civilized ku # 1152-54 ~ where do these people come from? / wack jobs

Following the herd ~ West Branch Au Sable River / Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
2 stray sheep ~ West Branch Au Sable River / Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Cattle ~ West Branch Au Sable River / Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenGlancing at the pictures in this entry, one might be inclined to think I am referring to the gaggle of picture makers who yesterday descended en masse upon the banks of the West Branch of the Au Sable (although I am wondering where they came from). However, in fact, I am referring to the wack/nut jobs that seem to be coming out of the woodwork of late.

Not that the good ol' US of A has a lock on the nut job world, they seem to be in abundant supply just about everywhere but, that said, we here most definitely have our very own special wack/nut job franchise. One even left a comment here on The Landscapist recently.

In response to my entry, civilized ku # 1140-44 (which was about a neat local golf course), someone calling himself "Ron" (maybe a real name, maybe not inasmuch as most wack/nut jobs don't leave email or web address which might confirm their bonafides) left this comment:

"What's not to like about that (ed. the golf course)?" ... It's owned by Capitalist. We should taken it away from them. The government can run it and it could free for everyone. Not everyone can afford $10. That's not fair and equal. To hell with their spit, bailing wire and dedicated hard work, who cares. Let's get em. We'll stop em. There won't be anyone building anything like this again.

Now, it's worth speculating that this comment might be a put-on meant to get under my skin or incite a response from me which might try to refute or debate the stated political / social / cultural position advocated by "Ron". Not gonna happen - there's no debating with a wack/nut job, even if he/she/it is named "Ron" and he/she/it is serious.

Add to that wack/nut job loonyosity, the following Letter to the Editor in our local newspaper this AM under the title of "Greatest Generation?":

TO THE EDITOR: There has been much speculation as to which generation of Americans constitutes the "greatest generation". The generation of our war for independence, the generation of the Civil War and the generation of the Great Depression and World War II are candidates, but I believe the emergence of the greatest generation lies before us.

The Greatest Generation will be the one that relegates the Democratic party to the lunatic fringe of American politics where it belongs and keeps it there for the rest of their days.

If the American spirit of liberty and justice do not assert themselves and the Democratic party is allowed to continue bringing America down, freedom will perish upon the whole of the earth. If American sanity does not return, all of civilization will drown in a sea of socialist lust.

It is power that the Democrats desire above all things and such rights as life, liberty and prosperity are trifles to be tossed aside on a whim.

Giving credit were credit is due, that missive was penned / penciled / keyboarded by Leo J. Seney of Dannemora, NY - a real person opining with his real name and town of residency. And remember, you've been warned - better heed Leo' warning and don a Republican life-vest lest you "drown in a sea of socialist (aka: Democratic party) lust."

IMO, both of the aforementioned wack/nut jobs, while seemingly coming from opposite ends of the wack/nut job spectrum, have one thing in common - neither is dealing with a full deck. Which brings to mind a passage from Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist and 2008 Nobel Laureate (Economics):

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

I can not state categorically that either wack/nut job was bookish or has read the either of the aforementioned books, but I think I can safely state that both are emotionally stunted ... socially crippled, and unable to deal with the real world.

civilized ku # 1151 ~ autumn flowers

Backyard Autumn flowers ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
LAB color space - b Channel curve • click to embiggenSven W asked, re: civilized ku # 1149:

... did the image for this post require much in the way of post-processing to get the colours right? I think you're mentioned before that you often need to tweak the greens in some way?"

The picture, yard and garage in the rain, Sven is referring to required just a bit more processing than is usually my norm. I attribute that to the fact that the scene had very saturated color due to the rain. This natural saturation + that of my camera sensor (E-P1/E-P2) created, to my eye and sensibilities, a overall yellow bias* to the picture (as viewed in my RAW conversion software on my calibrated screen).

VERY IMPORTANT CAVEAT: My camera was an Oly E-P2. My camera WB was set to "CLOUDY". My monitor is calibrated using a Gretagmacbeth Eye-One device. My RAW conversion software is RAW Delveloper**, and my primary processing software is Photoshop. Exactly where in all of these variables the yellow bias originates is an open question. Most likely it is inherent in the Oly sensor and color engine. In any event, the manner in which I process my files, respective to yellow, should be taken only as a general guide. Your mileage may vary. END OF CAVEAT

In any event, using RAW Developer in LAB color space (and after making a minor WB adjustment), I made a curve in the b Channel (blue/yellow content) like that seen in the above screen grab. That curve illustrates a curve typical of the one I regularly use for yellow correction and, on occasion, red correction (in the b Channel). That is, I (important! important! important!) anchor the curve at the mid point and then add a point approximately 1/5 of the way down the curve. I use that point to make my adjustment by dragging it up - in the case of the image in the curve illustration picture, I moved it up a very small amount. FYI, the image on the right is the before, on the left is the after.

In the case of the yard and garage in the rain picture, I moved it up a fair amount more, the amount determined by real-time viewing of the change in the picture as seen on my calibrated monitor. I just moved the point until the color looked right. It is worth noting that I also performed the same correction, using the same curve structure and procedure, for a red adjustment (albeit to a much more subtle degree) on the a Channel (green/magenta content) on the yard and garage in the rain picture.

All of that said, some might ask why I am making adjustments to yellow when Sven asked about adjustments to green. That's simply because yellow + blue = green. The resultant shade of green is dependent upon the mix of the two colors. My experience, taking into account all the previously mentioned variables, has demonstrated that there is too much yellow in my greens which creates a rather homogenized green, albeit "pleasantly" rich. Too rich for my blood.

NOTA BENE: making color adjustments in LAB color space is a very different and much more powerful manner of making adjustments as opposed to making them in RGB color space. I can't get all techincal on you why this is so - it would require about a zillion words, make your head spin, and give you a massive headache. Suffice it to state, what I have tried to do is give a down-and-dirty approach to making these type of adjustments in LAB. If you want to learn more about LAB color space, try here or use your google machine to find other sources.

*I do NOT view this yellow "bias" as a flaw in the Oly sensor / color engine - Oly is universally respected for their very pleasant color results (jpegs right out of the camera). Rather, it is just Oly's take on their idea of color flavor - all camera makers have one. Some might find Oly's take on color flavor right up their alley. I do not.

**RAW Delveloper is a MAC OS X optimized RAW conversion software. It creates, via its own custom demosaicing algorithms, wonderful film-like files. The software has all the tools one could ask for, including the capability of performing color adjustments (curves), contrast/tonal adjustments (curves), and hybrid sharpening in LAB color space. Another real plus for me is the fact that the program is not a memory hog - all it does is RAW conversion processing.

civilized ku # 1150 ~ real / not real

PUB & RESTA... ~ Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen

decay & disgust # 44 ~ chicken bones

Chicken bones • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 1149 ~ question and answer + my response

Yard and garage in the rain ~ Saranac, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenSo, I was checking out a few photo blogs when, on John Linn's blog, I came across this exchange:

John Linn stated: It is hard to resist the colors of autumn. When the light is right and leaves are full of oranges and reds and yellow it seems like the perfect photo opportunity. Is this too much cliché? Are the colors too vivid? I don't know... I just like the look.

...to which Colin Griffiths responded: Cliches, too vivid, leaves on rocks etc. Who cares? Some folk get too tied up in how a photograph should look as described in more measurable terms. They forget to notice or "feel" the less absolute reasons that probably motivated the photographer. Here, you didn't respond because it was a photo opportunity. Rather because it was an emotional response to something that said "wow, this is simply stunning". And it was!

As it happens, both John and Colin have photo blogs which are amongst those I check out on a relatively frequent basis and, as I am aware, both make regular visits to and occasionally leave comments on The Landscapist. Based on that knowledge, I didn't think it was too much of presumptuous stretch to deduce that both John's statement and Colin's response to it had, as their origins, some the many entry commentaries, re: screaming colorist cliched pictures, to be found on my blog.

Consequently, and in light of the above, I thought I would (once again) set the record straight, re: my seemingly endless professing of being "too tied up in how a photograph should look as described in more measurable terms". Therefore ...

my response: First and foremost, let me state yet again - the medium of photography is an unruly beast. Trying to put or keep it in an easily defined box is like trying to herd cats, there are way too many practitioners following the I-just-like-the-look picture making modus operandi (which is as it should be - to each his own) for anyone to state, ex cathedra, what a picture should look like, which, BTW, is a very different endeavor from that of stating the kind of pictures one might like or dislike.

That is why, IMO, a picture should look exactly like what any given picture maker intends it to look like.

It should go without stating, but, my pictures look exactly like I intend them to look like. Why? Amongst many reasons, I just like the look. On one level, it is as simple as that. And, on that like-the-look level, some also like the look of my pictures while others do not, which is exactly as it should be.

Like John's autumnal color picture, my pictures are the result of my picture making response to circumstance and referents which I find/have found to be "irresistible", picture making wise. To be sure, what he finds irresistible and what I find to be irresistible are, more often than not, rather different which, once again, is as it should be. We are each going our own way, following our own path/vision of things.

Now, with that lengthy caveat, which could be reduced to a simple directive of just do your own thing (responsibility, of course), so stated, let's move on to why it is I am such a tireless advocate of straight* picture making.

1. Is there any doubt regarding the medium's most unique amongst the visual arts characteristic - its inherent relationship with the real**? IMO, and that of many others, it is this inexorable characteristic which sets photography apart from the other visual arts. To wit: The medium's inherent and inexorable characteristic of being a cohort with the real is its most defining and distinguishing quality. Why ignore or squander it?***

2. Relative to reason #1, there are many who come upon The Landscapist who are looking to move beyond the ubiquitous obviousiness of the picture cliché. They realize there is more to the medium than just making look-a-like pictures and they also realize that the photo blog-o-sphere is filled to the brim with sites and opinions which glamorize - one could even say, "idolize" - the ubiquitous clichéd pretty picture genré.

Those realizations aside, what these seekers often lack is the intestinal fortitude to try making pictures of what they "see", as opposed to making pictures they have been told are good pictures (to paraphrase Brooks Jensen). The lack of intestinal fortitude is very understandable in an amateur picture making world which rewards the clichéd pretty picture with camera-club style competition recognition and it-goes-nice-with-the-sofa style sales.

3. IMO, what these newbie visitors to The Landscapist need is a visual and verbal dose of an alternative to the pretty picture genré. And, given the fact that the online word does not encourage delving into archives (this blog has 4 years worth of archives), I am given to repeating my "preaching", re: the endless stream of clichéd pretty pictures, on fairly regular basis in an attempt to connect with the steady flow of landscapist newbies. I realise this repetition is most likely tiresome to the regulars but I believe they continue to hang around for other reasons.

4. Last, but not least, is the idea which was drummed into my head throughout my years in the hallowed halls - some might say, "hollow halls" - of education - learn to think for yourself. Don't just follow the crowd or "conventional wisdom". Think. Really think. Learn how to learn. And, most importantly and as a life-long pursuit, want to learn. Explore. Discover. All in the name / pursuit of becoming your own person.

IMO, becoming your own person is as important in life as it is in picture making. In fact, IMO, those two objectives are inherently and inexorably linked - if you can't be your person in life, I doubt if you can make pictures that are the result of your own vision.

If all you see in the world is what you've have been told to see then, IMO, you're screwed (on all counts) from the get-go.

FYI re: John Linn's picture - lest anyone think otherwise, IMO, his picture making response to a circumstance and referent which caught his attention is an honest, un-affected, un-effected, and faithful representation of the real. Earth-shattering / genré bending? No, but a "quiet" and contemplation engendering look at the real? Absolutely.

One could also state, "I just like the look."

*picturing a referent in the most objective manner the medium allows - which does not mean a picture can ever be 100% subjective-free.

**please take your metaphysical, pseudo-scientific, philosophical, psychological (or however you choose to define it) nattering about reality/the real to somewhere it will be appreciated.

***there are many who use this characteristic - Crewdson, Wall, Hobson (The Cinemascapist), Hediger, amongst many others - to upend or mess with our pre-conceived notions of the real or to picture ideas beyond what our eyes see. IMO, this is a good thing.

civilized ku # 1145-47 ~ hotel views / scenes

Exit view ~ Gideon Putnum Hotel / Saratoga Spa Sate Park - Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen
Computer center ~ Gideon Putnum Hotel / Saratoga Spa Sate Park - Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen
Window table ~ Gideon Putnum Hotel / Saratoga Spa Sate Park - Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 1140-44 ~ a good walk (not) spoiled

1st tee (alternate) ~ Au Sable Valley GC / Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Maintenance path • click to embiggen
9 green • click to embiggen
6 tee (alternate) • click to embiggen
6 green • click to embiggenThe past couple days, I have been getting out for a late afternoon 9-hole round of golf at our local - 2 short blocks from my house - golf course, the AuSable Valley GC. The 9 hole course was designed by Seymour Dunn - born 1882 in North Berwick, Scotland in his father's golf club making shack next to the 1st tee on the West Links GC. Dunn moved to Lake Placid 1920. He designed many famous golf courses in the NE US including many in the Adirondacks.

The AuSable Valley GC was built in the second decade of the last century (one source says 1915, another 1920) putting it very close to celebrating its centennial year. The course was originally built as a private course for the employees of the J.J. Rogers Company (1827-1971) - a large iron, and later pulp and paper, manufacturing concern located in Au Sable Forks.

Over the years, the course passed into private ownership and is now a family owned operation, under which the course is held together with some spit, a lot of bailing wire, and a fair amount of dedicated hard work. Meaning, course conditions are not always the best although, under all but the most extenuating circumstances (really long dry spells), the course is always playable.

That said, the course itself is a magnificent and very challenging layout. It's a real mountain goat track - lots of dramatic elevation changes (seems like I am always walking uphill), dramatically rolling fairways, blind shots aplenty, 2 dogleg fairways, up/downhill lies, above/below your feet lies, and undulating postage stamp sized greens. With all of the aforementioned and the fact that no two holes are alike, the course places quite a demand on a wide variety of shot making proficiencies. Despite the course's short 9-hole length - 2,700 yards - it is mostly definitely not a swing-away-at-it golf experience. Throw in a few incredible views from several very elevated tees, and what you have is a recipe for a very interesting, challenging, and if you play well, enjoyable round of golf.

FYI, if you choose to play 18 holes, 6 of the 9 holes offer a second set of tees which alter each hole's tee shot significantly.

In any event, playing here at this time of year is, for me, a great experience. The scenery is in its autumnal best and the course is essentially one's own private track - not another soul in sight. And, it demands little of your time and wallet - an hour and a half round for $10. What's not to like about that?

single women # 17 ~ seeing double

Eating apple strudel ~ Oktoberfest / Bear Mt. Park - NOT in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenPrior to my acquisition of the E-P2 and when I was out and about with the E-P1, the most frequently asked question from strangers, camera wise, was, "Is that a film camera?" And it was a frequently asked question nearly every time I was stationary in/around a crowd or gathering of people. If I have heard the question once, I have heard it hundreds of times.

• click to embiggenNow that I have 2 visually identical cameras, albeit each with different lenses, the new frequently asked question (even from one of twins pictured above) is, "Why do you have two (identical) cameras?"

Interestingly enough, I never hear this question when I am out and about with my Oly E-5 and Pentax K20D hung on my body or, for that matter, the E-5 and the E-P1. My theory for this discrepancy is based on the fact that the behemoth DSLRs, complete with battery grips, scream "professional" which explains to most that no matter how many cameras I have in tow, it is immediately understandable*.

With the E-P1 and E-P2, people tend to think they are P&S cameras and therefore scream "amateur", which makes it un-understandable why I am carrying two of them. That said, I wonder if the former group of questioners (the "film camera?" group) will ever ask if the reason for two cameras is the bygone film-days obvious one - "Is one camera for color and the other for B&W?"

Back in the good ole days of analog picture making, many pictures makers, professional and amateur alike, carried two cameras for just that reason. Other reasons could have been: 1)one camera loaded with slow film (fine grain) and the other with fast film, 2)one with color transparency (slide) film, the other with color negative film, or, as in my case, 3)each camera with a different lens. Also, most pros and some amateurs had an "extra" identical cameras just in case one when down in the middle of a shoot.

In today's digital world, many of the analog day reasons for two (identical or not) cameras are no longer applicable. However, I have noticed that many digital shooters are going the DSLR + highend P&S route. My assumption for this is based on the notions of: 1)bulky to carry but bigger files from the DSLRs = potential for bigger prints, and 2)easy to carry and smaller files from the highend P&S camera = good enough for most print making needs.

All of that said, whether it be two cameras or one, I am curious - do any of you, when you are out and about, ever field questions from strangers regarding your camera(s)?

*While I was standing in a shuttle bus line at the New York State Fair, one observant person asked if the E-5 and K20D (with battery grips) were digital cameras. My response was, "Yes.", whereupon she asked, "Why do they have motor drives?"