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 October 1, 2008 - October 31, 2008

Friday
Oct312008

ku # 538 ~ a return to "real" ku (?)

grasscattailssm.jpg1044757-2084832-thumbnail.jpg
Late autumn colorclick to embiggen
It has been opined on on yesterday's entry by Mauro and Matt that "... you have changed, somewhat, (your) direction in your Image making. It seems that you are looking more to effects." and, "... your images seem a little "different" lately. Still Hobsonian in subject, but a little different in treatment".

Ignoring my new learning curve BW pictures, I'm not sure how to respond to that other than to say that my I am making pictures in exactly the same manner as I been doing so for the past 5-6 years - including equipment and the vision thing. My post-picturing processing is also identical to that of the same period of time. Really. No changes whatsoever in either approach.

IMO, what is different about many of the pictures from the past month or so is that this autumn I have been a little more taken with some of the unusually spectacular fall color that has been in ample evidence. So, it's reasonable to say that many of these recent pictures have been (for me) rather untypically colorific.

And, it's also worth mentioning that I am finding myself increasingly more drawn to elements of humankind when I am out and about making pictures. I'm not entirely certain, but that may simply be due to the fact that lately I haven't been spending much time in the wilderness. My focus has been elsewhere for the past month or two - a situation that I hope is soon to change.

In any event, I would be extremely interested in reading any thoughts the rest of you might have re: the comments from Mauro and Matt.

And, FYI, if we are known by the company we keep, check this out - You'll have to wait for the 10th spread to see what I'm talking about.

PS the wife and I are off to Montreal to celebrate our anniversary - see you all again on Sunday afternoon.

Thursday
Oct302008

man & nature # 70 ~ an afterthought

autumnshadesm.jpg1044757-2080803-thumbnail.jpg
Autumn '08 in Keene, NYclick to embiggen
Upon further consideration, it seems to me that I should have used a BW picture to accompany man & nature #69. Don't ask me why - it just seems like a right thing to do.

So, in the spirit of homage to Sir Ansel Adams, here's one from my ongoing new learning curve for your viewing pleasure and, if you are so inclined, comments.

Thursday
Oct302008

man & nature # 69 ~ I really mean it

sheriffvehiclessm.jpg1044757-2080154-thumbnail.jpg
Red leaves and red sheriff SUVclick to embiggen
I recently purchased a book, Ansel Adams ~ 400 PHOTOGRAPHS.

I wasn't looking to purchase this book but when I came across it in a bookstore this past Sunday, I was smack dab in the middle of my aforementioned new learning curve and I thought, what better reference to have about what a good BW print looks like than a collection of Ansel Adams' prints.

Well, not actual photographic prints, but like most books of Adams' pictures the reproduction values are very high indeed. So much so that, if one were to remove a page from the book, mat and frame it under glass, no one would think, even under nose-on-the-print scrutiny, that the picture was anything but a photographic print. Really, the repro quality (including the paper) is that good.

In addition to the book's value as a BW quality reference, I was also interested in the fact that Adams' pictures were arranged chronologically (early 1920s - 1960s) in order to create "an unprecedented survey of his development as an artist, of the themes and subjects that animate his work, and of the evolution of a style that is uniquely that of Ansel Adams (from the book jacket). My interest was piqued by the inclusion of what were described as "a number of masterly but little-known photographs".

Somewhat perversely, I am familiar with quite a number of Adams' little-known photographs because the only other book of Adams' pictures that I own is a little-known book in and of itself, Ansel Adams IN COLOR.1044757-2080370-thumbnail.jpg
Ansel Adams in Color
My purchase of that book was made out of pure curiosity. That curiosity was well rewarded with a book of absolutely wonderful pictures, many of which could be described (in the throes of self-aggrandizement) as quite Hobson/ku-ish in nature - unlike most of his iconic BW pictures, much of his color work is of less dramatic scenes and subjects. And considering the restraints / quality of the color materials the era, the pictures are remarkably subtle in both tone and color.

That said, Adams was very ambivalent about the very idea of making color pictures as is evidenced by, when writing about color, Adams remarked that “the Creator did not go to art school and natural color, while more gentle and subtle, seldom has what we call aesthetic resonance.”

YIKES!!!

Another photographer who thinks that he must play a role as God's Art Director in order to improve upon His choice of the color palette of the natural world.

YIKES, and DOUBLE YIKES!

However, this is no real surprise to me. Adams' BW pictures are, quite frankly, excellent examples of photo-manipulation that distorts reality writ large. Take as an example, all of those almost inky black skies that are in evidence in so many of his iconic grand-scale landscapes. They were achieved by the use of filters in a manner very similar to the use of graduated ND filters that are everywhere in evidence in the camera-club-y color landscape pictures that are so popular today.

Now, my intent with all of the above is not to denigrate Adams or his pictures. I do have a number of issues with his pictures but, undeniably, they are of great significance in so many ways - historically, culturally, technically (the Zone System), and, perhaps most impressively, the prints in and of themselves (independent of what they "say") as objects of absolutely exquisite beauty.

It's a bit of a mute point to speculate (but I won't let that stop me) on what Adams might have created with modern day color materials - analog and/or digital - at his disposal. His iconic BW pictures lead me to think that he might have had an affinity for this drivel from that pack-leading screaming colorist, Galen Rowell - a fierce proponent of that school of color pictures that Walkers Evens opined as having "...a bebop of electric blues, furious reds and poison greens”:

You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn't waste either

Although, it must be said as a counterpoint that Adams placed the pictures of that master of subtle color, Joel Meyerowitz, on his very short list of modern color photographers whose pictures he admired because they did not exhibit the “tornado of color” that Ansel Adams so feared was coming. Adams mentioned that Meyerowitz's landmark book, Cape Light was his favorite book of color photographs.

All of that said, let me leave with you this (all italic emphasis is mine) for your consideration:

When I look at photographs by Ansel Adams, I sometimes find myself wondering if Adams is celebrating the natural beauty of creation or simply the beauty preserved in our great national wilderness parks. Are his photographs about life or about zoning laws? Of course one might accuse me of asking dreary questions - but I don't think so. The act of cropping a photograph, which is a fundamental act of photography, is at heart a moral decision. In our landscapes, have we cropped out the tourists and the garbage in order to suggest 19th century America (which is to say, nostalgia), or have we cropped out what is truly irrelevant to our intentions as an artist? What photographers leave out is just as important as what they leave in. - John Rosenthal

PS - I'm curious as to where Adams' pictures fall on your scale of things photographic.

Wednesday
Oct292008

man & nature # 68 ~ don't follow leaders, watch the parkin' meters

snowapplessm.jpg1044757-2076124-thumbnail.jpg
First real snowfallclick to embiggen
I mentioned in yesterday's entry that "my additional intent with my pictures is to share my explorations and investigations with the rest of the world". IMO, there's nothing at unusual with that idea. Is there anyone out there within the sight of my writing who does not want to share his/her pictures with someone?

I tend to think not - although I would very much like to hear from anyone who keeps his/her pictures all to themselves regarding why that is so. But, in any event, consider this:

One of the ongoing projects of modern art, and probably its most serious, is to tell what it's really like to be living here now - not what it's like on television or in advertisements, not what it's like to be a cohort, but what it's like to be a man or a woman in that unique body that's always living an odd life. Against the forces of false persuasion the artist offers an undeniable sort of truth, stated in simple human terms, minus the jargon and the emblems of expertise and false authority. It's always a voice and the voice always says: this is how it is for me, and I hope you understand. ~ John Rosenthal

And this:

The true use for the imaginative faculty of modern times is to give ultimate vivification to facts, to science and to common lives. ~ Walt Whitman

Here's what in that for me:

Unfortunately, much of the "imaginative faculty of modern times" has been harnessed to buttress the "forces of false persuasion". It has been aggressively directed towards the denial of "common lives" and "what it's really like to be living here now" - with an unsurprising degree of success thanks to Alan Greenspan's recently discovered "flaw" in "the way the world works" (aka, greed, covetousness, corruption, etc.).

But, I won't go on a quasi-religious rant about the 7 Deadly Sins. Rather, and completely relative to things photographic, the reason that the "forces of false persuasion" are so successful in their endeavors is that the people towards whom their efforts are directed seem to be made up of spode'as, as in "what I spode'a do massa?"

The spode'a's photographic efforts seem to be devoted exclusively to the singular premise of diverting the human brain from its ability to engage in "higher" thinking regarding things like "common lives".

It's why they absolutely bristle at photographic ideas like "true use", and "give ultimate vivification to facts", and "one of the ongoing projects of modern art, and "probably its most serious, is to tell what it's really like to be living here now". No, those notions are not for them because that would interfere with their photography-as-a-diversion from what it's really like to be living here now idea.

All of that said, the one notion that I completely agree with from Kent Wiley's comment on yesterday's entry is "that you're rather hot under the collar".

I am, indeed. And to be honest, the primary reason that my hot-under-the-collar-ness regarding the idea behind photography that is directed towards false persuasion is that I am hearing so much of it (false persuasion) in what is passing for political discourse in this country. That and the fact that so many spode'as are buying into some of the worst of it. I can't wait for it to be over.

This is how it is for me, and I hope you understand.

Tuesday
Oct282008

man & nature # 67 ~ the end is nigh, accept your savior and salvation

gardensunsetsm.jpg1044757-2071506-thumbnail.jpg
Mid-September garden sunsetclick to embiggen
A recent comment from Mark Meyer contained what may be the single most penetrating question I have ever been asked about my involvement with the medium of photography:

I think your attitude toward criticism of your work is very healthy, but I don't understand why you spend so much time and effort looking at and criticizing work you clearly don't like.

This statement / question is a 2-parter so let me deal with the easy part first.

Part One ~ I really don't spend "so much time and effort looking at ... work (I) clearly don't like". What I do is spend a lot of time looking at a lot of pictures - some of which I end up liking, some of which I don't. It may not seem that way, because it could be reasonably said that I do "spend much time and effort ... criticizing work (I) clearly don't like". Although ....

I would substitute the word "critiquing" for the word "criticizing" in Mark's statement because, while it is certainly clear that I don't like much in the way of cliched, camera-clubish, pretty pictures of the nature landscape, my critiques of them rarely delve into personal character assassination regarding the makers of such pictures. In fact, I present my critiques from perspectives and opinions gleaned from the realm of art and cultural criticism (to critique).

Part Two ~ subsection A.) I do this with apparent frequency - although, if one were to dig into The Landscapist archive, I believe that it would become obvious that I do this with far less frequency that some might suppose - because many, if not most, of the visitors and followers of The Landscapist seem to be those who are actively seeking to break out of the bonds and limitations of camera-club picturing.

So, it is primarily to them that much of my critiquing of "work I clearly don't like" is aimed. I suspect that for those who have managed to move beyond camera-clubiness, this all seems a bit repetitious and boring and it is for them that I address numerous other topics regarding the medium of photography.

Part Two ~ subsection B.)All of the aforementioned said, here's where it gets "penetrating" for me. To start, consider these 2 statements form John Rosenthal:

1.) Atget’s photographs were, at their deepest level, a response to the modern condition of impermanence. Why else spend so much time compiling a visual record of all those timeworn things that would soon disappear - signs of intimate life whose import wouldn't be deciphered until it was too late? I thought of those little Parisian vistas that didn't open up into any sort of grandeur; of the chipped and faded paint on the wooden facade of a tavern - a row of wine bottles in the window above three small curtains; the tilting city shacks with cracked masonry; the patchwork skylines of unremarkable neighborhoods; wooden wagons parked at the end of cobblestone alleys, hand-crafted stair railings. Atget must have known that if he didn't hurry, if he didn't hit the streets before dawn, Old Paris and its ancient neighborhood intimacies would be gone, along with the bricabrac dealers, the flower-sellers, the fried fish shops, and the small craftsmen. He must have heard the rushing of time; and it must have sounded like the beginning of a stampede.

2.) If photography is about anything it is the deep surprise of living in the ordinary world. By virtue of walking through the fields and streets of this planet, focusing on the small and the unexpected, conferring attention on the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space, the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely what most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.

From those 2 statements, I would isolate - relative to expanding on my and (and by extension of the fact that you are reading this entry) your understanding of why I photograph and my and your understanding of some of the intended meaning of my pictures - these 2 ideas:

... the photographer reminds us that the actual world is full of surprise, which is precisely what most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget

He must have heard the rushing of time; and it must have sounded like the beginning of a stampede

It should come as no surprise to anyone has at least a passing familiarity with me and my pictures that I am indeed enamored of and find great interest and beauty in "the small and the unexpected" and "the helter-skelter juxtapositions of time and space". First and foremost, that is why I picture what I picture - I am drawn to and fascinated by such subjects. I do it for me as part and parcel of my never ending exploration of what it means to be human by investigating the world and my relationship to it.

That said and in no small measure, my additional intent with my pictures is to share my explorations and investigations with the rest of the world in order to "remind(s) us that the actual world is full of surprise." I want to do this because I have a very strong conviction that there is genuine delight to be found in the small and the unexpected that "most people, imprisoned in habit and devoted to the familiar, tend to forget.

IMO, they tend to "forget" it (or more probably ignore it) because they are imprisoned in the habit of the spectacle and devoted to the forces of false persuasion found in their slavish devotion to the romanticized, sentimentalized, and even fanciful views of the world - those found in both their pictures and their ideas of living.

CAVEAT - I surmise that that those who have "forgotten" have "romanticized, sentimentalized, and even fanciful views of ... living" because, if their pictures truly do come from the heart and are an accurate reflection of who and what they are, well .... their pictures speak for themselves, don't they?

Consequently, when I critique those pictures that I clearly don't like, I am also critiquing the cultural paradigm that greatly influences their making - if one takes the time to look around the cultural landscape into which we are literally sinking and, with eyes wide open, take notice of the political, economic, environmental, and social morass in which we find ourselves, it is quite obvious that we live in a koyaainsqatsi (the Hopi word that loosely translated into English means, "life out of balance") world.

In my effort to remind those who have forgotten the actual world (and not just what I call the Super Bowl Halftime Show excesses of the world) is full of surprises I picture what I consider to be canary-in-the-coalmine slices of life - those "timeworn things" that might soon soon disappear in the culture of consumption (false persuasions) "rush of time" that sounds to me like the "the beginning of a stampede" to societal, cultural, economic, and environmental oblivion.

That said, I guess it should come as no surprise that Craig Tanner's parable wherein he compared me to an obnoxious and ornery street preacher was also a bit on the mark/Mark.

Monday
Oct272008

man & nature # 66 ~ learning curve, pt. 2

redtreesmd.jpg1044757-2067302-thumbnail.jpg
2 pcitures about different thingsclick to embiggen
While I am puttering around with various methods of color>bw conversion methods, the real "learning curve" with which I am puttering around is whether I really want to invest the time and mental energy (not to mention printing equipment changes) that it requires to make good BW pictures.

First, let me dispense with the conversion method stuff. When it comes to color>bw conversion (as with virtually anything thing else you might care to mention), Photoshop offers plenty of different methods to arrive at the same result (today's BW picture was converted using a BW Adjustment Layer). As far as I am concerned you should use the one (or a combination of different ones) that works for you. And, I might add, the digital darkroom work on an image doesn't end with the conversion - at least for me, there's plenty left to do post-conversion in order to fine-tune the picture to get where I want to go with it.

FYI, this is no different from my color work - after my RAW conversion, I still expend quite a bit of time and effort in working the image.

But, as I stated, these concerns are not my primary focus regarding the "learning curve" involved in making BW pictures. Without a doubt, the issue with which I am most concerned is that regarding the very nature of color pictures vs. BW pictures. Without wanting to sound as though I am stating the very obvious (which I am), it seems to me that, even when picturing the same referent, color pictures and BW pictures are "about" very different things.

Again, stating the very obvious and on the surface of things, color pictures are very much about, duh, color. BW pictures, on the other hand, are very much about tonal relationships and, to a slightly lesser extent, tonal range. IMO, the significance of this fundamental difference between the genres of color / BW for my picturing is that, for the viewer, color helps create a better connection to the real than the tonal representation of BW does.

Simply stated, color seems "real" while BW seems, well ... surreal.

With that statement, I am NOT endorsing the misinformed digital-age opinion found on most online photo forums that BW is an "effect". That, after the fact of picturing, one can decide whether a picture looks "better" as a color picture or as a BW picture. IMO, that way of thinking / picturing totally ignores the fact that BW picturing is a specific genre of the medium which requires a devotion to and ongoing commitment to a way of expressing what one sees.

That said, the one major paradigm shift that the digital age has brought to BW picturing is that one can merrily picture away without having to deal with the moment - of - picturing requirements of deciding what technique to use in order to achieve a "visualized" print result. Those who have no BW analog picturing experience really have no understanding and appreciation of what a demanding skill set successful BW required.

It might be an overstatement, but not much of one, to state that the successful making of good BW pictures, pre-digital, depended entirely upon what one did at the moment of making an exposure - how one exposed a sheet / frame of film determined how one processed that film, which in turn determined on what contrast grade of paper one printed the image. What filter one used (if any) determined what tonal values of significant elements of a picture would exhibit.

Those ultra dark Ansel Adams skies found in many of his prints might have been helped along by some judicious burning-in in the darkroom but it was the use of a filter - the ever popular Kodak Wratten Red No. 25 - that was responsible for the look. And those autumn-yellow polar leaves that just seemed to glow and pop off the surfaces of his prints - thank you very much Kodak Wratten Filter Yellow No. 12.

Unless you are a film "purist" there is no need for any of that stuff now. You can picture merrily away in color and apply the virtual filter of your choice in post-picturing digital darkroom processing.

Caveat: Don't even begin to think that after-the-fact BW conversion / processing requires any less "knowledge" than that of the good 'ole analog film days. Unless all you are interested in is moving sliders around until you get something that looks good - kinds like applying an "effect" - there is much to know and understand about the process and tools involved in making good BW pictures.

Saturday
Oct252008

man & nature # 65 ~ a new learning curve

gasolinedocksm.jpg1044757-2063444-thumbnail.jpg
Gasoline and Motor Oilclick to embiggen
I've been messing around with making some BW prints from some of my files. The BWs are "conversions" from color files - is there any other way of picturing in BW in the digital age? If you shoot RAW, I don't think that there is.

Nevertheless, what I am discovering in the process of making "conversions" is that there are plenty of interesting options available when using the Calculations dialog box. It seems possible to achieve results that resemble those created with conventional BW film methods - things like shooting with a red filter to get dramatic dark skies and so on. In fact, like so much in the digital darkroom, it possible to get much more "fine-tuned" results - the equivalent of shooting with BW film and having lots and lots of filters in your bag.

But, of course, the "magic" of it all is that this can all be done after the fact of picturing. And, there are sooo many possibilities that it makes Adams' Zone System since like an very limited and very antiquated process from the 1940s. Oh, wait ... it is from the 1940s.

Friday
Oct242008

man & nature # 64 ~ all together now

chainlinkfencesm.jpg1044757-2058288-thumbnail.jpg
Chain link fence, clinging vine, and autumnal decayclick to embiggen
Over the past few weeks the number of visits / visitors to The Landscapist has taken a very significant jump.

One of the reasons for this - aside from my superb photography and my captivating / scintillating writing, of course - is the fact that many of you provide links in one form or another to The Landscapist. In fact, I appreciate this so much that I want you to send me money.

No, I'm not looking for a donation. What you'll get in return for a measly 25 bucks American (plus shipping) is a signed 9.5×19 inch archival print of my Chain link fence, clinging vine, and autumnal decay triptych (pictured above). It's a beauty.

This offer is for the entire Landscapist audience, not just those who have provided a link because, and I mean this will all sincerity, I really do appreciate each and everyone of you.

Just send me an email and I'll respond with the details on a method payment and shipping that works for you.

FYI, I have selected this triptych for this offer because I think that it illustrates this thought on the medium of photography from Bernice Abbott:

What the human eye observes causally and incuriously, the eye of the camera notes with relentless fidelity.