Archives

Topics

Homeland Security Advisory System

ELEVATED

Significant Risk of
Terror Attacks

Links

Sid's home page
Atom, RSS, E-mail, Search

Sara Cammeresi

American sense of life vs environmentalism —

The government are considering delisting some species of salmon from the rolls of endangered species. This results in the predictable reactions from both sides of the isle, but the most entertaining and humourous reaction comes in an unphilosophical statement of how such a law is opposed to the American sense of life:

`I applaud the people that are trying to save species that are endangered,' said Gretchen Borck, a lobbyist with the Washington Association of Wheat Growers. `But it might be good that we don't have dinosaurs now. We've gotten oil from the dinosaurs. If we had preserved the dinosaur, we wouldn't have that oil.'

Or maybe there are no dinosaurs because of the socio-phallo-anti-dinosaurian complex. Or maybe it was the corporate media conspiracy that was going on millions of years ago. Or not.

posted by Sid at 22.44 / 197     [ Comments: 1 ]

Photoblog trendage and rantage —

While I have posted some of my photographs in my blog, I do not have a photoblog as such, and I never will. The idea of a photoblog with new material posted daily or near it does not fit my style at all. Recently, I have been employing my 11x14 view camera with increasing regularity. This camera is very heavy and slow to operate, and I often spend an hour preparing and making each exposure. I have only two film holders for the camera, which means I can make only four exposures when I make a photographic expedition. In fact, when I motored to Kankakee River State Park yesterweekend, I returned with only three exposed negatives. While the rapid-fire, 200-exposure-per-day style of most 35mm and digital cameras users may be enjoyable for them, I have never enjoyed it. Instead, I have found that my enjoyment is proportional to the size of my film format and inversely proportional to the number of exposures I make in any given day. I'm happy to make one good photograph per month.

But in spite of my condescension, which is somewhat sarcastic, if you like taking 500 pictures per day, then go for it. Those people produce some nice photographs sometimes; I just prefer to rely on a little less luck.

What does bother me, however, are the trends among the current photoblogography. I am a big fan of sparkly, exciting middle tones, and while I usually produce richer, less high-key photographs than Mr Turingan's chocolate shop shot, it is sometimes appropriate, and indeed, I do like this particular photograph. But why does every black-and-white photograph have to have that same high contrast but soft in the highlights look? I liked this look when I first saw it, but I have seen enough of it after seeing Mr Turingan's patio chair shot. This is not high-key highlights, this is blown out highlights, this is a lack of detail, this is excessive contrast. I am also tired of this `artistic' lack of focus thing. In 11x14, my normal lens is a 450mm, about ten times the normal focal length of a 35mm camera, and I know I could get all of that photograph in focus with my 11x14 camera using a combination of stopping down and tilting the front standard forward, so why is it out of focus with a 35mm camera? The purpose of completely out-of-focus backgrounds is to remove distractions. A slightly out-of-focus background is just slightly out of focus and simply says the photographer was either too lazy to stop down or was too lazy to use a tripod so that he could stop down.

So I am a nice guy, and I decided to make a short comment about the patio chair shot, albeit in a bit nicer and more diplomatic tone than I use here:

This looks a bit false, as the chair is quite high in contrast, whereas the bricks are considerably flatter. The two things look nice individually, but I suspect this has been slightly overmanipulated.

And thence and therefore the floodgates opened straightaway. The main theme underlying the comments made against my opinion was: this is not a result of excessive digital manipulations, this is the way my red filter and film rendered it; therefore, the photograph is good. What the scene actually looked like and what the photograph looks like are barely considered.

This is an intrinsicist view. What one's film, filters, and camera do by default is irrelevant. Tools do not dictate what a good photograph is. When dealing with an activity that is primarily a technical, not an artistic skill, whose purpose is primarily to record reality verbatim, one criterion for determining whether a photograph is good is: Does it essentially adhere to reality? In the ways it departs from reality, do those significantly degrade its relation to reality or impede our ability to perceive what the photographer perceived? I regard large, featureless shadows; blown out highlights; and other offences of contrast control to be equivalent to the more mundane technical error of gross over- or underexposure. The featureless or blown out section of a photograph which conveys no information about what is there has little correspondence to reality; in reality, I would see something there.

The more general point, however, is that the vast majority of comments made about photoblogographs are useless, general praise which praise nothing in particular, and when someone tries to make a small bit of helpful criticism, he's jumped on for daring to blaspheme a god. Just so it's clear, I will explicitly say that I'm referring to the comments made on the chair photo I mentioned earlier. I don't quite understand why such a rally happened as a result of one small critical comment, and the lack of actual technical discussion of the photograph made me uninterested in pursuing the topic further.

It doesn't matter to me at all anyway. I don't care whether they agree with me, and I don't care what anyone thinks about my own photographs, although reasoned comments, whether positive or negative (ahem) are always welcome. Hopefully one day, photobloggers will grow thick enough skin such that they will be able to feel the same way.

posted by Sid at 14.39 / 860     [ Comments: 2 ]

Positivity —

Let me ensure the universe remains karmically balanced by linking to a few photographs I do like.

Mr Wickens:

• After the Rain -- nice colours
• Curiously Strong -- perhaps a bit soft in contrast, but I'm not sure

Mr Turingan:

• Soma -- high key is appropriate here
• Leia -- soft focus is okay, but I'm not a big fan

And with that, I make for my darkroom, as I have seven unproofed negatives on my light table and of those, five must be printed and of those, two look like they will be somewhat exciting.

posted by Sid at 14.39 / 860     [ Comments: 0 ]