civilized ku # 164 ~ in the sink

Pickled beet juice in the sink • click to embiggen

ku # 557 ~ and they taste good too

Where we get our beef • click to embiggenThis past weekend was delightful. On Saturday it was shirtsleeve weather and Hugo and I got out and about to do a picture project - Things That Emerge From Under the Snow.

The idea was inspired by Saturday's Coming to the surface picture which was made Saturday morning as a one-off picture. However, after processing it, I realized that with a spring-like melt going on there was probably a lot of stuff coming to the surface. So, off we went and in the span of about 2 hours we found a veritable gold mine of things that were coming to (or at) the surface.

It occurred to me as I was picturing away that I was accomplishing exactly what you are not suppose to do for the SoFoBoMo project - I was making enough pictures in an afternoon to make a photo book.

And here's the thing about that - it sure seemed on Saturday that picturing things that were coming to surface was going to be limited to an afternoon. The snow was disappearing fast and later that day, and all through the night, it rained steadily. By Sunday morning, virtually all the snow was gone except for those gargantuan piles of plowed snow.

The point of the matter is that given a little inspiration and a window of opportunity it really doesn't take very long - an afternoon will do - to create an interesting (IMO) mini-body of work that is photo book worthy. It made me think that it would fun to organize a SoFoBoDa project.

In any event, I am currently processing about 20-25 pictures of things coming to (or at) the surface. I start posting them tomorrow. That said, as I sit here at my computer we're getting about 5" of new snow ....

FYI, on Sunday we took Hugo up to the farm for a barnyard stroll and to pick up a 1/4 of a cow - a portion of which we had for Sunday dinner.

man & nature # 104 ~ spring revealed submersibles

Coming to the surface • click to embiggenYesterday's topic induced a fit (albeit a small fit) of gearheadedness in Mary Dennis. You remember Mary - she's the loopy guilt-ridden liberal - ;-) - who has taken the entire weight of the economic mess on her shoulders because she "likes her stuff". Well, this time around she can, at the very least, rationalize getting some more stuff under the heading of "economic stimulus".

It seems that Olympus' has

definitely got me thinking ... that nice little swivel LCD screen that I am personally very fond of ... it (the upcoming E-620) lets you choose a square (6:6) aspect ratio ...[I]s that a first for a DSLR?

Mary is no stranger to square and to answer her question - I do believe that the Olympus in-camera choice of multiple aspect ratios is not a first for dslrs in that the recently introduced Olympus E-30 has the same feature. I like the idea of in-camera square picturing if no other reason than I can pack considerably more image files on my memory card and on my various hard drives.

I have been pondering the purchase of an E-30 but the new E-620 throws a new consideration into the mix. Both use the same 12mp sensor and processing engine but the E-620 puts it in a smaller package at nearly half the price of the E-30. I also like the fact that there is a battery grip for the E-620 - with it the camera feels better in my hands, especially so with long/tele lenses.

IMO, the E-620 would my a great second / backup camera to my E-3 although ... if I really want to do it right, it may be time to dump the E-3 and replace it with an E-30. That way no matter which camera I bring to my eye, they will both have the same sensor and processing engine thus making the E-620 a truly interchangeable backup.

Ok. Enough with the gear-talk.

If you're looking for some entertaining reading, you might try this piece - “Truth is Beauty”, and Other Fairy Tales from The Landscapist's resident contrarian. It's a real hammer-and-tong broadside and Paul Maxim pulls no punches. Consider this:

This is bullshit! It’s a goddamned fairy tale! This is Rush Limbaugh style, cockamamie nonsense!

FYI, this is exactly the type of commentary/ feedback I look for regarding my entries. Especially so when it comes from someone who considers me to be "someone, whom we all know and love..."

man & nature # 103 ~ camera maker pokes sharp stick in eyes of pixel peepers

Car in late day spring fog • click to embiggenHoly s**t. I never thought that I would live to see the day when anyone in the tech sector say "enough is enough".

However, lo and behold, none other than Akira Watanabe, leader of Olympus' SLR planning department, has declared:

Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need ... We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System ... We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models.

Instead, Watanab said Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting.

Halle-f**king-lujah!!!!

Something along the order of sanity reigns at Olympus. That's more than enough to make me want to go out and buy into the Olympus system ... no ... wait a minute ... I already have 3 Oly bodies (2 of which have been donated to the Cinemascapist cause) and 4 Oly lenses. Wow. I just knew that my visionary decision to go Olympus when I moved into the dslr ranks was a good one.

All of that said, here's the thing about my current Oly body - a 10mp E3. As most of you know, I have been regularly making 24×24 inch prints from the 10mp files made with that camera. The prints are no-excuses-needed stunningly very nice. IMO, based on 40 years experience in the picturing business, is that they rival, in look and quality, prints made from 2 1/4 (120) film based cameras. Maybe, just maybe, a tad better in some respects.

What they are not is that they are not the pinnacle of absolute sharpness that is possible from APS-sized sensor cameras. However, I don't see this as a deficiency because, when viewed at a proper distance - the distance from which a viewer can see and get the whole picture - or even at a closer distance that is outside of pixel-peeping range, the prints are way more than sharp enough.

That is to say (and not damning with faint praise) that the prints are very sharp - just not as sharp as the current state of the art for non full-frame sensors.

BUT, here's the most important thing - the look and feel of the prints is ideally suited to visually complimenting / supporting what I am trying to say with my pictures.

Here's how I look at it - I think of my Oly as my medium format camera (as judged by traditional analog photography standards). I think of my Pentax K20D as my 4×5-8×10ish view camera (as judged by traditional analog photography standards). If I were to own a FF sensor camera, I would probably have to think of it as something beyond being able to be judged by traditional analog photography standards. Each of these "formats" (all of which are delivered in traditional analog 35mm camera bodies) deliver different-from-one-another look and feel prints.

To my eyes and my sensibilities, each sensor format when printed at 13"×19" and larger presents a different enough visual impression that it can effect an astute viewer's perception - visual and intellectual / emotional - of a picture.

Without getting too in-depth, I look at the difference this way - the smaller sensor format's visual footprint suits the making of pictures that are more "spontaneous" or "casual" in nature or, at least, where the intent is for them to appear to be so. The larger sensor format's look and feel is more suited to making pictures that are more "formal" in nature - pictures that are or appear to be more "studied" in both their making and their meaning(s).

In actual picture terms, think of it as the difference between, as an example, the landscape pictures of the Landscapist and those of Ansel Adams. Or, as the difference between the tableuax vivants pictures of the Cinemascapist and those of Gregory Crewdson.

IMO, the point that the pixel-peeper idiots miss is that, sure enough, sensor size matters - each delivers a different look and feel in pretty much the same manner as different film format cameras did/do - but, choosing to use one sensor format or another should be a matter of using those those differences as determined by what you are trying to express, not whether one sensor format or another is better based on tech specs.

At times, bigger is better, more dynamic range is better, more sharpness is better, and so on. But, at other times, it simply isn't so. IMO, the choice of which way to go all depends on using the tool that gets the results you want/need in order to say what you want to say.

That's the reason that commercial photogs, especially those in the cosmetics world, who need pictures of eyelashes, hair, skin, etc. to be smooth as silk and sharp as a tack, won't even touch a FF-sensor 20mp+ Nikon / Canon / Sony camera. The look and feel they need can only be had by using medium format 40mp+ cameras.

BTW & FYI, one more reason I applaud this 12mp limit idea is that everything I use to process and print 10-14mp picture files - my computer (AKA, my image processing power), my RAM, my hard drive space for storage, my memory cards, etc. - is currently operating at peak efficiency. If I were to move to the next level of mp files (20mp and up), everything would have to change. And, of course, all of those changes would come at great expense and, I would guarantee, at great aggravation as well.

So, kudos to Olympus for putting on the brakes. And I'll be acquiring one of their 12mp bodies soon enough.

pretty decay

Decay still life ~ scanner photography • click to embiggenA few years back I started a decay project that I let slide. It involved finding dead/decaying things from the world of nature, bringing them into the house, and scanning them on my scanner.

As you may be able to discern from these scanner pictures, I did not rely solely upon the scanner for light. The things were given a bit of accent lighting from my studio strobe modeling lights. The black background was, in fact, a large piece of black foamcore mount board that was suspended above the scanner.

Decay still life ~ scanner photography • click to embiggenThe thing about scanner pictures is the stunning amount of detail that can be had. And, if you scan at 2400dpi, the amount of enlargement that is possible is also rather stunning.

The biggest PITA though is dust - every single speck on the scanning surface is recorded in faithful detail. The only thing that saved me from going nuts with all the dust removal was the black background - I was able to select all the black with the Magic Wand and use the Despeckle function to deal with it rather easily.

In any event, once the snow is gone, I'm out the door scavenging for more scanner photography subject matter.

Have any of you every played with scanner photography?

FYI

For those who are interested and don't know about it, Shutterfly is running a 20% off sale on photo books through March 10th. They are also throwing in 2 free 8×10 prints to the offer.

If you don't know about this, it's because you have not signed up for a free account at Shutterfly. If you had, you would have received an email from them about this offer.

If you haven't signed up and are interested in making photo books, use the link at the top of the right column and sign up - The Landscapist receives a small commission on all your transactions at Shutterfly if you do. I mean, what the hell, since I bust my ass almost everyday for you here on The Landscapist, I think it's only fair and just that you help stimulate my economy just a little bit.

man & nature # 102 ~ the cruel

Window ice after a storm • click to embiggenRelative to the last entry and the idea of "nameless and commonplace", I like these words from James Agee:

In the immediate world, everything is to be discerned..with the whole of consciousness, seeking to perceive it as it stands: so that the aspect of a street in sunlight can roar in the heart of itself as a symphony, perhaps as no symphony can: and all consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is.

I absolutely love the phrase, "the cruel radiance of what is". It speaks to me of the real stripped of myth, dogma, and the fanciful - the world as viewed in the cold hard light of day. As most who have followed The Landscapist know, I am quite a devotee (in my picturing and in my life) of "the real" as viewed in the cold hard light of day. Which is why I also take a certain form of delight in Agee's view of picturing:

The camera seems to me, next to unassisted and weaponless consciousness, the central instrument of our time.

IMO, there can little doubt that Agee felt this way about "the camera" as a result of his close friendship, association, and collaborations with Walker Evans, one the first and foremost practitioners of picturing and revealing "the cruel radiance of (the) what is" of his time.

It is no coincidence that Walker's pictures were described as the genesis of the notion of artless art. IMO, and that of many others, he was the first to practice on a grand scale the idea of straight picturing - that is, simple direct seeing unaffected by the conventions and mores of Art. The objective being to just show what things look like.

an aside - the idea of artless Art - that which ignores the conventions and mores of Art - has, of course, evolved into conventions and mores in its own right.

But here's the thing about pictures that illustrate and illuminate "the cruel radiance of what is" -

Most seem to perceive such pictures with an emphasis upon the notion of cruel. That such pictures are "cold", "heartless", and very often "depressing". And, in fact, sometimes and in some cases, they are cold, heartless, and very often depressing. But, in most cases, I don't see them that way.

To my sense and sensibilities, they are "cruel" only in the sense that pictures, which depict the cruel radiance of what is, leave us with no place to hide - that is, they most often strip away all of the notions of myth, dogma, and the fanciful in/with which we all take refuge from the inconvenient truths of the real world.

IMO, pictures that strip away all of the notions of myth, dogma, and the fanciful are, indeed, beautiful. I truly and deeply believe in what it says at the top of this browser window - photography that aims at being true, not a being beautiful, because what is true is most often beautiful.

I truly and deeply believe in making pictures that strip away all of the notions of myth, dogma, and the fanciful because:

If the proper goal of art is, is as I now believe, Beauty, the Beauty that concerns me most is that of Form. Beauty is, in my view, a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life. ~ Robert Adams

It may seem very contradictory (to the notion of "cruel") that I agree with Robert Adams when he writes about singularity of Hopper's influence (whose work typically illustrated and illuminated the "cruel" notions of isolation and loneliness in America) when he states that it was Hopper who enabled his artistic realization that:

One did not need to be ashamed of having a heart

I agree with this idea of "heart" because I always strive to make pictures with a heart and from my heart. And, I truly believe that pictures with/from a heart are inherently beautiful and, at their root, are filled with the hope of recognizing and realizing the coherence and structure underlying life.

IMO, and to my eye and sensibilities, pictures that point to the cruel radiance of what is are pictures that point to truth. And truth, while it may be hard and inconvenient to swallow, is never cruel.

As far as I am concerned, the only pictures that are cruel are those fanciful creations that ignore the cruel radiance of what is, and, consequently, give rise to false hope. Those pictures, when viewed in the cold hard light of day, would most commonly be labeled as lies.

man & nature # 101 ~ the most influential photog of the 20th century (who never made a photograph)

Horse corral at dusk • click to embiggenThere was an interesting article in the Arts&LEISURE section of yesterday's (Sunday) edition of the NY Times. The title was Images Separated At Birth?

The article was an overview of a show (and its premise), EDWARD HOPPER & COMPANY at the Fraenkel Gallery in San Francisco (5 March - 2 May). Unfortunately, it seems that the article is not online so I'll provide a brief synopsis.

The exhibit presents 10 painting by Edward Hopper side-by-side with prints by 8 prominent photographers - Robert Adams, Diane Arbus, Harry Callahan, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, William Eggelston, and Walker Evans - under the premise that Hopper's painting were very influential on modern photography. Hence the idea that he "could claim to be the most influential American photographer of the 20th century - even though he didn't take any photographs" (from the British author, Geoff Dyer).

What the exhibit explores is "What we see in Hopper's paintings when we look at them through the lens of photography, and how, in turn, the language of photography was influenced by Hopper's work." The exhibit currator, Jeffery Frankel, writes in his introduction:

More than almost any American Artist, Hopper has a pervasice impact on the way we see the world - so pervasive as to be almost invisible. The photographs that follow are potent evidence of his legacy, each a revelation of how medium one might point to unimagined new possibilities for another.

I find this to be very interesting stuff, in part because Hopper and all of the 8 photographers have certainly had an influence on my picturing aesthetic. While not all the photographers express any direct association with Hopper's work, a few - especially Shore and Adams - openly admit to a deep respect and appreciation of his work. Not so much the visual specifics of his paintings (although both mention his use of light) but rather the aesthetic sensibilities thereof. This from Robert Adams:

A painter like Hopper is so powerful because his scenes are so nameless and commonplace that we tend to find them boring and dismiss them in our own lives but Hopper brings us back to them. (my emphasis)

Hmmmm ... nameless and commonplace = boring ... where have I heard that before. Wait ... let me think ... oh yeh, that's right, I've heard it about 7 gazillion times from the pretty picture crowd. Not only regarding my own pictures but about just about every mid-late 20th century Artist who uses a camera/photography.

Now, I'll admit the obvious here - I have railed against the work of the pretty picture crowd for quite some time - many might say up to and beyond the point of ad nauseum. But, I have always stopped short (by the skin of my teeth) of outright attacks upon the pretty picture makers themselves. However, once again admitting the rather obvious, an attack upon one's art is most likely to be considered an attack upon the values and sensibilities of the artist him/herself.

It should be noted, however, that I detest the sin, not the sinner. To paraphrase a common adage - many of my friends are sinners. And I am operating under no delusions here - I am certain that many who consider me a friend (or at least a friendly person) also consider me to be a sinner.

That said, here is, IMO, the thing about the pretty picture aesthetic that I find to be so utterly lacking -

For quite a long time, dating back to at least Hopper (painting) and Evans (photography), Artists have been addressing the "nameless and commonplace" as opposed to, let's say, the "grand and glorious". I can't not speak to individual cases as to why this is so but I do like, as a general consideration, the idea that they were/are trying to "bring us back to them" as a counterpoint to the uniquely American cultural obsession and glorification of the individual / individuality and as a warning to the inevitable and deleterious result of that particular fetish.

To wit: an obsession that has, ironically, led to a profound and nearly universal sense of loss of individual identity, or, at the very least, a sense of loss of personal individual worth that has escalated along with the cultural obsession and glorification of only those "individuals" who are "grand and glorious".

Simply put, the "nameless and commonplace" man/woman, and by extension, the nameless and commonplace event, place, thing, et al, have come to be considered "boring" and therefore "dismissed" in our own lives which ultimately results in concomitant feelings (because, after all and point in fact, there's no denying that most of us are rather "nameless and commonplace") of alienation, isolation, and loneliness that so many of us experience. Feelings that were Hopper's operative stock and trade.

Hopper's work gave voice to those feelings and, whether you believe that the work of others (in this exhibit's case, photographers) were influenced by his work or that they were/are just expressing / giving voice to their own culture-influenced feelings of alienation, isolation, and loneliness, IMO, what they were/are doing is tapping into a pervasive and prevalent cultural paradigm the pretty picture crowd chooses to, at best, ignore, or at worst, deny.

IMO, as a nation, we have totally lost sight of the "nameless and commonplace". We are a culture that has devolved into various cults of the "grand and glorious". As a culture, we worship and revel at the altar of the "grand and glorious" in just about any part of life you care to mention - sports, politics, economics, et al. Our America motto is no longer E Pluribus Unum but rather Nothing exceeds like excess.

I can't and won't be a part of it. And, I certainly won't be a part of it with my picturing.

I can't not state strongly enough that I believe we are in the fine mess that we currently find ourselves in precisely because, for generations - we did not get here overnight, we have ignored, dismissed, and denied the value and lessons that can be derived from an appreciation of the "nameless and commonplace" in all walks of life.

If we continue to ignore, dismiss, and deny it, we do so at our peril.

All of that said, I am curious - would anyone care to share who (and why) has influenced your picturing?