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 March 1, 2011 - March 31, 2011

Thursday
Mar312011

civilized ku # 900 ~ the mnemonic powers of ordinary snapshots

1044757-11499442-thumbnail.jpg
Early Spring window view ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
On the entry civilized ku # 898, Jeff Lansing wrote:

Apropos of nothing: You have referenced Barthes frequently. Thought you might find this interesting.

Hey, Jeff - thanks for the link. Indeed, I did find it interesting and well worth reading.

True be told, I have long ago lost my copy of Camera Lucida. I haven't re-acquired it simply because so much of it can be accessed online. For all I know, the entire book might even be available online (it was a short book).

But that said, I am always interested in reading about what other readers have to say regarding their reading of the Camera Lucida. Just like I like to read (but am so often disappointed by the lack of response) the opinions of others regarding what I have to say or pass on here on The Landscapist. IMO, the exchange of informed ideas, is how we best learn and grow.

In any event, I have pulled out a few excerpts from the linked article for your consideration and, hoping against hope, your comments (FYI, all quotes are by the article's author unless otherwise attributed).

Roland Barthes declared that "in order to see a photograph well, it is best to look away or close your eyes."

It seems to me, in light of Barthes' ideas about studium and punctum - studium denoting the cultural, linguistic, and political interpretation of a photograph - the manifest subject, meaning and context of the photograph, punctum denoting the wounding / piercing, personally touching detail that holds our gaze without condescending to mere meaning or beauty and which establishes a direct relationship with the object or person within it, looking away or closing your eyes in order to see a photograph well is a technique that directs one's attention away from the visual / obvious and toward an inner connection to any awareness of piercing, wounding, or personally significant affect(s) the picture might hold for the viewer.

This purely subjective response, which demonstrates a "strange air of searching and susceptibility" - and approach that "in academic terms [is/was] quite scandalous", caused art critic Martin Herbert to state, "I don't go looking for 'ideas about photography' in that book; I read it for a certain kind of vulnerability."

The notions of "strange air of searching and susceptibility" and "a certain kind of vulnerability" that come from reading Camera Lucida are directly related to the deeply personal and quite emotionally touching nature of Barthes quest - the idea of connecting to his mother, after her then recent death, via looking at pictures of her. Barthes looked at many pictures in which his mother looked objectively like herself. But it wasn't until, "At last, he discovers her true likeness, the 'air' that he remembers, in a picture of Henriette aged five, taken in a winter garden in 1898 ... In narrative terms, it's an astonishing moment, comparable to the onrush of memories as madeleine meets teacup in Proust, or the scene in Citizen Kane when the maddened Kane first grasps the snow globe, emblem of all he has left behind."

This revelatory experience lead Barthes to believe that "every photograph is ... a memorial; the very essence of the medium is its spectral conjuring of death-in-life." That the "mnemonic powers of ordinary snapshots" are indeed very powerful.

For another look at studium and punctum and the wounding / piercing "mnemonic powers of ordinary snapshots", you should also read this article.

While I don't believe that every photograph is involved in the "spectral conjuring of death-in-life". there is no denying that every photograph is a depiction of what was and in that sense they are, indeed, "memorials".

Wednesday
Mar302011

civilized ku # 899 ~ the Spirit of Fact

1044757-11478934-thumbnail.jpg
Coors Light, Budweiser Select, and dart game ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Regarding the topic of "accurate" color, Markus Spring stated what should be the obvious:

... (color) accuracy is an ideal but in the real world not possible.

He goes on to state, as long as the raw material provides grounds to achieve the image impression that the photographer wants ... I do not care much about a camera's built-in color accuracy. Markus also mentioned that the late film maker Agfa basically suggested in its advertising that, with one of its films, the color in the photography and the color of the subject would be the same.

Basically, all of his statements are reasonably accurate, especially his belief that (color) accuracy is an ideal but in the real world not possible. In an absolute sense, neither film nor digital sensors have the ability to create truly accurate color. However, in the film world if not the digital world, several film makers - most notably KODAK - have offered color negative films labeled as "natural color" film.

Films labeled as NC film could not, in the absolute sense, reproduce totally accurate color. Try as the makers might, reproducing totally accurate color is well beyond the limitations of film making technology.

However, that said, it must be stated rather emphatically that the color reproduced by NC color negative films was remarkably true, color wise, to the "Spirit of Fact". NC films were mercifully free of the very visually obvious, deliberately introduced color distortions / exaggerations to be found (and cherished by many) in films such as Velvia or, for that matter, "the nice bright colors" of Kodachrome which make us "think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!". The prints made from NC films looked, to my eye and sensibilities and to those of the KODAK film technicians, well .... in a word, quite "natural".

Unfortunately, in the digital domain, picture making wise, no such devotion to the "Spirit of Fact", on the part of camera makers, seems to exist. As Markus rightfully points out, digital camera makers are pandering to "the largest number of ... buyers" who much "prefer 'vivid'" color as opposed to reasonably accurate color.

IMO, the "Spirit of Fact" is in very short supply. Not just in picture making but also in a vast segment of voting public here in the good 'ole US of A.

Wednesday
Mar302011

ku # 895 ~ square goodness

1044757-11477972-thumbnail.jpg
Spring scrub ~ near Au Sable Foorks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
At some point in the long ago past - 1970s-1980s? - I use to collect a magazine called hasselblad. As you might suspect from the name, the magazine was published by Hasselbald as a showcase for Hasselblad made pictures. As you also might expect, most of the pictures in the magazine were square format pictures.

Despite Hasselblad's well deserved reputation for utterly superb (and outrageously pricey) optics, I never owned a Hasselblad - or, as they were commonly called, a Hassey. The reason for that was 2 fold:

1) the cameras were notorious for shutter jams and, when the shutter (it was in the lens) jammed, both the camera and the lens (which could not be removed once the shutter jammed) had to be shipped off for repair. That meant that, in the commercial picture making world, not only did you have to have a backup body or two but also backup duplicate lenses (did I mention that the lenses were extremely expensive?). Unless, of course, you didn't mind stopping in mid-shoot and totally pissing off a client - I didn't need that hassle(blad).

2) in my commercial picture making world, most of the pictures I made were of the rectangular vertical format type since the overwhelming majority of them were destined to be printed in a magazine, corporate publication, and the like. Keeping that in mind, I gravitated toward 120 cameras with a native rectangular format (6×4.5).

That said, even back then, I really did like the square format. However, I was way too busy making pictures for commerce to pursue the making of square pictures for myself, that is if you disregard the zillions of square SX70 pictures I made for fun (not for profit). Of course, as is in ample display on The Landscapist, now that I am primarily making pictures with me as the "client", that situation has changed.

So, it was with great delight that I discovered Square Magazine (via Lenscratch), an online magazine devoted to square pictures.

The magazine has "published" 4 issues to date. So far, Square Magazine has offered up square pictures with a very high standard of picture making goodness. My only issue with Square Magazine, with the exception of issue # 4 which is a one-off "best of", is that it is an online magazine which offers none of the pleasure and viewing experience of looking at pictures on the printed page.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you check it out with the following caveats: 1) viewing it on an iPad totally sucks, and, 2) I am currently unable to buy issue no.4 because their "Buy Now" link takes me to PayPal's home page where there is absolutely no link to a Square Magazine product page.

Tuesday
Mar292011

civilized ku # 898 ~ the reason why

1044757-11468853-thumbnail.jpg
"The light" on Main Street ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
On civilized ku # 897, Martijn (no link provided) asked:

The camera being referred to has to be the Panasonic GH2. What makes you so careful to not disclose these details?

I rarely refer to picture making gear by name. That's because The Landscapist most definitely is not a gear site. In addition to that, in the entry in question, the topic was not about a specific camera's ability to render color. The topic was about the idea of "accurate" color (or reasonably so).

In any event, I have not made a picture with the mentioned camera so I could not comment one way or another regarding its ability to render "accurate" color.

That said, I do find it rather curious, albeit not surprising since "punchy" color is preferred by most picture makers (especially the landscape crowd), that the review in question referred to a camera's ability to render "accurate" color as a liability rather than as a point in its favor.

Friday
Mar252011

civilized ku # 897 ~ generally accurate, but not always attractive (?)

1044757-11400903-thumbnail.jpg
A variety of man-made verticals, horizontals, and diagonals ~ near Au Sable Forks - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
When reviewing a new camera, a gear site had this to say about the images created by a camera's sensor + color engine:

Colors are generally accurate, but not always attractive ...

This observation was of course not meant as a compliment. I mean, after all, who would want a camera that produces generally accurate color? What exactly would be the point of having to deal with - thank the techno-gods for giving us the digital tools (H&S sliders to the max!) which provide us with a quick and easy way to change those accurate colors into attractive colors - that "deficiency"?

an aside - I find it very strange and more than a little ironic that the pretty picture crowd, especially the nature landscape division thereof, deplores accurate colors. On one hand, they profess great admiration and respect for the natural world. On the other hand, they can't keep their hands off of the natural colors found therein. The god*-given colors of natural things are never quite good enough to match the imaginings, feelings, fetishes, and "memories" of those picture makers. And, in a very strange application of reason and logic, they seem to think that presenting a false/distorted view of the natural world will engender a respect (their oft-stated rational for their picture making excesses) for the actual natural world. IMO, and that of many others, that reasoning backfires way more often than it succeeds because the real (more accurate, if you will) natural world rarely can match that of the fabricated "grandeur" exhibited in pictures made by the pretty picture crowd. The net effect of that issue is that there is little respect for / appreciation of the non-grandeur natural world and, concomitantly, there is much destruction thereof.

In any event, as can be deduced from many of the my-how-to entries on this blog, I spend a fair amount of time and effort converting / correcting, to a "generally accurate" state, the "attractive" colors my camera + color engine produces. Needless to state, I would actually prefer a camera + color engine which produces generally accurate rather than "attractive" colors. It surely would save me a heap of time and effort.

FYI, on one hand, the camera under review is of the µ4/3rds variety so I've moved it to my maybe someday list (purely mental, partly fantasy). That said, 2 things will have to happen before it can enter the realm of the possible - 1) the price will have to drop considerably (it probably will after the initial "buzz" / gear lust wears off - although it's status, review wise, as "easily the best video-equipped stills camera that we've ever used" (I couldn't care less) might keep demand on the high side for an extended period), and, 2) it will have to be available as body-only because I really don't want or need the kit lens which comes with it.

On the other hand, I am very happy with the quality and look (post processing) of the prints my current camera/sensor + color engine + work-flow produces. So, I ask, why mess with a good thing?

*the "creator", mother nature, natural selection, random chance - pick one or make up your own definition.

Friday
Mar252011

civilized ku # 896 ~ remainders

1044757-11400299-thumbnail.jpg
Ice jam remains ~ Au Sable Forks - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
3 weeks ago, there was a dramatic weather event here in the extreme NE - 2 days of high (50˚F) temp snow/ice melting, followed by a warm day of rain, followed by 2 days of snow (up to 36 inches). The net result, here in The Forks, was a huge ice jam with flooding at the bridge on the south end of Main Street. The ice jam occurred during the height of the snowstorm.

3 weeks of relatively warm days later (the ground is free of snow in most places), there is still ample evidence of the magnitude of the ice jam. The cluster of ice fragments, shown here jammed between 2 trees, is a great example. For reference, the ice slab leaning upright against the far tree is approximately 8-9 feet tall.

The river, which is now running at a slightly elevated level, can be seen to the right of the same tree. It should not require a degree in rocket science to figure out how high the river water was (behind the ice jam at the bridge - 50 yards to the right of where this picture was made - in order to carry these now greatly diminished in size ice chunks to their final resting place ("help me, I'm melting").

BTW, permanent scarring from ice jams past can be seen on the far right tree.

Wednesday
Mar232011

civilized ku # 895 ~ you put your whole self in, you put your whole self out, and you shake it all about ...

1044757-11371110-thumbnail.jpg
A sign of things to come • click to embiggen
I've been intending to make this entry since Monday. One picture thing or another intervened and next thing I know, it's Thursday. In any event, this entry was meant to be my "cleansing potion" entry, that is to say, my get-back-on-track response to the how-to entry from last Friday. While I'm pleased that a number of you were delighted with the how-to stuff, my intent is to get back to the why of picture making.

That said, I really don't know the why of most of this blog's audience. That is, why do you make pictures? My assumption, at least for those who stay around the place for any length of time, is that most are trying / wanting to make pictures which are more than cliche ridden pretty pictures and more than mere entertainment (for yourself as well as your audience). Maybe I'm wrong (feel free to correct me), but I think many of you want to get beyond the surface of things and discover a thing or two about yourself and the world around you.

That said, amongst my many picture making motivations / objectives / and intents, one thing that ranks at or very near the bottom of the totem pole is that of trying impress or please other picture makers. That is not to say that I don't appreciate appreciative comments / reactions from that group. Peer recognition is a good thing but I do not consider other picture makers to be the best source of feedback about pictures.

The reason for that is simple - too many picture makers are concerned about picture making rather than pictures. They have a tendency to see technique and technical qualities to be found in pictures before they see anything else and that tendency often gets in the way of really seeing what a picture has yo say. That tendency is very much like how thinking about technique and things technical while making a picture gets in the way of really seeing what in front of them.

All of that said, my son, The Cinemascapist sent me a link to a recent review of his work. While reading it, it struck me that it might be very helpful to some of you to read it.

The review was published in an online magazine which is not a photo site. The magazine, Yatzer, is self-described as "a totally captivating global online destination for those who are passionate about design in all its forms, together with those searching for inspiration and unique coverage of modern design and trends ... presently reaching on average more than 350,000 unique visitors and 1,000,000 Pageviews monthly and globally."

In reading the review, it is worth noting that, as is typical of most art reviews by non-picture makers, there is nary a word about technique or things technical. The reason for that is quite simple - most non-picture makers simply do not give a crap about the how. They only thing they care about is the picture(s) and what it might have to say.

IMO, that's what it's all about*. All the rest is just a carnival sideshow.

Read the review HERE.

*what if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about?

Tuesday
Mar222011

civilized ku # 895 ~ be very a-scared

1044757-11350441-thumbnail.jpg
Pinic grove ~ Along the West Branch of the Au Sable River / Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Is there anyone else out there who also hopes, like I do, that these 2 FUCKING SCUMBALLS will spend a long time in prison and, after that, spend the rest of their miserable lives in poverty while they work at menial labor jobs trying to pay the monumental fines levied against them?

FYI, just in case you have head under a rock or up your asshole, this case was investigated by and is being prosecuted by those very ("evil") government agencies (amongst many which protect the public interest) the Republican morons (at all levels of government) want to restrict the functions thereof - that is to say "restrict" only if they can not completely eradicate them.

After all, the Republican Party's publicly stated goal is to "reduce it (government) to the size where (they) can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub". Why not? As every shriveled-brain, FOX-trots*, ditto-head knows, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."

Wake up America. As my friend Scary Joey says, "Be a-scared. Be very a-scared."

*from urban dictionary: trots - a bad case of explosive, uncontrollable diarrhea, often in slippery, chunky, streams.