "digital".

To be clear, that is not to say that digital tools have not revolutionized the means/tools employed in making pictures because, quite obviously, they have. But ... as just about anyone who is familiar with the history of the medium knows, when it comes to making pictures (with precious few exceptions - there were no electron scanning microscopes or Hubbell telescopes), just about anything that is being created today (in the realm of picture making as art) was being created within the first few decades of the birth of photography.

As an example, the Cinemascapist might be surprised to know that tableaux vivants were being made in droves as early as 1848 and many of those were made by combining several negatives to make a single print. One notable example of this technique - titled combination printing - was Oscar G. Rejlander's The Two Ways of Life (1857). Rejlander, a Swede, painstakingly combined 32 different negatives on a single print - interesting enough for the Cinemascapist, a print that was 31×16 inches.

The picture was entered into the Manchester Art Department Exhibition of 1857 where it was purchased by another amateur photographer, Queen Victoria. It was hailed by critics as "a magnificent picture, decidedly the finest photograph of its class ever produced."

It is also believed that Rejlander introduced Henry Peach Robinson to combination printing, the technique that he used to overcome the "limitations of photography". Robonson's picture, Fading Away (1858), was made from 5 negatives. That picture was not so favorably received by many critics of the day because the subject - dying and despair - were not considered to be suitable subjects for photography.

And, while we're on the subject of "the more things change, the more they remain the same", it should be noted that many thought that Fading Away was made on a single negative. When Robinson later revealed his technique of combination printing "at a meeting of the Photographic Society of Scotland, he was greeted with howls of protest from people who seemed to feel that they had been deceived. There was much discussion about what one correspondent referred to as "Patchwork", rather than composition".

Sound familiar, re: Photoshopping?

BTW, another early use of combination printing was the practice of adding clouds to an otherwise blank sky caused by the picturing methodology characteristics of the day.

All of that said, what I really wanted to note in this entry was another statement by Newhall from his short chapter on color:

The color photographer is faced with many esthetic problems ... [T]he temptation is to chose subjects which are themselves a blaze of color, and to ignore the fact that color is everywhere, and that it is not the colorful subject itself, but the photographer's handling of it,which is creative ... [B]y the nature of his medium, the photographer's vision must be rooted in reality; if he attempts to create his own world of color he faces a double dilemma: his results no longer have that unique quality we can only define as "photographic" ... and he cannot hope to rival the painter with the range of pigments he can place at will upon his canvas ... [O]n the other hand, the painter cannot hope to rival the accuracy, detail, and above all the authenticity of the photograph.

IMO, there it is, the same as it ever was - simply stated, the medium of photography can not be rivaled by any other of the visual arts when it comes to matters of "accuracy, detail, and above all authenticity. The truly "unique quality" of the medium is "rooted in reality".

IMO, those picture makers who choose to ignore or deny this reality regarding the medium's truly unique characteristics are like children playing with finger paints - their picturing results may often amuse or entertain, but they rarely, if ever, illustrate and illuminate anything that isn't obvious or already known.

man & nature # 165 ~ a must read

Just browsing • click to embiggenWith an assist to the wife, this past weekend I came into possession of a very interesting book - The History of Photography ~ from 1839 to the present day • revised and enlarged edition by Beaumont Newhall. The book (the 4th revised and expanded edition) was published by the Museum of Modern Art in collaboration with the George Eastman House. BTW, "the present day" as mentioned in the book's title is 1964.

Beaumont Newhall was a giant in the field of photography. His work as a curator, photo historian / writer, and photographer exerted great influence over the over the medium and its history as we know and practice it today. As the first director of MOMA's photography department as well as the curator / organizer of the first comprehensive retrospective of photography (presented at MOMA in 1937), he was very influential in establishing photography's place in the arts. The book / catalog that accompanied the exhibition, The History of Photography (1839-1937) still remains as one of the best accounts of the history of the medium.

In 1948, after his stint at MOMA, Newhall went on to become curator at the International Museum of Photography at the George Eastman House (1948-1958) after which he became the institution's director until 1971. At GEH he amassed one of the best photography collections in the world.

The book itself is a beauty - both the writing and the pictures (215 pages, 190 photos). I was able (with an assist to the wife) to obtained a copy of the book in very good - excellent condition for the paltry sum of $7 US. A used book search for the title says that a copy of this book - the 4th revised and enlarged edition (hardbound), published in 1964 - in the condition that I have is valued at about $40-100 US so it seems that I got quite a bargain. However, that same search turned up many other examples at much lower prices.

IMO, this book should be on the shelf of any picture maker who is serious about the medium.

civilized ku # 175 ~ the annual Chicktona 500

The home of the Chicktona 500, Upper Jay, NY • click to embiggenSorry for the delay in posting today's entry. Squarespace had trouble with an auxiliary server that made it impossible to create a linked image thumbnail and I did not want to forego the opportunity to introduce you to the Chicktona 500.

man & nature # 164 ~ the door is always open

Cattle pasture and passing van • click to embiggenJust a quick observation regarding photo blogs.

Most, if not all, blogging software allows for Comment Moderation, which gives total control to the moderator / blogger over what gets posted. This feature is often used as a defense against spam but a fair number of bloggers have used it to restrict comments that oppose the prevailing POV of the blog publisher with his/her hand on the mute button. I know this from personal experience, some of it recent.

That said, there is no comment moderation here on The Landscapist. I encourage opposing POV - the more the better, the more passionate the better yet, even if they do include the occasional reference to me as "obnoxious, condescending" and so on.

IMO, it keeps things interesting on several levels. The last thing I am looking for is a legion of fawning slack-jawed sycophants to keep me feeling good.

So, keep those cards and letters coming no matter what you have to say. And I thank you for it.

folios

Rocks & Stones ~ Anil Rao • click to embiggenI haven't posted an entry under the photography of others category in quite a while. That's due in large part to the fact that I haven't been cruising the net looking for stuff in a while. That's because there is so much crap to wade through in order to find some good stuff.

However, one solution that landed on my front porch (via UPS) in a big cardboard box is an idea that I would love to have continue. In that box was a beautiful folio of pictures from long-time Landscapist follower, Anil Rao.

It's appearance on my porch was not a surprise although it was an eagerly anticipated one. Anil had sent me an email offer for the folio which was very generous - basically, it said, "Would you like a free custom made folio of some of my pictures?" Although, it must be said (and I am quite pleased to say) that Anil was making this offer "as a gift and a big-thank you for all the insightful thoughts and encouragement you have provided over the last serveral years."

Anil also stated his reason for making a folio - he wanted a way to showcase his work but didn't think that he was ready to make a book.

That folio itself is quite beautiful. The presentation is simple and elegant. The pictures are printed with Epson Ultrachrome Inks on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag paper and their appearance can only be described as exquisite. Each picture has a title accompanied by picture location and creation date.

Included in the folio is a title sheet, an introduction / artist statement sheet, 10 of Anil's Stone & Rocks prints, and an end sheet with copyright, tech specs, and other info. The overall impression is that of high quality, care, and professionalism.

IMO, the folio is missing but one important touch - archival tissue interleaving between the prints. Archival tissue along with a pair of protective gloves would go a long way in protecting the fragile and easy to smudge print surfaces during both storage and handling. This is especially true in light of the uncoated rag matte paper that Anil has chosen to print on.

Add those 2 times to the mix and you have a print presentation that is completely ready to go.

That said, there is one other issue to consider - how does one view the prints? Do you settle onto a comfortable chair and view it sort of like you would a book - flipping through the prints and turning them over like pages? Do you sit at a table and take them out of the case? Or do you frame a few of your favorites and hang them on a wall?

I bring this issue up for 2 reasons - 1) it seems a shame to keep these pictures "hidden" in a box (albeit a very nice box), and, 2) I have been wrestling with the how-to-display-prints-on-a-wall-without-breaking-the-bank issue for a while. More so since the arrival of my wide-format printer.

One solution that has come to mind is to order up 3-4 medium and 3-4 large frames with glass and backing without any paper seal on the back. By also ordering a dozen uncut matte boards for each size frames, I could easily rotate prints in the frames for viewing. FYI, I like to display prints on the surface of matte board with the print edges showing - no "window" matting. But even this method would run into $1,500 or more - $3,000 or more with Museum Glass.

The other option that I am considering is to hang prints without frames or mounting of any kind. I started doing this (with 24×24 inch prints) a few months ago on the bedroom wall above our bed by just using pushpins on all four corners. It works but it is not the most elegant solution and I wouldn't ever dream of using pushpins on Anil's prints.

So, what I am thinking of at the moment is to make /purchase some picture ledges on which I can place heavyweight acid-free foam board backing with prints affixed (with an archival tape hinge on the print back near the top). In the case of my 24×24 inch prints, I would tape hinge them on 30×30 foam board. To 'dress it up" I will most likely cover the front of the foam board with a white matte surface art paper (edge to edge).

This system will allow me to rotate prints at will (mine and those from others - hint, hint) with a minimum of fuss and muss.

In any event, I wish to express my heart-felt thanks and deep appreciation to Anil for his kind thoughts, consideration, and generosity. The folio is an absolute delight to behold and, one way or another, some of these prints will make their way onto my walls.

And, it is well worth noting that Anil has made this folio available to the public for the amazingly low price of $ 125.00 US. In case you can't do the math, that's only $12.50 US per print - an incredible bargain by any standard. Especially so considering not only the quality of the prints themselves, but also the quality of Anil's pictures (vision). Anil can be contacted through his website

BTW, I am very open to any like-minded similar expressions of thanks.

man & nature # 163 ~ the last of dancing and singing, singing and dancing

Any beer port in a storm • click to embiggenCome rain or come shine, the American Legion, Medos A. Nelson Post 504, Au Sable Forks, NY (just around the corner from my house) is always open for those in need of a bit of relief.

The wife has even gone so far as to suggest that I join the post and campaign for election to the position of Post Commander. After which, my regime would mandate good beer and much younger (and comely) barmaids. Although, that's not where her interests lie - she wants to join the American Legion (women's) Auxiliary so she can get one of those snazzy hats and march in the local Labor Day parade.

That said, with all due respect I must say that the legion post and its members are a valuable community resource and a center for many charitable and social events. Such is the beautiful stuff of everyday life in a small town - bad beer and all.

And, while we're at it, anyone want to debate the concept of "good" and "bad" beer?

man & nature # 162 ~ even more dancing and singing, singing and dancing

Rainy day evening ~ in the gloaming • click to embiggenThe 2 most favored (by me) compliments I receive about my pictures are:

1. Why'd you take a picture of that?

2. You should spend some time with Photoshop and .... (pick one - add contrast, add saturation, punch up the color ...)

And it's a good thing that they are my favorites because I hear / read both of them quite frequently.

My like of comment # 1 stems from the fact that I rarely answer that question immediately which most often leads the inquisitor to start to try and answer it him/her-self. It's fun and oft times amusing - in a very good way - to hear the mental / emotional process involved in trying to figure it out. In short, the picture in question causes them to think and to question and, above all other responses / reactions to my pictures, that's the one I value most.

As you might deduce, comment # 2 comes from other photographers. Most often from those of the "interpretation" school of picture making which places a high degree of emphasis upon a very "perfect" presentation of an idealized world. My delight in answering this question - immediately and on the spot - stems from the fact that I in fact do spend a lot of time with my pictures in RAW Developer and Photoshop with that time spent towards obtaining results that are biased towards the real as opposed to the ideal. FYI, by "ideal" I mean both the photographic (read as "technical") ideal and the idealized view of the natural world.

Today's picture is a case in point. It was made at the end of a rainy day - there was still a light drizzle in the air - at a time when the light was beginning to fade - the gloaming. I was attracted to the dense and "murky wood" feeling created by the lush foliage and the fading light.

My camera produced a RAW file that, when viewed in RAW Delveloper, had too much contrast and somewhat vivid yellows in the greens. So, the emphasis in my processing (in RD and PS) was devoted to reducing contrast - compressing, not expanding the tonal range - and cleaning up the yellow end of things in order to reveal a wealth of different greens.

I mention this in light of yesterday's entry regarding the interpretive crowd and the nearly universal manner in which they "interpret" the gloaming.

When picturing their most favored referent - the glorious grand landscape at dusk / sunset / sunrise - their love of GNDs (graduated neutral density filters) or its HDR / multi exposure blending equivalent is everywhere and readily apparent. The trademark look is one of dramatic skies, color and saturation amped up to 11 on scale of 1-10, and foregrounds that have the appearance of being lit by a gigantic overhead light box of unimaginable proportions - the net effect of which is to brighten and "open up" the foreground to such an extent that it simply looks and feels totally out of character / relationship to the real thing.

Once again, let me state, more power to them. Do what you have to do to keep your boat afloat.

But here's the thing that I know from 30 years experience of using a handheld 1˚ spot light meter for all of my metering needs, 35mm cameras included. The tonal range found in the gloaming is incredibly short. So short in fact that Saint Ansel ushered in a shooting/processing/printing system for BW picturing that, in part, was directed at "correcting" this natural deficiency for BW picturing.

That's because BW picturing relies on the separation of tonal values, obviously not color, to make things "pop". The "murky wood" found in the gloaming would indeed be very murky in a BW picture if some corrective measure were not employed in the BW picture making process.

But we're not talking BW here, we're talking color. And that's where we have an advantage over our BW brethren. The gloaming is most often filled with a wealth of different colors, subtle color to be sure, but nevertheless color which "naturally" makes things "pop".

But, here's one of my big gripes with the interpretive crowd - the word, "subtle", much less a picturing making practice employing such a concept, is just not part of their program. And, as I mentioned yesterday, this could just fall under the heading of "different strokes for different folks", but, once again, I see it quite differently.

Pictures, as even the interpreters state, are indeed an extension / expression of one's mind, heart, and soul. And, therein is where my real gripe is found - we are culture that is now living with the ravages of the avoidance and sublimation of the reality of the real world. The I-see-myself-in-the-big-car-the-big-house-with-the-big-bucks-and-all-the-big-stuff, living large with the life of an American Idol/Idle (and hopefully living large with The Next Supermodel). Ahhh, yes. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

As a culture / society, we have been living a life based on the-next-big-thing as reflected in the stuff we want, the entertainment we pursue, and the idealized version the lifestyles of the rich and famous we chase - I call it a delusional interpretation of the good life. Enough is never enough. Nothing exceeds like excess.

Here's my point - call it entertainment, call it art, call it just fooling around, but the pictures one makes are a reflection of one's self and are made within and reflect the parameters of the cultural /societal paradigm of the moment. IMO, the pictures that come from the interpretive crowd are both a reflection of and an encouragement for the continuation of a cultural / societal paradigm gone bad.

That is why, aside from my preternatural disposition to do so, I choose to picture "a piles of twigs" - like Robert Adams, I believe "that beauty is commonplace" and that it can be found in the mostly unlikely of places - in the so-called mundane, in the so-called commonplace, in the simplest of places and things that make up everyday life. In fact, beauty can be found in what is, for the overwhelming majority, the very fabric of their everyday life on this planet.

IMO, there is something profoundly wrong with a cultural / societal paradigm that preaches the mantra that the very fabric of our daily life is boring / mundane and must be avoided at all costs. And, because I have been taught that everything you do matters because everything is connected, I don't have much respect for pictures that advance that concept of what is essentially an advanced course in extreme self-loathing.

FYI, my problem with the interpretive school is with it as it is most commonly practiced. Obviously there are some from that school who practice good selection and interpretation without resorting to the wretched visual and pictorial excesses employed by the visually illiterate.

man & nature # 161 ~ more dancing and singing, singing and dancing

Creeping foliage on utility pole in the rain • click to embiggenFor the those of you who are relative newcomers to The Landscapist - the recent bump in my stats tell me that you're there - I'd like to use this opportunity* to explain / expand what I'm trying do here.

*this opportunity: is instigated by this comment (from another blog):

The real photographer attempts to capture what he or she visualizes not what he or she sees ... [P]hotography is like any other art form is a visual expression by an individual. Photography has never been pure or exactly what the human eye sees ... [W]ith modern digital cameras and software we finally have the ability to express what we visualise, just like the painter or any other artist.

The comment was left in response to an entry in defense of HDR image rendering techniques wherein the author, Darwin Wiggett, states:

The sooner we accept that photography is an interpretation, the easier it will be to accept interpretative techniques.

BTW & FYI, I have had a number of virtual conversions with Darwin and he has left a few comments on The Landscapist way back in the early days.

Now, before I get to it, let me state clearly what I am not trying to do here on The Landscapist - I am not trying to take away the interpretive practitioner's crayons nor am I trying stamp out all the fun they are having using them. If that's what picture making means to them, they should assemble the largest set of crayons they can find and keep on coloring the world in any way they see fit or, as they say, choose to "interpret" it. Have at it. Go for the gusto, etc.

That said, what am trying to do is provide a venue where those picture makers who are tired of following that escapist / fun-loving herd (or who just don't want to go there from the start) can hear/read a different point of view about the picture making possibilities of the medium of photography.

That said, on with the show ...

The notion that "photography is an interpretation" is a bit of a self-serving justification / rationalization for all kinds of "interpretative" activity and, quite frankly, is only a working definition of the medium for the "real photographer[s] who attempts to capture what he or she visualizes not what he or she sees."

On the other hand, for those picture makers who are more interested in what they see as opposed to what they want to see (visualize), a much more accurate notion of the medium would be that "photography is a representation" of what they (to include me) see. For those picture makers, the act of selecting (what they see) is much more important than the act of "interpreting" (what they see).

Now that difference could be considered to be nothing more than an example of "different strokes for different folks" and, to a certain extent, it is. But - here's the fun part wherein I am going to piss some people off ....

I see the difference between the representation crowd and the interpretation crowd in quite a different manner. IMO, good "selection" beats good "interpretation" hands down any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Why so? OK, you've made it this far so hold on tight ...

Simply stated, so-called "interpretation" is the lazy person's way of trying to make an interesting picture.

The interpretation crowd is very bad at selection - all they ever seem to select is the same old referent - one variant or another of the "grand and glorious" landscape (over and over and over again) - as a kind of picture putty onto which they can apply their interpretation - an interpretation that relies almost exclusively on technique. As the commenter stated, the interpreters rely on "modern digital cameras and software ... to express" themselves.

To my eye and sensibilities, this "interpretive" approach to the medium is somewhat wanting.

To wit, the layering on of technique during the picture making process is, quite simply, an attempt to mask the failings of an inferior ability to see selectively.

To wit, when it comes to picture making, seeing selectively is far and away the most difficult thing to accomplish.

To wit:

... eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that REAL photography starts and most photographers quit. ~ Brooks Jensen

FYI, that's my emphasis on the last sentence and the word "real" because I completely agree with Jensen - this is the point at which "real photographers" begin to explore the real/ greater possibilities inherent in the medium of photography.

To wit:

Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace. ~ Robert Adams, from Beauty In Photography

And, yo - interpreters, riddle me this - Why is it that every picture I see that is made by a self-proclaimed interpreter - who claims to be following their very own personal visualization - looks exactly like every other picture that I see made by all the other interpreters?

Could it be because of a severely limited selection of referents together with the application of a de rigueur palette of techniques?

Could it be the shortage of real imagination amongst the ranks of interpretive crowd and a return to the good old days of Pictorialism seems like good idea?

Or, is it that am I at fault here with my respect for and adherence to the medium's unique characteristic (the one that truly distinguishes it from the other Visual Arts) - its inherent and inimitable characteristic as cohort with reality?