civilized ku # 774 ~ from 20 floors up

Peel street ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 773 ~ a sense of harmonic proportions / on seeing

Bowl on table • click to embiggenOver the course of my Landscapist (the blog) endeavor, there have been quite a number of informed and insightful comments on various entries that have helped me - and I hope others - to learn a bit more about pictures and the making thereof. As I have stated many times, my hope for this blog is for it to be a 2-way proposition - good for me and good for those who hang around the place. For the most part, and IMO, I believe that objective has been and is frequently realized.

That said, one of the best comments (for me) was that from Barbara Fischer which stated in part ...

... Good photographers have an affinity with what they take photos of, they can see something of themselves in the pictures. They can relate to the mood, as conveyed by light, colours, subject matter, and it becomes personally meaningful.

Barbara also states that, in act of picture making, some photographers ...

... also have a better sense for harmonic proportions, they can just see them and maybe sabotage them if it suits the photo. This is a complex skill that can't be learned by applying a rule of thirds or some other mechanical composition guide lines.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that these comments are very complimentary to much of what I have been writing about, re: seeing, I must state that I have rarely heard / read a better description of the notion of "composition" - in her words, a "sense of harmonic proportions".

Simply stated, from my egocentric POV, Barbara has succinctly and, IMO, poetically given name to exactly how I see.

That said, I would also add that, after viewing Barbara's I like these flickr set, she also makes pictures that exhibit a very keen "sense of harmonic proportions". Her pictures are exquisite examples of Robert Adams' notion, re: great pictures:

Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? .... The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.

IMO, only pictures that appear to be "easily made" - or in many cases actually are easily made - are great pictures. That's because, if when looking at a picture the viewer first sees the composition / the technique employed / effects / "tricks of the trade", then he/she risks missing the forest for the trees.

In that regard, what I have noticed is that so many picture makers are the worst offenders when it comes to seeing the intent of a picture. The first thing that they relate to / look for is the "how" rather than the "what". IMO&E, that's because so many picture makers seem to first look at pictures made by others in attempt to discern and identify the "tricks of the trade" that were employed - even if none were actually used - in the making of those pictures so that they can then employ the same in their picture making.

Whereas, the first question in a viewer's mind should be - what's going on here / what's the picture maker's intent / what's being said?

However, as Barbara Fischer also stated ...

... some people have a very hard time relating to photography (or any visual art) beyond the literal things depicted in them. The "trick" is to open the mind up to associations, emotions, and then a picture will become rich and multidimensional.

I would extend that idea to include not only picture viewing but also to picture making - if you desire to make great or, at the very least, good / interesting pictures ("rich and multidimensional") that go beyond pretty pictures, you must, at the point of picture making, "open the mind up to associations and emotions" so that you "can relate to the mood, as conveyed by light, colours, subject matter" so that your picture making becomes "personally meaningful".

Update on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 10:16AM by gravitas et nugalis

PS Thanks, Barbara

civilized ku # 772 ~ the American "Dream"

"Fried" chicken • click to embiggenIt has been stated that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (American philosopher George Santayana).

In a 1928, the Republican Party used a campaign advertisement touting a period of "Republican prosperity" that had provided a "chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot".

In 1929 we got the Great Depression.

civilized ku # 769 ~ figure it out

Sauniere Quebec ~ Old Montreal, Montreal, CA • click to embiggenIn a comment on civilized ku # 771, A. Cemal Ekin referred to an entry / essay on his site titled Rules, Learning, and Experts. He refers to this essay in defense of his other comment - "Does one have to be gifted to do something? I don't think so."

Let me respond to the ideas in his essay - not about how he writes or whether or not I consider it to be self-promotional.

In his essay Ekin writes that ...

Anyone who grabs a camera and seriously considers this as a hobby or future profession needs to deal with the equipment, composition, artistry, creativity, all reasonably complex and with their unique challenges. Think of a camera system and forget for a moment how comfortable you are with your gear. Now, try to explain how to use your camera to a person who is just starting. You will realize that, one, you know a lot; two, you cannot decide where to start to explain how to use this gear.

In a nutshell, I disagree with virtually every aspect of that paragraph. Especially the part about equipment / explaining how to use your camera - an aspect of picture making that he believes - for a beginner (and someone engaged in explaining it to a beginner) - is "reasonably complex".

IMO, that is simply not the case. Unless someone choses to make it so - most often for purposes of self-promotion.

When using a camera, there are only a few basic things that the beginner needs to understand: 1) how to focus the lens; 2) how to set the aperture, a. to allow more or less light to strike a light-sensitive surface, and b. to control the DOF; and, 3) how to set the shutter speed, a. to allow more or less light to strike a light-sensitive surface, and b. to freeze or blur motion (both referent and/or camera motion).

That's it folks. If a beginner finds that to be "complex", he/she might consider taking up tic tack toe as his/her hobby. And, IMO, it is high time that "experts" stop peddling the myth that it's all very complex (but that's whole other story).

Ekin's essay also stated / opined that ....

Anyone who grabs a camera ... needs to deal with the equipment, composition, artistry, creativity ....

In support of that statement is a suggested Step #1 for the beginner on a path to learning how to forget the rules - the beginner "Understands the rules ... Sometimes remembers to use the rule, the rule to use, and when to use it ... then consciously tries to apply the rule, often failing because the rule matters more than the photograph at this point, we do not see any “intent”. In Ekin's opinion, there are additional intervening steps - intermediate, proficient, and expert - on the path to the desired end point of "not think(ing) about / be(ing) hampered by the rules the rules" but ...

IMO, and that of any others, like so many others, Ekin is putting the cart, aka: the rules, before the horse, aka: the intent.

As Robert Henri has stated, once one knows one's self enough to form an idea / notion about, in the photography world, what one's intent is - what one wants to make pictures of in order to "say" something - the technique(s) - to include one's own self-made rules - of how to do so will essentially "fall to hand".

The techique learned without a purpose is a formula which when used, knocks the life out of any ideas to which it is applied ~ Robert Henri - from The Art Spirit

IMO, Step # 1 on the path to making good / interesting pictures, which successfully express intent, is to pick up a camera and start making pictures. And, in today's auto-focusing, auto-exposure (with auto ISO bracketing), auto-white balance, and auto-etc. digital picture making world, even understanding the the aforementioned basic ideas about using a camera are not necessarily required.

Think about it - why in the hell would anyone learn a bunch of rules, start making pictures using those rules which, as Ekin states, will result in making pictures wherein there is a failure to communicate ("we do not see any “intent”") "because the rule matters more than the photograph"?

Screw that approach. Pick up a camera and just start making pictures. Look at those pictures and figure out by and for yourself what works or doesn't work relative to your own personal "intent", picture making wise.

Along the way, look at good/ interesting pictures made by others and figure out by and for yourself what it is that you like about them and then, if applicable or appropriate, apply those likes into your own picture making MO.

But, ultimately, if one wants to make pictures that express your very own personal intent, you have to figure it all out for yourself. And that includes figuring out for yourself what it is that attracts you to the pictures made by others.

Update on Friday, November 12, 2010 at 05:48PM by gravitas et nugalis

PS Never, ever forget or let anyone tell you that, even as a rank beginner, the rules are all that important. They're not. The photograph is always more important than the rules. Always.

civilized ku # 771 ~ the early years / important influences

Hair brushes • click to embiggenIn a comment on cvilized ku # 766, scott offered his opinion (or, in my words, "opined") ...

... my opinion, for what it is worth, is that you are probably at a point where you do not have to think about what you are doing.

Scott's opinion (in my words, "opining"), IMO, was, in general, in response to my notion of "god-given" gifts / talent and, more specifically, in response to my feeling that I possess a seemingly preternatural right-brain disposition / intuition that guides me, by means of feeling, though the act of picture making.

Scott went on, using my hockey analogy, to state that he does "not have to think about them (his skating and stick handling) because I have been doing them for so long", which I take it to mean, by inference, is that I have arrived at my non-thinking / intuitive picture making point because I have been doing it for so long.

This is not an opinion with which I would vehemently disagree. For a fact, I have been doing it for over 40+ years. But .... even 40+ years ago, when I first picked up a camera, I made my pictures in exactly (as near as I can remember) the same manner as I do today. Let me amplify that statement ...

Long ago, in a place far way - 1969, in Japan / Okinawa Prefecture - after receiving my "Greetings from Uncle Sam", I purchased my first camera. Despite the fact that I grown up in Rochester, NY, virtually in the shadow of the Big Yellow Box, AKA: Eastman Kodak Co., all of my early artistic ability manifested itself in the form of drawing / illustration. From at least as early as 3rd grade, I was the go-to guy for school and event posters. In high school, I made a sizable chunk of change drawing pictures - almost exclusively in the style of Big Daddy Roth - on paper book covers and t-shirts. Never, at any time, was it suggested that I pursue picture making via the camera.

However, finding myself in a foreign land, I decided that I could make far better pictures of my experience with a camera rather than with pencil and paper. Add to that brilliant deduction the fact that I was in the land of camera makers and that those cameras were unbelievably inexpensive, I purchased a camera - a Kowa 35mm rangefinder which was quickly replaced with Kowa SET-R SLR.

At that time, my only guide to picture making was the camera manual and the current issue of Camera 35 magazine. Camera 35 magazine had a nice mix of picture making articles along with a very nice presentation of featured picture makers and their pictures - with an emphasis on the latter. That is why, when perusing the photography magazine selection at the PX, I chose Camera 35 over the other much more gear / technique oriented offerings (Modern Photography, Popular Photography, and the like). Even at the tender age of 19, in my first week of picture making, I thought that looking at good pictures was a much more important course of study than was reading about gear/technique. In any event, within a few months, I was making and processing - I processed both my very first roll of BW and color transparency film - pictures at a rather prodigious rate.

Needless to say, even at that point, I thought I was a pretty good picture maker but in order to test the court of public opinion I entered 3 pictures (in 3 different categories) in a photo competition. The competition started at the local level and progressed through successive regional - Western Pacific, hemispheric - All-Pacific, and world-wide levels. All 3 pictures were winners at the local and W-Pacific levels, and 2 firsts and 1 honorable mention at the all-Pacific level.

Based entirely upon that success, I applied for and received the military job of 2nd Logistical Command Information Specialist / Photographer. And once again, within the first month I was banging out feature articles for the regional military newspaper, several of which were picked up by the Pacific edition of the Army Times.

Now, here's my point - within 6 months of first picking up a camera and without any training of any kind - other than reading / looking at pictures in Camera 35 - I was making a living, militarily speaking, making pictures. And, I can honestly say that I owe it all to my seemingly preternatural right-brain disposition / intuition that guided me, by means of feeling, though the act of picture making - I didn't 'think about it' then anymore than I think about it now.

Can anyone out there explain it? The only explanation I can come up with is the preternatural / intuitive / feeling thing because, back then, I was completely obvious to anything resembling 'the rules of composition' or any other picture making rules.

All I was aware of was the impact that good / interesting pictures made on me. And, the first good / interesting pictures I was made aware of, from a picture making POV, were those that I viewed in Camera 35mm magazine - important influence # 1. That's why, to this day, I strongly encourage the continued viewing of good / interesting pictures, together with non-technical / non-gear reading about the medium and its possibilities, as one the absolute best ways of figuring it out for yourself.

And, maybe one day I'll tell you about the time that our adopted stray cat barfed up and crapped messy gooey globs of intestinal worms all over my only set of cleaned and pressed US Army khakis on the day I was going to get my awards from the aforementioned photo competition - in the office of and from the Commanding General, US Army, Ryukyu Islands, accompanied by my Company Commander and First Sergeant.

civilized ku # 770 ~ parallax

Night rain / Rue Saint-Paul ~ Old Montreal, Montreal, CA • click to embiggenIn response to my question - What's up with that? - in civilized ku # 767, Nick S. responded ...

I have been curious how you correct your verticals. Is it PhotoShop Lens correction, 3rd party filter, etc...

I do use the PS Lens Correction function but not for parallax correction. I use it almost exclusively for removing the barrel distortion inherent in my Lumix G 20mm lens.

After first removing barrel distortion, for parallax correction, I then use the Perspective function in the PS Transform tool along with a little bit of tweaking with the Transform Distort function to further correct (not distort) non-global perspective / parallax issues.

Update on Friday, November 12, 2010 at 10:30AM by gravitas et nugalis

It has been requested that I "expand on your (my) technique for parallax correction".

Sorry, but I am not about to start giving online tutorials. Not now. Not ever. If anyone is looking for how-to-do-it instruction here on The Landscapist, they're looking in the wrong place.

I will answer more general questions - such as Nick S.'s - about my pictures and I will answer this request in a similar manner as I did Nick S.'s question -

When the application of the Transform tool's Perspective function has not corrected the parallax to my satisfaction, I use the Transform tool's Distort function to make more "select" adjustments.

Whereas the Perspective function expands or contracts both of the opposing sides (left+right, top+bottom), the Distort function works only on one side of the image at a time, and, it not only expands and contracts, it also can skew as well.

If anyone really wants to understand how these tools work, I would suggest making a picture that exhibits diminishing perspective in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Then just play around with the various Transform tool functions and figure it out for yourself - it ain't rocket science.

civilized ku # 768 ~ FYI

Patio in the sky ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenEven with all the ethereal malarkey.'Zen and the Art of', narcissism, and self-aggrandizement, and "anyone with two brain cells in their head to put together knows what's going on here" that has been perceived as part and parcel of my on seeing writing, visitor and page view numbers have exhibited a nice little bump since I started the writing endeavor. Apparently some of you out there appreciate it, or, at the very least, the effort I am making in this regard.

I am also rather delighted with the fact that a number of lurkers have shed their anonymity and made comments. While many of those comments have contained expressions of appreciation for my pictures, virtually no one has offered much at all on the subject of seeing and making pictures of what they see from their point of view. More's the pity.

I certainly do not discourage or dislike thoughtful and/or informed opinions and critiques of my opinions on the subject but wouldn't it be nice if I and members of The Landscapist audience could read about other's thoughts on the subject of seeing? You know, something more constructive and informative than just opining about my writing skills or lack thereof.

BTW, on a technical note regarding the picture in this entry, I made the picture with my E-3 and a long lens. Even though I could have put that lens on the E-P1 (using an adapter), I was, perhaps, too lazy to do so. That said, I was also apparently too lazy to check the ISO setting on the E-3, only to discover when I was converting the RAW file that, surprise, surprise, the ISO was set to 1600. Considering that and the fact that I made the picture through a less than clean window, I am quite pleased with the result (no noise reduction applied). I may just have to print this picture at my 'standard' 24×24 inch size just to see how it holds up.

civilized ku # 767 ~ high-rise POV

Peel Street / view from the 20th floor ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenAbout a week ago, after many requests to do so, I offered to answer specific questions about any of my pictures - as long as those questions were not overly gear-oriented.

To date, no one has asked. What's up with that?