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 May 1, 2012 - May 31, 2012

Wednesday
May302012

diptych # 3 ~ a carrion call for Pictorialism.

To sit, perchance to eat ~ Bainbridge, NY • click to embiggenLet's start this entry with a caveat: Anyone who might take offense at my labeling something "narcissistic and insipid sentimental dreck", or words to that effect, might want to consider going no further. While I might not use that exact phrasing, I will make it known (emphatically) that I disagree with an expressed opinion/theory and, IMO and to my eye and sensibilities, find the pictures created thereby to be, other than their pure technique / technical virtuosity which is everywhere apparent, rather without merit - even though technique / technical merit is what they are based upon.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself .... so let's start with a definition of sorts:

Pictorialism is the name given to an international style and aesthetic movement that dominated photography during the later 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no standard definition of the term, but in general it refers to a style in which the photographer has somehow manipulated what would otherwise be a straightforward photograph as a means of "creating" an image rather than simply recording it.

From its inception, the medium of photography has had its status as an Art form challenged by the accusation that the medium was little more than a lowly artisanal (or mechanical) trade that produced 'documents' - detailed 'copies' of the contingent features of the actual world (plagiarizing nature). 'True' Art (idealized forms that were not copies of imperfect nature), it was said, was always characterized by its distance from the contingent features of the actual world and the amount of obvious mental/intellectual effort the Artist infused into the work. None other than the Royal Academy in London and the Academie Royal de Peinture et de Sculpture in Paris declared this to be so.

The result of all of this, photography-wise, was the movement known as Pictorialism. Pictorialist Art was intentionally and self-consciously "artistc" and the pictures most often displayed a soft-focus technique that suppressed the contingent features of the actual world. Pictorialists also favored 'difficult' printing techniques and they used brushes, sponges, pencils, etching needles, etc., on the negative and print to add layers of 'handcrafting' to their work. Pictorialists were driven to even greater heights of retched excesses in an effort to separate themselves from the hordes of snappers that George Eastman unleashed upon the photographic world with his easy-to-use Kodaks. Cameras which, as much as the medium and its apparatus allowed at the time, were all about "recording" the contingent features of the actual world.

Pictorialism drifted out of most picture maker's fancy in the early 20th century, primarily as a result of ideas about a new vision of the medium and its apparatus as expressed by Alfred Stieglitz (circa 1910). Stieglitz was a practitioner of and advocate for Pictorialism in his early days but he came to the conclusion that:

"It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow ... Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a perfect photograph. And if he happens to be a lover of perfection and a seer, the resulting photograph will be straight and beautiful - a true photograph."

Now I can almost hear the groans and protestations that, "Here he goes again, ragging on things (photography wise) that he doesn't like. What an asshole." While there is some truth in that sentiment, I'm here to tell you that one of the primary reasons I climb up on my little soapbox here on The Landscapist nearly every day is to stand as a counterpoint to the prevailing "wisdom" (as expressed by the "how-to" purveyors) and as an advocate for pictures which are "straight and beautiful - a true photograph".

I believe, as do many others, that a "true photograph" is one which, in fact, relies in their making on the one characteristic of the medium and its apparatus which distinguish from all of the other visual arts - it's inextricable and inherent characteristic as cohort of the real. I also believe that the best picture makers are "seers" who are incredibly proficient in the personal and mysterious act of selection. "Seers" don't need no stinking cheap tricks to make the results of their act of selection shine.

All of that said and getting down to brass tacks, what tripped my narcissistic and insipid sentimental dreck button was my reading of an essay entitled, Creating Meaningful Photographs which, quite frankly, reads like little more than Let's Get Back to Pictorial Picture Making cheerleading.

In the essay, the author makes the case that because all of the new tools available to picture makers today - especially software tools which can be used to manipulate a picture all to hell and back again in order to "distance" a picture "from the contingent features of the actual world" - a picture maker would surely be lacking in the "artistic" department not to use them. Further more, using these tools to the max, the author writes, will set a picture maker apart from those who make pictures which do not "go beyond being a documentary recording of the subject".

The author also includes a list of his favored manipulation tools - stretching and warping of significant features in the image such as mountain ranges, radical modification of the color palette present in the image captured by the camera, removal or moving of significant elements of the photograph such as rivers, trees, rocks, etc., and duplication of significant elements - a list of digital tools / techniques that would make any 19th century Pictorialist drool. Apparently the author believes that layering a ton of whipped cream on shit will produce art. And, in the layering of all that whipped cream, a picture maker can most certainly rest assured that all the world will recognize all of the "mental/intellectual effort the Artist infused into the work".

Now, truth be told, my naisd button might not have pushed if the author had not written in unambiguous fashion that, "Today, for us to be surprised by a photograph, for us to take a second look, the image must go beyond what we see everyday around us." It was also written that one must "transform the subject from what it looks like to everyone into what it looks like to you".

Or, in the cause of naisd avoidance, he could have simply titled his essay, Creating Meaningful Photographs According to Pictorial Theory, or Digital Pictorial Theory 101. Either title would have stopped me dead in my tracks with no particular place to go. And, he wouldn't have annoyed the pig (that would be me).

Say what? Get real (pun intended).

I don't know in what universe the author resides but the simple fact is there are plenty of pictures that do not go beyond what we see around us and/or are not transformed into something they are not. And those pictures are inciting surprise and garnering second, third, fourth (and beyond) looks. Many of those pictures can be viewed not only in galleries, museums, private collections, and the like, but also in the portfolios / folios, self-published books, online photo galleries / blogs as well.

Now, it should go without stating that, just because I believe the picture making "theory" espoused by the essay's author has gone straight to my naisd circular file, a given picture maker should not subscribe to it. As I have written many times, whatever floats your boat / for every pot, there's lid / if one likes it, just do it. That doesn't mean I have to like it or even respect it - I'm referring to the theory and work that might result from subscribing to it, NOT the maker - and, quite frankly, that should be no skin off the noses of anyone who disagrees with me.

Hell, even the author of the regressive essay agrees with that idea when he writes, "Criticism is a reality ... I receive my share of criticism regularly ... I don’t pay much attention to the criticism. I pay attention to the positive comments I receive" - the single bit of advice he dispenses that I agree with.

As always, I reserve the right to critique and offer dissenting opinions about anything that is hung out to dry in the court of public opinion.

Wednesday
May302012

single woman # 23 ~ outside

Polka dot blouse ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggenDuring our recent visit to Binghamton, the wife and I met the kids for a beer at a local college hangout> I was a really nice day so we took our beers out onto a small deck which, unfortunately for us and as it turned out, was where the smokers hang out.

So much for fresh air.

Tuesday
May292012

diptych # 1-2 ~ relationships

Structures ~ Bainbridge, NY • click to embiggenBouquet / grasses ~ Bainbridge, NY / Au Sable Forks, NY (in the Adirondack PARK)• click to embiggenI have always been a fan, making and viewing, of multi-picture presentations, most often in the form of diptychs or triptychs and, in the past, I have made quite a few - see some HERE.

For the most part, my dip/trip-tychs were of related pictures / segments of the same scene. On a very few occasions I made dip/trip-tychs that were essentially segmented panoramic pictures - which were fractured into 2 or 3 contiguous segments of a scene. However, whatever the format, I always print the multiple picture on 1 sheet of paper as a means of reinforcing the idea that, ultimately, the pictures must be considered as all-of-a-piece simply because they are inextricably linked on the same piece of paper.

What I like about dip/trip-tychs, those made by me and those made by others, is that a viewer is presented with multiple views of the same / obviously related referent(s) and, consequently, is drawn into the act of considering each picture individually and all of them as a whole.

All of that said, recently I have been drawn to making dip/trip-tychs in which there is not necessarily an extremely obvious visual link shared by the pictures presented on the same sheet of paper. Rather, the link between / among the pictures is the shared relationship of their implied / inferred meaning or concept.

To my eye and sensibilities, the meaning to be found and/or the concept behind a picture's making are, in the best of pictures, always ambiguous and ultimately very personal. Discovering the shared meaning and/or concept in 2 or 3 pictures, which you have been told (by means of their presentation or an Artist Statement) share the same / similar meaning and/or concept, is, IMO, an even more ambitious, intricate, and ultimately rewarding undertaking viewing experience.

At least, that's how I see it.

Saturday
May262012

civilized ku # 2212 ~ how this became that

This ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenThat / hummingbird feeder ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenIn the fairly recent past, Ctein, a regular contributor on Mike Johnston's The Online Photographer site, wrote about What Does It Take to Be a Good Printer?. Ctein is considered to be a "good" print maker (as opposed to being a good printer, which could mean that he's been reincarnated as an Epson 7900 Wide Format printer). In fact, some consider him to be an exceptionally good print maker, if not one of the absolute best. Even though I have never viewed a Ctein made print, I don't doubt those evaluations of his print making stature.

So, I read Ctein's article with more than a passing interest, especially so since, as it turns out, my print making workflow / procedure is nearly identical to his. Some of tools and techniques may differ, but in either case, we both work toward the same end results. About the only area where his workflow / procedures differ from my own is in his (as I understand it from previous articles) relentless pursuit of "perfect" printer/printing profiles.

According to Ctein's workflow / procedural standards, I am a "good" print maker. In fact, IMO and that of many others, I am an exceptionally good print maker, if not one of the absolute best. But, that said, here's the interesting thing ...

... in the old days of the wet darkroom, not all print makers needed to be tremendously expert in all of the technical areas of print making. In some professional color labs (which were very capable of making exceptionally good prints), they did not necessarily have to have a great eye for color / the need for burning and dodging - the primary corrective measures which could be made in those days. In the good ol' days, those judgments were made by other individuals (in the color vieing area) who were expert in such matters. Their determinations were passed on to the print maker, who did need to be skilled in burning/dodging techniques, via marked up test prints which would indicate the color adjustments to be made and which areas of a print to dodge/ burn.

Of course, in the case of some very serious amateur print makers or small volume (very) custom and expensive labs, a single individual might be responsible for all of the aforementioned capabilities and skills and then some - color and contrast masking, global or local, most prominent amongst them.

All of that said, to a significant extent, what a finished print looked like was, in large part, "imbedded" in the negative to be printed. Other than extraordinary darkroom measures which were/are very time consuming and precise, i.e. "demanding" and therefore very expensive at a custom lab, there is little that can be done, other than global color adjustments and bit of discreet burning / dodging, to alter the basic "build-in" information contained in a frame/sheet of color film. However, even conventional burning/dodging techniques had fairly limited capabilities - too much dodging could produce localized "washed out" / "ghosted" shadows (loss of D-max) and too much burning could, conversely, produce localized "blocked up" shadow detail which was visually inconsistent with the rest of the print.

In today's digital world, all of that has changed. In addition to a zillion possible global adjustments / corrections, localized adjustments / corrections of any kind - color, contrast / tonal values, sharpness, noise reduction, to name just a few - are as easy to do as making a selection, AKA: mask, and going to work. And, just to make making a selection / mask easy, selection tools are many and they are also (seemingly) infinitely variable. Then, of course, there are Layer / Blending techniques which can be utilized for a wide variety of adjustment / correction purposes.

All of that (and more) might seem to be very intimidating to some but, I'm here to tell you, if you can get a grip on only those tools / techniques which suit your picture + print making druthers, you'll most likely become a good print maker. And getting a grip on tools and techniques, which ain't rocket science, can be had by WYSWIG experimentation, made easy with the myriad undo / go-back options available in PS - if you don't like what you did, just delete it /go back and try it again.

However, I'll let you in a secret .... the actual making of a print requires nothing more than pushing a button. Well, maybe 2 buttons - the power button on your printer and the "print" button on your computer screen (OK, OK, I know ... you will also have to set a few printing parameters in the Print Dialog box). But, in a real sense, it's that easy. All of the "hard" work to be done is to be found in the making of a good file for printing.

Once you have a good file, you can email it to Timbuk 2 for print making and as long as the printer (the machine) is properly set up and operated, you will get back a very nice print. A print that is virtually identical to one you might make yourself on your own properly set up and operated printer.
That's because, a color printer (the machine) is nothing more than a "garbage in, garbage out" or, more hopefully, an "excellence in, excellence out" computing machine.

All of the preceding stated, I would suggest that, in today's digital domain, there is no such thing as a good print maker, there are only good file makers.

BTW, re: how this became that - The scene: late one recent evening, I was sitting at the kitchen table - not in my usual head-of-the-table position - eating dinner when, looking up, I my eye was struck by the brilliant red hummingbird feeder on our neighbor's house. So I grabbed a camera with the 45mm f1.8 lens and made a number of exposures with different focus, knowing full well that I would not be able to capture sharp detail both inside and out at f1.8.

The processing: in addition to my usual corner vignette and black border, the making of the original file into the final file fit for display and/or print making involved - the conversion of 2 RAW files to 2 different WB points, one for the tungsten lit interior, one for the daylight lit exterior; minor highlight recovery; focus stacking / blending to create an in-focus door and an in-focus exterior view* (the exterior view is not tack sharp because of the intervening window screen which acted as a soft-focus filter of sorts); localized color and tonal adjustments; minor localized noise reduction; minor localized sharpening.

*since I was not using a tripod, I used the transform tool's distort function to register the exterior view within the window frame in the interior view

Thursday
May242012

are Europeans better than Americans at "getting" art?

1044757-18389808-thumbnail.jpg
Cheese ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
1044757-18389785-thumbnail.jpg
Welcome ~ Bainbridge, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-18389824-thumbnail.jpg
Brew Pub Window ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen
During my recent wanderings around NY's southern tier, I had the opportunity to show my kitchen life book* to a number of complete strangers. One of those strangers was a person, Hans, from Switzerland (now a US citizen) with whom the wife and I shared breakfast at the B&B at which we were staying. The others were pure-bred Americans.

Hans, about halfway through looking at the kitchen life book, commented that the "arrangement" of colors, shapes, and light and shadow created an entirely different viewing experience of looking at the pictures that was independent of the depicted referents in those pictures, whereas a pure-bred American, our hostess at the B&B, was a woman whose expressed reaction to the pictures was that she could "identify", so she said with a smile on her face, with the depicted scenes / referents in those pictures. Suffice it to state, each viewer had different experience of viewing and reading the pictures.

It should come as no surprise to those who have read some of my recent entries or followed The Landscapist for any length of time, that I believe that Hans had a richer viewing experience than that of our B&B hostess.

CAVEAT: lest anyone get their knickers in a twist, re: me and my high horse, I wrote that Hans had a richer viewing experience - I did not write (or imply) that he had a better viewing experience. Without a doubt, there is a difference between the two viewing experiences but each experience and what was taken away from them was absolutely correct and proper for each individual.

That said, from my picture making POV, Hans "got" much more of what I was/am trying to capture and express in my kitchen life pictures - or, for that matter, any of my pictures - than did the pure-bred American. So, for me and my picture making intentions, Hans' expressed reaction, as far as it went, was much better or more complete than the pure-bred American's expressed reaction, as far as it went.

Now, getting back to the question at hand, I am not about to draw a hard and fast conclusion from a sample of 2 but ....

... my son, The Cinemascapist, also has some experience in this regard - while I don't have any exact figures, I would estimate / guess that the majority, by a wide margin, of his print sales have been to Europeans. In addition to that fact, his work has been written about (and lauded) in a host of European and international publications as opposed to in the US. And, his work has been accepted into a host of European photo competitions / festivals, many more than here in the US.

Does any of this mean that Europeans are better at getting Art/art? Maybe I should amend the question to read, are average Europeans better that average Americans at getting Art/art? While I am certain there are Art/art "experts" in any culture but there is some evidence that, taken on the whole, some cultures seemed to be more attuned to nuance and depth in Art/art than are others.

Any thoughts on the subject? And, BTW, I have posted 3 wide-ranging pictures, genre wise, for your viewing and reading consideration. Comments would be greatly appreciated.

*Recently, without knowing what I was getting into and in response to an email discount offering, I made a photo book using AdoramaPix's photo book making service.

After following my normal photo book making procedure of creating all my pages in Photoshop (to include text/typography) and then placing them on blank pages on a photo book making service site, it was not until I had reached the "Place Your Order" section of the site that I realized that I was making a "true" photo book. That is to say, a photo book comprised of actual photo prints as opposed to one made on a printing press. At that point I was hesitant to hit the "Place Your Order" button for a number of reasons but, throwing caution to the winds, I did so nevertheless.

Upon receipt of the 10×10 inch book, I was very pleased with the result. In fact, I was absolutely delighted with the result - the pictures were printed on a very nice heavy-weight luster photo paper. The color, saturation, and tonal values were spot on the money (be certain to disable their "Photo Correction" feature), almost indistinguishable from the prints I make at home on my hopped-up Epson Ultrachrome ink wide-format printer. And, all the pages were of the "lay flat" variety.

Quite impressive and highly recommended, to say the least. I will be making more "true" photo books at AdoramaPix.

Wednesday
May232012

civilized ku # 2206-10 ~ you can't have it all

No U-Turn ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen1044757-18371471-thumbnail.jpg
Hi-Rise building ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-18371478-thumbnail.jpg
Pedestrian bridge ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-18371549-thumbnail.jpg
Space Available ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen
1044757-18371560-thumbnail.jpg
Steeple ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggen
The closest I have ever come to "chasing the light" was back in my 8×10 view camera urban landscape days, circa 1979-82. At that time, I was operating under the influence, picture making wise, of Joel Meyerowitz' Cape Light work. A body of work which, according to some in the Academic Lunatic Fringe, is considered to be a tightrope balancing act on the line between Art (Fine) and art (decorative).

Like Meyerowitz, I was making pictures with a wooden 8×10 field camera using 8×10 long-exposure (tungsten balanced) color negative sheet film. Even though virtually all of my 8×10 urban landscape pictures were made during daylight hours, I (again, like Meyerowitz) did not use any tungsten-to-daylight conversion filter. All of my color correction work was done in the darkroom at the printing stage of the operation.

The use of long-exposure film - ASA 80, if I remember correctly - was dictated by the fact that, even in bright sunlight, when making an exposure @ f64 (at the huge magnification factor of an 8×10 view camera, vis-a-vis roll film cameras), the shutter speed can get rather long. Making pictures late in the day / dusk(ish) required even longer exposures - usually measured in minutes rather than seconds. With short-exposure color negative film, exposure times over 20 seconds result in reciprocity failure. Reciprocity failure is color-shifting, as dye layers of the film absorb light unevenly over the prolonged exposure - the result is color crossovers, a problem which spells death to color accuracy, even to the point of making a negative unprintable, acceptable color wise.

All of said, for most of today's picture makers (even "serious" ones), that's ancient film-based history. That is, if it's even in their history at all. Although, that said, color crossovers can be caused through the misuse of curves in the color channels in Photoshop.

In any event, even though my early 8×10 urban landscape picture making was influenced by that of Joel Meyerowitz, the fact was that most of my picturing was done late in the day simply because my days were occupied with making pictures for clients. It was only at the end of the working day that I was able to get out and about for the purpose of making pictures for myself - an activity I found to be both very relaxing and intellectually / visually invigorating.

This past weekend, as part of my NYS southern tier wanderings - a quasi-graduation event + a birthday (the wife's) get-away - I was lucky enough to get out and about for some late day picture making. I was passing some time while waiting (1 hour 45 minutes) for a table at the Lost Dog Cafe. And, like my earlier in the day memory-inciting run-in with Rat Fink, I felt like it was old times again, picture making wise.

The light was "perfect", the atmosphere was glowing, and the mood was quiet and relaxing. All in all, it was a perfect tonic for relieving my interminable wait for a table agita, which, as it turned out, was further exacerbated by the restaurant being out of what I wanted to order from their menu ....

... another fine example of the adage, you can't have it all.

Wednesday
May232012

civilized ku # 2205 ~ Quickies

Bob's Diner / restroom wall ~ Bainbridge, NY • click to embiggen

Tuesday
May222012

civilized ku # 2204 ~ reserved parking

NO PARKING ~ Binghamton, NY • click to embiggenChrist probably doesn't tow illegally parked vehicles Himself, that's most likely Archangel Michael's job. At least I assume that's the case what with Michael's former dealings with the proprietor of Hell's Half-AcreA Planned Long-term Retirement Residency / Community and Impound Lot - a guy named Mr. Lucifer.