man & nature # 157 ~ a question for y'all

Rustic checker board and table • click to embiggenI'm sitting here on the front porch thinking and a wondering and it's occurred to me that, more than once, I have read / heard the phrase, "mind's eye". Way more often than not, photography-wise, it's used in a manner like:

... the making of the final image is to replicate what the photographer saw in their mind’s eye ...

I must admit that I have no idea what that notion means - primarily attributable to the fact that, when I'm picturing, my mind is "seeing" exactly what the eyes in the front of my face are seeing. Add to that the fact that I try to keep my mind as quite as possible when picturing in order to be receptive as possible, I am truly at a loss as to what the "mind's eye" is (as used above).

This is very different from my experience when looking at pictures, especially so when I am confronted by interesting pictures. At that time, the picture in question causes my "mind's eye" to "see" all manner of associated pictures that reside completely in my head. Much more often than not, interesting pictures also instigate other physical senses with imaginary responses - I can smell the earth, I can feel the heat, and, on some occasions, I can actually feels like I'm standing right in the picture maker's shoes.

So, that said, I definitely have a "mind's eye", in fact, it's a very active one. It's just that it goes to sleep when I'm picturing.

Now, lest I be accused of being disingenuous re: the aforementioned "replicate what the photographer saw in their mind's eye", I suspect that at least one meaning of that phrase as used in that statement is the notion of the photographic modus operandi of preconception or pre-visualization. An idea that I understand to mean that one pictures with the notion of the resultant / desired print as a guiding determinate.

But, beyond that guess, I am at a loss to divine any additional meanings.

So, therein is my question - does anyone out there understand the idea of the "mind's eye", especially as it is used in the aforementioned statement? Does it have meaning for anyone out there, re: your picture making?

FYI, this is a sincere question. I am genuinely interested in honest responses.

man & nature # 156 ~ chance rewards the prepared

The ever-elusive Great Northern Chairball • click to embiggenWith all due respect to the wife's comment about "be there", I feel compelled to mention that other school of picture making - f8 and work your ass off.

Not all pictures are the result of just being there. Some require much pre-planning, lots of local / locale knowledge, patience, and hard work. Wildlife photography as well as chasing-the-light landscape picture making come to mind as examples of such. Scouting locations, reading weather reports, knowing the habits and habitats of your prey - animate and in animate - are all part of the deal. And then, even after careful planning and prep, getting the shot still requires a nearly endless supply of patience as well as a heap of stick-to-it-iveness.

Such was exactly the case with my near decade-long pursuit of the perfect Great Northern Chairball picture.

I have been trying without any success to get a good look at this elusive creature, much less a picture of him/her (sex identification is difficult to determine without an autopsy), for going on 10 years. Until last evening, all I had managed was a fleeting and serendipitous glimpse of one scurrying (rolling? tumbling?) across a roadside clearing. Before I could stop the car it had disappeared into the forest.

That's when I knew that I had to have a plan.

After spending quite a bit of time trolling online Great Northern Chairball message boards, I discovered that these creatures have quite an appetite for, quite naturally, upholstery. That made perfect sense - in no small part because my only sighting had happened just down the road from an upholstery repair shop.

So, a plan was hatched. I could do one of 2 things; 1) my camera kit could include bits and pieces of scrap upholstery with which I could bait my prey, or, 2) I could identify the location of upholstery shops in my area - which are nearly as rare as the creature I was stalking - and, when the light and conditions were right, I could lie in wait for my prey in a portable upholstery blind.

Over the years I gave both ideas a try, once again, without any luck at all. Although, it should be noted that the techniques did show some promise for success. On a few occasions, I did hear some distinct creaking off in the distance which, thanks to info on the message boards, I knew to be sure signs of a foraging chairball.

And that's when it occurred to me - why not set out some upholstery bait and set up an upholstery blind at the same time? Sometimes the obvious answer only becomes obvious once it has become all too obvious.

So, 2 days ago, when the light was expected to be just right for the following couple of days (I knew all about the right light from trolling online photo forums), I set out my bait and set up my blind next to the dumpster at the upholstery shop in Upper Jay. A place, where just a week or so ago, there was a reported chairball-car near collision. I figured it was best to give my prey a bit of time to get comfortable with the set up.

an aside: Why Upper Jay, which is comprised of a church, a post office, a library, a motel, and a dozen houses and is in the middle of nowhere - its picture is in the dictionary under the phrase, blink-and-you'll-miss-it - has an upholstery shop is a real mystery, but that's a story for another day.

In any event, last evening there was an air of expectancy in the air so I set out with my carefully selected the-camera-matters gear, climbed into the blind ) after freshening up the bait and slathering on a thick layer of gooey Chairball-Stop Scent - $50 for a 6 oz. bottle, available in fine upholstery shops everywhere), and settled in for the kill.

Much to my surprise and utter delight, within less than 10 minutes, the creaking sounds of a chairball on the hunt reached my ears and a very short time after that, he/she made its appearance. I was so excited and surprised that an involuntary "WOW" escaped form my lips whereupon the wily and cautious chairball immediately froze in its tracks - no doubt, trying to blend into the scenery - a mere 10-12 feet from my blind. It remained still for 10-20 seconds and I was able to capture the picture that you see here.

However, the sound of my dslr shutter/mirror scared the daylights out the chairball and it disappeared from sight in a flash accompanied by the rattling and clanking of a Great Northern Chairball in full flight. Very exciting to say the least. In hindsight, I probably should have used the classic and much more quiet Leica M6 (and BW film). The Great Northern Chairball seems to be as sensitive to and quite touchy about the sound of mirror slap as a PGA golfer in mid-swing.

So, sure enough, you've got to "be there" but, remember, do your homework and be prepared. It's not all just about f8 and be there.

FYI & BTW, I am so enamored of the Great Northern Chairball that next time I'm bringing along a nail gun. I really want to have one these beautiful creatures stuffed and mounted for display. I'm thinking either on the front lawn or, better yet, on the roof of my car (it's way too big for a hood ornament .... although, there's always a Great Northern Chairball chick ...)

Update on Friday, June 12, 2009 at 10:12AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jimmi Nuffin wrote: "3 Chairs for you!!… On capturing this photo. I have read somewhere that in order to track a chairball, that you should look for its stool."

my response: Damn, I wish I had thought of that one.

ku # 606 ~ big sky

Bright cloud over Vermont ~ northern Lake Champlain • click to embiggenThe other day the wife left a comment that stated that it's all just "f8 and be there", to which I dedicate this picture. I did picture it @ f8 and, as luck would have it, I was there - along Lake Champlain near the Au Sable Point marshes - at the same time as that brilliant white cloud over Vermont's Green Mountains.

man & nature # 155 ~ they're missing the point

Stairway, trees, and The Olympic Arena - Lake Placid, NY • click to embiggenA recently coined photo "true-ism" is making its way around photography blogs / sites as ... well ... some sort of photo wisdom / truth. It goes like this:

ITEM # 1 - Cameras don't take pictures, true; but then, people don't take pictures either. People with cameras take pictures.

Duh. Absolutely brilliant. The powers of observation, logic, and rational deduction involved in coming to this momentous insight stagger the thinking mind. Pure, unadulterated genius at work.

Other geniuses have picked up on this stunning insight and added their own $0.0000000000000002:

ITEM # 2 - Good artists get the best out of their tools. When given better tools, they produce even better work ... [I]’ve heard a lot of pundits say It’s the photographer, not the camera, but I know that’s just baloney. I know that when I’m working with defective or limited tools, I can’t produce my best. Maybe that’s why I’m so fussy about my gear ....

re: ITEM # 1 - People with cameras take pictures. If I were climb up onto the roof of my house in my little town with 4 gigantic amplified horn-stlye speakers and start singing the theme song from the Beverly Hillbillies TV show, there would undoubtedly be a significant number of people within the sound of my voice with cameras who take pictures. Ok. Sure. Of course people use cameras and not, say, toasters, to take pictures. And, in the event that I actually sang from the roof of house, they might actually be taking pictures of me.

But, here's my question - so what? What the hell does that prove re: making good pictures?

Any photo half-wit can buy a camera and take pictures. And, most likely, a whole host of photo half-wits will take pictures that will have meaning / are good for them. For the rest of us, not so much. And, guess what? The camera they use simply doesn't matter. Given any camera the results will essentially be the same ... that is to say, pictures that have little meaning or value to anyone beyond the picture maker's friends and family cellphone network.

Caveat: Once again, let me be perfectly clear - good for them in their picture making endeavors. I'm 100% sincere in saying that I am happy that they are able to take pictures that help give their lives meaning and value. Got it?

However, using that notion to state that the "camera matters" is ludicrous. The primary manner in which the camera matters for most people is as a lifestyle accessory - my camera has 12,000,000,000mp, my camera has 3,000-1 zoom lens, my camera is big and black, my camera has soooo much DR that I can picture black turds coming out of a back-lit black rat's ass on a field of pure-driven snow, my camera takes such sharp pictures that I use them to shave my legs .... etc., etc., ad nauseum.

re: ITEM # 2: I’ve heard a lot of pundits say It’s the photographer, not the camera, but I know that’s just baloney - If there is anyone out there within the sound of my blog who has been pining for a s**t-for-brains baloney sandwich piled a foot high with slices of baloney, your dreams have been answered with that pile of steaming hooey.

Simply put, that statement is utterly and completely contra-indicted by the entire history of the medium of photography. Great photographers have made great pictures for over a century and a half with all kinds of "inferior" tools. That baloney-filled idea could have only been made by someone who follows that statement with, in fact, the one that actually followed it:

Maybe that’s why I’m so fussy about my gear ...

Hey, photo half-wit, listen up - fuss about your gear all you want. If it is not the right gear for the desired result, all you're going to accomplish is to make "state-of-the-mechanical-art" pictures of a fuzzy concept (to paraphrase Saint Ansel) because, since its inception, the history of the medium has demonstrated that it's the people using the camera that really matter.

A camera, including the "best tool" cameras, are totally inanimate machines. Without human intervention, nothing happens. They just sit there like a dumb-ass lump of coal. It takes a human brain-powered operator to get anything out of them and it doesn't take a genius to recognize that the better the brain-power employed in their use, the better the results will be.

Fussy gearheads can try to mask their lack of creativity, inventiveness, insight, sensitivity, curiosity, thoughtfulness and the like behind the glossy veneer of so-called technical superiority from now until hell freezes over (in gear speak, that would next week - when the next "best tools" are introduced), but the rest us see through your brain like we see through the water that runs down our drain, so to speak.

At its most elementary level, when it comes to making good pictures, the adage - garbage in, garbage out - is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And the best cameras in the universal can not change that fact. Not one single bit.

If your best tool isn't your brain, your heart, and your soul, you're just tooling around in a medium that has so much more to offer.

Caveat # 2: If being fussy about your gear is what floats your photo boat, may you joyfully bob forever on the jolly seas of that ocean. Seriously and sincerely. Enjoy yourself to the fullest. I really mean it.

But, please, give the rest of us, especially those just setting out from the dock, a break from the "it takes good gear to take good pictures" drumbeat. Unless, of course, your mission in life is to sell gear because, in that instance, I guess that you just gotta do what you just gotta do to make a buck.

picture window # 22 ~ he is, quite simply, wrong

Exit ~ Binghamton Regency Hotel - Binghamton, NY • click to embiggenBlake Andrews left this comment on hardscapes # 4:

I can only speak from my own experience. My ability to see photographically was greatly helped when I began using a simple rangefinder with fixed 35 mm lens. Based on my personal experience, I would agree with Mike in advocating this as the best tool for learning photographic seeing.

Lest it be thought that I have an issue with 1 camera, 1 lens, 1 media approach to seeing, let me set the record straight - I do not.

In fact, virtually all of my digital-domain ku and my pre-digital film pictures were/are created with a single camera, a single lens, and a single media. To be precise, all of my personal work, film-era wise, was created with an 8×10 view camera, a 10-inch Kodak Commercial Ektar lens, and Kodak Type L 8×10 sheet film. My digital-domain gear is a classic 35mm-style body (2), a short (2-1) WA zoom (22-44mm 35mm equiv.) or a fixed focal length (21mm 35mm equiv.) WA lens (depending on which camera body is used), and RAW image capture.

For those who like to nitpick, re: the short WA zoom is not a "single" lens - 90% of my ku are created at or very near the 22mm end of the zoom range because I use my feet, not the zoom, to get closer to my subjects. And, my RAW processing is always based on the "same" parameters - normal / neutral color, contrast, and saturation which is about as close as you can get to a single "standard" film stock in the digital domain.

It should also be noted that I have on many occasions, both on The Landscapist and in the real world, advocated the 1 camera, 1 lens, 1 media approach to picturing as a cure•all-for-what-ails-you for those afflicted with Gear Disease. What I have not done re: that notion is to advocate its implementation as a method for learning what to see or even how to see.

I stand resolutely foursquare in my belief that, when it comes to making good pictures - that is to say, pictures wherein content (both pictured and implied), discovering your passion for what to picture is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No camera or picturing methodology can do that for you.

Simply put, personal vision is the horse that drives the cart. Find your passion for what to picture and the technique to do so will follow in its hoof beats. It really is that simple.

And here's what the "teachers" don't want you to know - you can do it all, all by your lonesome.

In fact, without a doubt, you are the only one who can discover your passion for what to picture. That assumes, of course, that you are not a Spo'da (what I spo'da do massa?) and that you can actually think for yourself.

As for the gear / technique / technicals, here's a news flash - it ain't rocket science folks. Not by a long shot. It's as simple as you want to make it. To wit, you do not need to know everything there is to know on the subject.

What you need to know is exactly what you need to know in order to do in order to do what you want to do. No more, no less. How do you know what you need to know? Figure out what you want to picture first and the answer will be incredibly obvious.

How do you learn how to do it? The answer is very simple - experiment with the tools and techniques at your disposal. Got questions? One-word answer - Google. Two-word answer - google it. Multi-word answer - google it and then just do it. For the old-timey advocates in the crowd, it goes like this - One-word answer - books. Two-word answer - read books. Multi-word answer - read books and then just do it. And then there's always the modern way to do it - use Google to find books.

The key word in all of this is "simple". Keep it all as simple as possible.

If you have a dslr, buy a soldering iron and solder the mode selector dial to "M" (manual). Pick an ISO and set it. Select "Daylight" WB and set it. Select RAW as the file type and set it. Then, turn off the Info Screen and leave it off (for a year?). Then, start making pictures. And, if you really want to simulate the old-timey way of doing things, never engage in the practice of chimping.

Next, go into the darkroom (a photo editing software of your choosing), turn down the lights (the idea of working in the digital darkroom using only traditional darkroom "safe"lights is not as goofy as it might sound), and process your pictures. And, despite what most people think, this is where it gets incredibly easy and simple because, unlike film processing, you can never permanently screw it up.

Once you process film, you have to live with what you've got - there is no going back. In the digital darkroom, if you "screw it up", you can always start again and try something completely different. Unless you're a digital dumbass and overwrite the original RAW file, the original is always there for you to process again, and again, and again and .... until you've got it right. And chances are very good that once you have it "right", you've "discovered" how to do it and for, the most part, you will continue to use that how to do it as your "standard" processing.

Now, all of that said, here's where I think Johnson has it wrong, or, if you prefer, has it right only as far as he goes. The simple process of picturing and processing that I have just described is the digital domain process equivalent of exactly the same process that he has suggested in the old-timey domain. And, despite his seemingly apparent sentimental attachment to old-timey methodology, no matter which domain you choose, the idea is exactly the same - set it and forget it. Minimize the gear / technicals and get on with the process of exploring your passion.

And, duh - there is a difference in the physical / tactile experiences between digital and analog picturing, more so in the darkroom experience than the camera experience (given the set-it-and-forget-it, no-chimping-allowed method). But, IMO, the mental exercise / disicpline involved with either domain is nearly identical.

However, IMO and that of many others, How you do it can only be "discovered" after you "discover" What you want to do.

In closing, consider this:

The traditional difficulty of balancing the mechanical with the imaginative schools of photography still operates. In schools of photography meaningful art education is often lacking and on the strength of their technical ability alone students, deprived of a richer artistic training, are sent forth inculcated with the belief that they are creative photographers and artists. It is yet a fact that today, as in the past, the most inspiring and provocative works in photography come as much (and probably more) from those who are in the first place artists. - Aaron Scharf

man & nature # 154 ~ "advice" continued

Tree, garden hose, fallen blossoms • click to embiggenHere's a fact, at least it has been stated as such - the blog/website T.O.P. has a readership of about 30,000 or so a day. That number certainly indicates that T.O.P. has tapped into a need /desire for something related to photography and, IMO, I believe that that "something" is business "as usual", especially so as the site has adopted a more commercial slant over the past half year or so.

Caveat: have no doubt about it, everyone has to make a living and I would not fault Mike Johnston for his efforts in the name of making a buck from T.O.P. Nope, no problem with goal that at all. None. Zip. Nada.

The business-as-usual activity that I am referring to is that of trying to teach things photographic by centering the discussion around matters of gear, technique, and technical considerations. And, what is even more deleterious to the idea of making good pictures, that teaching theory is based on the premise that, as Johnston has clearly stated:

Most photo hobbyists don't have anything like that degree of talent.

FYI, he was speaking about my son, The Cinemascapist. And, he's absolutely right about that fact but .... the conclusion that he seems to come from that statement is that "most photo hobbyists" need to be taught that the medium of photography is great entertainment, a very pleasant way to pass the time - not only by making "pleasing" pictures but also by discussing gear and techniques.

CAVEAT # 2: Unfortunately,for the cause of making good pictures, he's right on the mark, and, CAVEAT # 2A: if that's what floats your boat, photography-wise, you should have as much fun as you possibly can squeeze out of that approach to making pictures. Seriously, I really, really, really mean that. OK?

But, here's what totally rubs me the wrong way about that thinking - lurking amongst all of those photo hobbyists are some with real "talent", as well as many of "lesser" talent, and they are looking for ways to learn and develop that talent. But, I can't help but wonder how much time is lost and, to a very real extent, wasted by getting caught up in business-as-usual advice / teaching about the medium of photography.

Case in point: In defense of business-as-usual, re: teaching photography, one comment on T.O.P. went like this:

I teach photography at an art school ... [T]he first year of the three year program has them shooting monochrome, developing and printing. We recommend totally manual cameras with a 50mm prime ... [S]econd semester tranny [transparencies] is introduced to teach them a little more about exposure and composition ... [O]h, and second year it's all 5×4 transparency in the studio and on location ... [A]t the end of the first year they have to produce a portfolio of 16 B&W prints of professional standard.

Ignoring the fact that institutions of higher learning have a financial interest in stretching out tuition-paid learning as long as they can, here's what I have learned about that style of teaching - institutions of higher photographic learning have a miserable record of preparing graduates to actually make a living making pictures. One such highly regarded institution had a record (the last time I checked), 5 years after graduation, of only 3 graduates (of 150) making a living making pictures.

I had the opportunity to view many of the "professional-standard" portfolios produced by the graduating students of this institution and, indeed, they were all "professional-standard" quality when it came to technique and print making. Unfortunately (for the students), most of them were downright awful, when it came to content. I would even go as far as to say "pathetic", especially so when judged against the time and money spent on the learning process.

All of that said, let me be clear about this. The poor graduate employment record is undoubtedly the result of many factors other than business-as-usual teaching practices - students who shouldn't have been there in the first place, a very competitive employment marketplace, etc.

However, IMO, that graduate-to-employment ratio would be favorably impacted by addressing the fact that good picture making is, first and foremost, about the process of selection regarding what to picture, not about the process of selection regarding what gear to use / technique to picture with.

Why do I come to that conclusion? It's really quite simple but it's something that "educators" don't want to talk about. In my experience, whether your goal as a picture maker is to be a professional / commercial shooter or a Fine Artist, I can guarantee one thing (the thing that educators don't want to talk about) - the "buyers" of such "commodities" don't give a tinker's damn about your education or your technical expertise. What they care about is the pictures and what they say.