Spring in a marsh • click to embiggenSee the tree with the brokren trunk and a few straggly branches off to one side in today's picture? That is pretty much how I feel.

I've got way too many balls in the air right now. One wrong move and it might all come tumbling down. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel and it is getting brighter every day. If I can make it through until noon on Friday, I will be in the clear - not exactly finished, but most of the balls will be in someone else's court(s) and I can get back to my primary role of being a patron-ed artist instead of a hardworking graphic artist (with a minor in home renovations).

Despite it all, I have managed to make a few ku although my decay stuff - the stuff that's actually decaying - sits idly by. Unless I take it on the road with me to PA for my press check, it's going to be idle a bit longer, which might actually improve things, decay-wise. My only worry is that the wife might "accidentally" dispose of it while I'm away.

Bathroom window • click to embiggenHey all, let's get serious about the picture window thing. The POD book thing seems to have fizzled, at least to my knowledge. So, maybe a smaller undertaking will be a bit easier to accomplish.

Two statements, each offering very opposing POVs about photography, have recently come to my attention.

The first is from an article in the NY Times, Sepia No More, that is receiving a bit of photo-blog attention. In the article, the author, Virginia Heffernan, tries to describe and come to grips with the Flickr phenomenon. She believes that there is a Flickr "style" that has emerged - pictures that "are digital images that “pop” with the signature tulip colors of Canon digital cameras ... (photos with) still more levels of processing — including the otherworldly contrasts achieved with high-dynamic-range photography ... becoming only more eye-popping and stylized." Pictures that are made specifically for online presentation - eye-catching at thumbnail size and easily "read" at typical online sizes (500-1000 pixels).

I thought this might be of interest to you because of a few comments made recently about making pictures with the specific intent of online presentation and "acceptance". But, the statement(s) that me most from the article were the comments by a Flickr "star" (profiled by Heffernan) who has;

...written a treatise extolling digital manipulation called “I’m Not a Photographer,” deriding mainstream art photographers who “show you shoes hanging on wires, pink boxes in the green weeds, little black girls with blue eyes and nuns sitting under billboards of naked men.” On his Flickr profile, he calls the classic film camera “The Robot Camera Machine” and proposes digital processing as the antidote to film’s inhumanity.

My only response to that is simply that it is spoken just as I would expect a child of the age of hyper sensationalized media saturation to speak. With the ubiquitous and dominate form of visual stimulation coming from the masters of manipulation - the advertising "experts" with films, television and the web running a close second, it is no surprise to me that someone who swims in that water or breathes that air thinks that a manipulated world is the norm. It seems that the "real" world is more than just a bit bogus to them.

Contrast that attitude with these 2 statement from of Walker Evans;

Photography is the capture and projection of the delights of seeing; it is the defining of observation full and felt.

Stare. It is the way to educate your eye, and more. Stare, pry, listen eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long.

By presenting these distinctly differing opinions about the medium, I am not trying to propose that one idea is right and the other idea is wrong. Evans' notions have stood the test of time and much great photography that adheres to his ideas has been created both prior to and after his statement.

Those of the Flickr "star" have yet to tested by time and only time will tell whether the pictures created to the flickr standard have anything meaningful and lasting to say or that they are just a passing thrill-a-minute kind of thing.

Vernal water • click to embiggenSorry for the late entry. It's been one of those days.

Spring is springing out in earnest. Grass is turning green. Buds are on the trees. The ground is turning soggy as everything has thawed. We even had a run of 80 degree days. All in all, it's quite pleasant. That despite the fact that, while I was in a meeting in Lake Placid this AM, a decent snowfall was happening.

Part of the reason that this was "one of those days" is the last minute hustle to get out a 200 page book to the printer - no, not a photo book, an Adirondack tourism piece. Next week is press proofing in Lancaster, PA. Any one out there in the neighborhood who might like to get together, drink some beer, and talk about equipment and stuff?

Just relaxing • click to embiggenLate afternoon, this past Saturday, while I was sitting around relaxing after a nice day with the wife and Hugo, I was suddenly struck by a thought that leads directly to a question for you.

I have previously ruminated and ranted about the state of affairs in the photo world of digital cameras / capture. My previous opinion still stands - that the digital capture world is one fine "immature" mess, in no small part because it is a picture-perfect model of planned obsolescence. Today's "state of the art" is tomorrow's (almost literally) has been.

But one thing that has remained relatively constant is the digital darkroom, aka Photoshop. Make no mistake, PS has evolved over the years with more tools, versatility, and complexity. But, for many photographers, its core capabilities are remarkably constant simply because so many of PS's tools so closely match traditional analog photo and pre-press techniques.

That is why I was able, without too much hair pulling, to jump into PS very early on and take to it like a fish to water - I had experience aplenty in the wet darkroom - color and BW - as well a considerable amount of pre-press knowledge from my commercial photography experience where putting an image on paper on a printing press was the goal of the process.

That said, on Saturday I was struck. with a clarity I had not experienced before, that, DUH, not everyone has had experience like mine. The younger generation of photographers have never experienced the wet darkroom and, relatively speaking, only a handful of photographers have faced the rigorous demands of working with a printer to achieve high quality press output.

So, for whatever reason, on Saturday I had a vision of hordes of bewildered "newbies" wandering around, dazed and confused, in the digital darkroom - many of whom must truly feel that they are "in the dark". With so much of the final picture quality dependent upon the knowledgeable and expert use of some kind of imaging making software, I was left wondering about how many out there are feeling dazed and confused to one degree or another.

I was also left wondering about how many out there even use PS - the acknowledged leader in imaging making/editing software. Do people avoid it because of its expense and/or its seemingly confusing complexity? Or, if you do use it, are you intimidated by the seemingly infinite number of tools and variations thereof? Do you feel that your pictures could be much "better" if only you were better at using PS (or some other software)?

I have never had this conversation before and I am very curious about these issues.