man & nature # 259-61 ~ golden-amber light, Adirondack style

Indian Summer day ~ along Lake Champlain, NY • click to embiggen
Indian Summer day # 2 ~ along Lake Champlain, NY • click to embiggen
Indian Summer day # 3 ~ along Lake Champlain, NY • click to embiggenWeather-wise, we're bouncing around all over the place - yesterday was a high of 73˚F. Friday, on the other hand, was a high of 34˚ with light snow.

As mentioned most recently in civilized ku # 256-259, I do not "chase the light" nor am I a "light stalker". However, it does seem that at times "the light" does chase me. When it does so, I will make pictures with "the light". Some might think that I would not do so because, disliking the work of "light stalkers / chasers" as I do, I would refuse to picture with "the light" based on the tenets of the Photographic Purity Act or some such nonsense.

As far as I am concerned, re: "the light", light is light. Or, as Brooks Jensen states:

There is no good or bad light. There is just light.

Now, to be fair, some of you who are paying attention might be inclined to remind me that in a recent entry - still life # 10 ~ making the light - I touted my ability of being the guy, back in my commercial photography heyday, who was the " go-to guy when a subject needed to be bathed in a 'perfect' light." A statement, which on the face of it, might seem to be a contradiction to my belief regarding Jensen's statement about light.

Well, I'm here to tell ya that that is simply ain't true. Ya see, if one's intent is to make a "picture with a message" (or a series of pictures, or even an entire body of work), there are times when "the light" might be very important to the "message".

Like, say, if one were intent on making a picture that illustrates the idea that you can fry an egg on the sidewalk in sunny Florida, the light that one encounters on a cool overcast grey day would not really get it done. Quite obviously, the light encountered on a sunny day at high noon would be much more suitable - one could even say, "perfect" - to getting one's point across.

That said, for me in my quest to picture the everyday / commonplace world that I see all around me, there is no perfect light, there is just light.

civilized ku # 260 ~ filippo Berioshie

Empty olive oil bottle • click to embiggen

still life # 13 ~ slice of life

Sunflower and gourds • click to embiggenSo I've been screwing around, photography-wise, for a couple of weeks now with my new 25mm f2.8 lens. In fact, it hasn't been off of my camera since I got it.

Considering that 90% or more of my picturing over the past 2-3 years has been done with a 11-22mm lens, I have had no trouble at all "seeing" with a much reduced field of view. Picturing with a normal-ish lens is what I did in my 8×10 view camera days and that MO seems to have come back to me somewhat intuitively.

My only dis-satisfaction with the lens is that I would like even more narrow DOF than its 2.8 aperture creates. Sigma makes a 24mm f1.8 lens that would probably deliver the look I am striving for .... although, I'll be perfectly honest - I'm not exactly certain what it is that I want to accomplish with this narrow DOF stuff.

I think it has something to do with "mystery".

decay # 34 ~ an f2.8 detour of sorts

Asparagus on Italian plate • click to embiggen

Rorschach / inkblot school of picture making

Open window ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Peppers at the market ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Flowers at the market ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenMuch virtual ink has been spilled on The Landscapist regarding the notion of photographic truth (or, if you prefer - truth in photography) and the medium's relationship with and to the real/reality (replete with a rather specious sidebar into what is real/reality?). As most know, I believe that photography pictures can contain more than a smattering of truth and that I really don't struggle much at all with what is real / the nature of reality.

For the most I don't struggle with either of those concepts because I have an open mind which can grasp the idea that truth has many interpretations - which does not mean that they are all worthy of consideration - and that reality has different meanings to different people - which, once again, does not mean that they are all worthy of consideration. But that said, my guiding principle regarding those ideas is the same as that stated by Richard Dawkins -

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. ~ from "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

I bring all this up because I want to address the notion of photography pictures as a form of Rorschach / inkblot test.

There can be little doubt that every photography picture is open to interpretation in the mind of each and every viewer. This is generally true despite the fact that the picture maker may have made a very deliberate intent to create a very specific meaning / interpretation in any given picture. One possible exception (of many) to this notion are those pictures that are so simple-minded in concept and intent that the range of interpretation possible from viewing them is rather limited.

But the idea that many interpretations can be had from a given picture negates the idea that a picture can not contain truth(s) is simply not true. A single picture can contain many unrelated truths and the discovery of any of those truths does not negate any of the truths a picture may contain.

Each and every viewer of a picture brings their very own and often unique life-experiences, emotional and intellectual acumen, prejudices, preferences, and so on to the viewing table. All of that "baggage" obviously influences what a viewers quite literally "sees" in a picture. And, what one sees, in a quite literal visual sense, will most likely influence one's perceptions of meaning(s) to had in / gleaned from a picture.

That is why I am often very surprised by the sometimes many different meaning(s) / interpretations that my pictures engender in those who view them. In many cases, those meanings / interpretations are not at all what I had in mind when I made the pictures in question and I find this to be quite enjoyable and interesting.

What this multi-interpretive, multi-truth concepts tells me is that pictures are filled with truth(s) and that there is much to be learned about truth and reality if one approaches one's own picturing and pictures as well as the pictures made by others with an open mind - but, of course, not so open-minded that your brain falls out.

civilized ku # 256-59 ~ fade to night

Church dome ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Port park building ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Marina + lighthouse ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Rue St. Paul church ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhile the wife and I continued our late day walk (see civilized ku # 240-45), the daylight gradually faded into night. And, as Tracey commented on yesterday's entry, Mixtures of natural and man made light really do catch my attention.

As previously mentioned many times, my favorite time of day for making mixed-light pictures is that time after the sun has set but before the night takes over. The time of day that the French all entre chien et loup - between the dog and the wolf. If I were to become a "light stalker" or to start "chasing the light", the light of entre chien et loup would be "the light" for me.

Update on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 04:42PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Andre Moreau wrote: You bring a whole new "light" on some of the familiar places of the "Vieux Montreal"

my response: Andre also gave names (and links) to the lighthouse - the Montreal Clock Tower - and to the Rue St. Paul Church - Notre Dame de Bon Secour Chapel - and I thank him for that info.

While exploring the Notre Dame de Bon Secour Chapel link, I discovered a 360˚ virtual tour of the amazing Chapel interior. The wife and I - in our sometimes role as ugly-american tourists - have walked past this chapel many times never realizing the incredible treat that lies within. It goes without saying that, next trip to Montreal, it will be at the top of our must-see list.

Much thanks, Andre.

civilized ku # 255 ~ getting up before the sun

Cruise ship ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenEarly Saturday AM, just before sunrise, I awoke and saw this scene outside our hotel window.

civilized ku # 254 ~ good soup

Stracciatelle • click to embiggenEver since our recent trip to Tuscany, the wife has been on quite an Italian bent. So, we went to Montreal's Little Italy to visit a big market where I purchased a little 6×6 inch artery-clogging chocolate pastry thing that I swear must weight about 50 lbs. and I also had a bowl of very good stracciatelle - Italian egg-drop soup, which, unlike Chinese egg-drop soup, has parmesan cheese as an ingredient.

However, I found it quite weird to be in a Little Italy and eating in an Italian restaurant where the first language was French. Really, it was very weird and more than a bit disconcerting.