Serendipities

Best wishes.

2011-06-27T08:34:00.005-04:00

Happy Birthday, Ken, where ever you are. Hope life is treating you well.

It's often the simplest things.

2011-06-13T19:41:00.000-04:00

This sort of thing happens to me all the time - I don't take a picture or pursue a thought for an image because I figure whatever I thought to point my camera at "won't be interesting enough". A defeatist view, definitely, and something that largely causes my "dry spells" with photography. It's a lesson I can't seem to learn enough: you can find an interesting image anywhere.

Take the above image, for example. I'd been noodling around with making images of objects placed on my light box, and I had a thought to try randomly-thrown paper circles as my object of the day. So I took a hole punch and went through my paper supplies and pulled out some complementary colors and punched out about 20 holes per color. I shook them all together to get the colors mixed up, then tossed them on the light box. I zoomed the lens during the exposure, to get a blurred effect. Truth be told, the end results weren't all that impressive, but I selected a couple of the best tries and gazed at them a while to see if I could find a pattern that looked visually appealing. Once I found that, I worked on color and tone. What you see here is the end product. I think it has a gentle, calming appearance, but with a level of abstraction you can get lost in. And it came out of aiming my camera at about 100 1/4-inch diameter pieces of colored paper. Interesting enough for you?

Getting back on the horse.

2011-06-09T21:25:00.004-04:00

Or trying to, anyway. I dropped off taking photographs substantially in the past year, but I'm working to break that creative block. So hopefully going forward I'll be posting more often.

The image above was taken of leaves from my backyard, arranged on a light box.

Distracted.

2010-06-08T22:49:00.001-04:00

Whoops. I ignored my blog again. I got a new scanner, as I've mentioned, and have started up a couple of projects scanning family photos and my vintage photo collection, so pretty much all my time has been sucked up by that. If you are interested in vintage photos, feel free to follow the link to my Flickr photostream and have a look. I've only just started posting the images, and there's a good amount to see already, but the pile will definitely get bigger.

I do have some blog posts in mind though - just haven't started them; I'll have to get those together. And SoFoBoMo has started, but I neither have a start date for myself nor an idea of what to do. The latest I can start is very late June (or certainly no later than July 1), in order for my 31-day project to fall within the time frame. I have been (besides scanning) also building some homemade lensless cameras, so maybe if I get my act together I'll do something pinhole-y or zone plate-y with them. Hmmm...two SoFoBoMo books in a row with nothing sharply focused - can you stand it?

The Polaroid Land "Automatic" 100

2010-05-04T23:46:00.004-04:00

The Polaroid Land "Automatic" 100 was manufactured between 1963 and 1966, and takes Polaroid 100-type packfilm. Pictured here, you can see what it looks like when it is enclosed in its hard case, and also when it is out of the case and the bellows is fully extended. It was the first model in a series of folding rangefinder cameras and featured automatic exposure (although you have some control with a lighten/darken knob). Accessories include the usual remote shutter mechanisms, flashes, a variety of filters, and kits that allow closer focus - "portrait", to get you within 1.5 feet of your subject, and "close-up" to get you within about 9 inches (normal minimum focusing distance is about 3.5 feet). For the autoexposure feature, the camera requires batteries - a battery type which is near-to-completely obsolete by now. But the camera I use has been adapted to take regular AA batteries - I did not perform the adaptation on this particular camera, but I've read tutorials online about it and it appears to be a relatively simple process. I have another 100 that is not converted, and I may attempt it myself sometime in the near future.

I enjoy using this camera, but like pretty much all Polaroid cameras, it's a bit ungainly and cumbersome to carry around. I find I had to get used to accounting a bit for parallax error, but once you get the hang of that it's really a very easy camera to use. You can either get old Polaroid packfilm (still available, but at usurious prices) or from Fujifilm, who makes an instant film that fits Polaroid packfilm cameras, and apparently they have no plans to discontinue it.

After you take a picture you pull a series of tabs from an opening on the side that brings the image out through a pair of metal rollers, releasing the development chemicals encased in each picture and spreading it across the image. After the appropriate amount of time has passed - depending on temperature and type of film, this can take about 1-2 minutes - you separate the image from its backing and there it is - instant image! [Yeah I know, you could have fired off fifty digital images in that amount of time, humor me!]

Here's some examples of pictures taken with the camera:

Sometimes if you pull the print out too quickly, you get some smeared chemicals and spots (and sometimes you can misjudge the focus!):

And since you don't actually develop the image until you pull it out of the camera (unlike other Polaroid cams which instantly spit out the print whether you like it or not), you can experiment with multiple exposures:

I hope you've enjoyed this trip down memory lane - officially, it is the first trip, for my long-term Old Cameras Project, which *cough* I'm just about five months behind in starting it. Better late than never!

Commemorate the Lensless.

2010-04-25T15:03:00.002-04:00

Happy Worldwide Pinhole Day!

Absence.

2010-04-23T23:48:00.004-04:00

Every once in a while, I pick up an old photo or two at a flea market, or an antique store. I like old photos, and the fact that I don't have a personal connection to the thing or person in the photo doesn't bother me. Usually there's something in the image that catches my eye - could be simply the interest in the period dress, or a particular look in the face that is captivating, taking it beyond the usual "smile and say cheese" mask we all wear when confronted with a camera - at the beach, at a party. Often it's because the picture is one of those lucky few that despite the best efforts of the photographer to take a simple snapshot, rises into some sublime realm - a stray shaft of light, say, or perhaps an unintended overexposure that projects an unexpected mood into an otherwise moodless, purely documentary image.

The picture accompanying this post is just that kind of image - the quality of light, the reflection on the table, the candid happiness radiating from a young unspoiled face - it's just the kind of picture I would pluck from a shoebox on a dealer's table and immediately reach for my wallet. No picture such as this one should be orphaned - I have to take it home.

The only difference between this image and the modest pile of others I have accumulated from flea markets over the years, though, is that this image is personal: this is my brother Ken, from 1965, when he was about three years of age.

I recently upgraded my scanner at home, and started committing old family photos to digital copy, and so discovered this image, which I don't remember having seen before. It is perhaps disingenuous to suggest that the picture stands out for me simply because of the aspects I described earlier - surely I must have seen the picture before, and yet only now it asserts itself, only now do I see in it something beyond the documentary snapshot that, truthfully, it still very much is. The qualities I describe are most certainly there, but the mood they impart is particularly poignant because this isn't just a picture of my brother - it's a picture of my estranged brother, by his choice departed from our family for going on now over 15 years.

I'm drawn to this image, stunned by it really; it is a picture of Ken from when I could not know him - I was born a few years after this picture was taken - and the frank happiness on his face is almost impossible to process in light of all the years that have passed and the accumulation of grievances and disappointments that have marked my brother in recent decades. I do not know why the estrangement persists - despite my efforts to communicate, Ken has declined to explain. Now, about four years on since I gave up seeking answers, I don't know for certain where he currently lives in the world, or even that he still lives. For all I know the letters I'd sent over those last several years before I made a decision to stop never reached an address where he still resided; or if they did, that they were left unopened and disregarded.

It seems impossible to me that this is our situation, even as I write this and know it is true - a sense of impossibility compounded now by this picture, this memento of a then far less complicated and troubled soul. I want to be at that table with him right now, pouring over picture books of kittens, warmed by that slant of daylight, the whole day with nothing to do but be there, right there in that moment, to just be a kid.

How do I get there from here?

What to do...

2010-03-11T23:58:00.003-05:00

SoFoBoMo is coming up again - this time the "fuzzy month" occurs within the time-frame of June 1 to July 31. I'll have to start thinking about what I might do for it this time. I haven't a clue what to settle on. Being in a bit of a photography slump right now, I suppose I shouldn't worry too much that I don't have ideas yet. But I think I should nail something down by the end of April.

Chance left free to act.

2010-03-03T23:03:00.000-05:00

"All the world is full of inscape, and chance left free to act falls into an order as well as purpose" - Gerard Manley Hopkins

Principles of composition, in photography as with other arts, implies a certain amount of deliberation on the part of the photographer. The photographer is supposed to consider, weigh options, frame and re-frame, to get whatever the "best" composition is for that particular image, according to that particular photographer's aesthetic sense. But with photography, apart from other arts (or at least more of the conventionally known ones, like painting), the shot image can be spontaneous, often instantaneous, and composition - if it is considered at all - is measured in milliseconds: perhaps most successfully executed in the quick judgment of a seasoned photographer, or the innate skill of someone who is a "natural" at it. If you are neither seasoned nor a natural, successful composition can be often a matter of luck.

Successful composition can be also a matter of opinion [see my rules rant from last April]. In the photo above, my task was to take a wildlife "portrait" - a term which is - depending on how you look at it - inherently contradictory. The portrait, as a technical genre, is generally understood to be more of a formal affair. Posing is involved, at the very least, as is attention to position and lighting, among other concerns. Wildlife tend not to behave in line with such requirements. Even if you catch said wildlife in a moment of repose, it could hardly be characterized as having taken direction from you.

You may not be surprised to know I have a personal definition of "portrait" that is less formal. So fortunately I was able to tackle the contradiction that is "wildlife portraiture" by considering instead that the idea of wildlife portraiture, as Portraiture, could not be well-expressed in the positioning of the subject or composition of the image, but instead might be better approached (and found) as a feeling, or an overall sense of environment that comes through without the aid of deliberation, of set-up. To find composition, in fact, by chance.

The shot was taken as I found it - chance lit a titmouse onto a branch right in front of me, so I took aim and hit the shutter button a few times and hoped for the best. What I found in the results - and admittedly, it is my image so I'm a wee bit biased - is something far more "right" to my eye, in the way all the elements of scene fall into place, than I think I ever could have achieved from adopting a more deliberate approach. For one thing, with forethought I might have tried to follow the rule of "no clutter" and thus lost the chance to admire all those beautiful trunks and branches angling every which way in the background. I worked further in post-processing, overexposing and altering colors to get a slightly unreal look - a whiff of fairytale, sprinkled with a touch of harshness. A featherweight songster you can imagine Disney-pitched in serenade with a Princess, yet here fighting to release a nutrient-rich seed in the midst of a bleak midwinter.

Ok, that was a bit dramatic. But damn, I see it - don't you?

Paraphrase.

2010-03-01T22:43:00.001-05:00

"a paraphrase conveys the essential thought expressed in a source text — if necessary, at the expense of literality"

I like thinking of photography in terms of paraphrase - for a medium where it is common to see near-literal, or documentary, representations of the photographed subject, I'm on the side that tends more towards making a photographic image look how you want it to look, rather than have it appear as things actually were at the time the image was taken. I'm not advocating full-on fabrication necessarily - while I usually don't post-process to the ultimate limit, I don't really have a problem with others doing that. But my approach to my own image-making is to tend toward an anti-literal stance - to take some artistic license with the overall appearance.

I have observed in some photography forums that opinions seem to be divided on this point. For some, images that aren't "literal" aren't photographs. "Digital art" is used to simply name the genre sometimes, but can be hurled as a slur at other times. For others, photography is a way to use your camera (and other tools, including post-processing software) to create something unique and uniquely expressive of the photographer's personal aesthetic. The borders demarcating depicted reality with this group are more fluid, and in a way more forgiving.

I believe - and I don't think I'm saying anything particularly earth-shattering here - that even the most "literal" and straightforward image isn't really "true". All that a camera sees isn't all we can see; no photograph is truly literal.

So, there are my random musings on image-making and literality, for what it's worth.

Here are some paraphrased views of Black-Eyed Susans taken throughout the summer of last year.

Playing with Photoshop.

2010-02-24T22:00:00.001-05:00

I participated in a group recently over at DPChallenge, headed by a clever person who came up with some new photo-editing steps and shared it with us all. Coined "flip-and-blend" it involves taking an image and executing 3 flips, then doing whatever other adjustments to tone, hue, etc. you might be inclined to do. Often, it looks fantastic after only the flips and you might not want to do anything else to it. For those inclined to try it, I'll note the steps at the end of this post.

But using this technique, this is how an ordinary shot of Bonaparte gulls flying around off the coast of Maine

became this:

Steps:

Open any image in Photoshop
Copy layer and flip horizontally, put in "Difference" blend mode; flatten
Copy layer and flip vertically, put in "Difference" blend mode; flatten
Copy layer and flip 90 degrees, put in "Difference" blend mode; flatten

You can continue to make other image adjustments after this, but you can also play with more flips, different blend modes, just about anything you can think of.

There are many more great ideas about variations to this technique that can be found here, where our group had fun last month.

Now, go play!

Winter doldrums.

2010-02-21T20:57:00.003-05:00

It's been a bit snowy here lately...

This is one of perhaps only about 6 images I've taken since the beginning of the new year. Looking forward to a Spring thaw.

I've got some half-baked blog post drafts from a few months back that have Spring-like images attached to them. I'll see if I can't dust them off and finish them up, get this blog back into gear again.

What I have learned

2009-12-31T13:14:00.005-05:00

...about blogs, that is. This being the first one for me. Going into 2010, here's what I discovered:

1) I honestly didn't know it was bad form to not respond to comments in your blog. I would respond to some comments if I thought of something to say, but otherwise didn't worry about it. So I apologize to any readers who commented early on and received no reply. I'll try to be better about that, going forward.

2) Don't sweat how much you post, or repeatedly apologize for not posting a lot - generally, everyone gets it that life has a way of interrupting blog progress. Unless you've got someone posting chastising comments on your blog about how you don't post enough, rest securely in the knowledge that none of your readers take it personally. And if someone is posting said chastising comments, don't, for the love of Pete, give them your address...

3) While I'm sure there are some things to blog about that would guarantee a fit of narcolepsy in your readers, not everything you choose to write about necessarily has that effect. Take chances someone out there might want to know, and write anyway. If you put your readers to sleep occasionally, at least they got a nice nap out of it.

4) People generally ignore links. Seriously, this one surprised me. Granted, I don't get a lot of traffic on this blog - I believe the number of my regular visitors can be counted on one hand and accidental visitors occur another handful every month - but I really didn't expect to find that most links I put on the blog, either in the posts themselves or on the sidebar, never get touched.

So if you're feeling a bit adventurous, I encourage you to explore the other websites I've linked. Give them some love. Somebody out there on the receiving end will notice and appreciate the visit. And you might just discover something delightful in the process.

All the best in the New Year!

I'll close with a picture of the Rachel Carson Salt Pond Preserve in New Harbor, Maine, selected for no other reason than that I wish I lived there.

Hope revisited.

2009-12-26T20:36:00.004-05:00

My image, included in the book With Hope in Our Hearts, taken with a zone plate. Purchases of the book fund the foundation BT Buddies, which provides a resource of information and support for patients and families affected by high-grade brain tumors. If you'd like to contribute, you can purchase the book here.

Let it snow.

2009-12-19T22:08:00.004-05:00

Two feet after all is said and done, says the local meteorologist. The image is from this morning; the view from the window is far more abstract at this point. Massive snow dunes as far as the eye can see. The dunes make it appear as if there is far more than just two foot of accumulation.

The silly things that discourage us.

2009-12-12T22:01:00.004-05:00

I am intimidated by film photography.

A pretty ridiculous statement it appears now, as I type it out in front of me. But it's true. I am fascinated by cameras - so much so that I collect them - but I never really took the leap and got into photography as a hobby until digital cameras appeared on the scene. There was some worry about getting things wrong, wasting film, etc., etc - I was afraid to just try. A digital camera's instant feedback makes learning less costly (although a lot of the features I think can make you lazy - I try to shoot manual as much as possible to counteract this).

But back to those old cameras - I recently took them out of the cabinet where I store them and put them out on shelves, thinking it's a shame to continue to have them tucked away out of sight. Although my original intent was to keep them protected by putting them in the cabinet in the first place, it's dubious it makes that much of a difference - on the shelf I have them on now, they're not in direct sunlight and it's a low-traffic, low-dust area. Some of the cameras are quite old - early 1900's - and in varying states of disintegration. Some are of more recent vintage and in better shape, if not as-new. Others are so-called "fad" cameras, bought in the last 10 years - pinhole and toy cams. Of the really vintage ones, many still work, and either take currently available film or can be modified to take it - dinosaurs, maybe, but usable.

So I've been thinking to embark on a new project - decidedly long-term - to clean each one up, in turn, and put them to use. I've managed to locate manuals for nearly all of the cameras so "I don't know what this button does" is no longer a viable excuse for not using a camera, and neither is "I hardly know what I'm doing anyway, so it'll be a waste": while I'm surely not a photography expert, I know enough now at least to shake off most of the fear that earlier held me back. It feels like time to take the leap. I still might fail at first, even - horrors - waste film, but whatever it was that earlier kept me from trying doesn't seem to be there anymore.

So far I have a plan to first post about each camera - historical info, some pictures of the camera, maybe some details about its operation - and then have a later post that displays some pictures taken with the camera. Maybe I'll do both in the same post. We'll see how it goes. Don't even ask when I plan to make the first post, I have no idea - mostly I only have time for this sort of thing on the weekends, and even then that competes with other tasks and obligations. But the point of setting this as a project is to just get started in any capacity, never mind the time frame.

Even if I do one a month (and it's likely that is an overly optimistic estimate), we're still talking about a project that extends over two-and-a-half years. So settle in, it'll be a long ride no matter what.

Trying to find an image to go with this post, I could only find one that exemplifies how I wish to become about film photography:

"laid back"

[or, apparently, "channel my inner Prairie Dog"]

Hope.

2009-12-10T22:56:00.007-05:00

With Hope in Our Hearts is a new book put together by the good folks at BT Buddies (www.btbuddies.org.uk) to help raise money for their organization, which works to provide information, inspiration and hope to anyone affected by a high-grade brain tumor.

This 60+ page book features first-hand accounts of those suffering from brain tumors, interspersed with images related to the concept of "hope" which were submitted from various photographers at DPChallenge.com. I'm honored to have one of my own images included in the book.

Andi and Natalya at BT Buddies are good people working hard to bring about positive change from their own personal tragedy. Please consider purchasing a copy of their book to help fund the organization's future efforts. Purchases can be made here.

A recent encounter with large, fluffy shrubbery.

2009-12-06T21:52:00.002-05:00

Not being a plant person, I can't tell you what it was. It was taller than me, maybe about 7 feet high, and busted out all over with little white blooms. I pointed my lens through it towards the sun behind and focused somewhere midway for many shots, and then did a standard focus-on-what's-right-in-front-of-me for many more shots.

I like how focusing midway into the shrubbery gave a disorienting, hall of mirrors look to some of the images.

Tech specs - I was renting the new Canon 100mm macro at the time, and had it at f/2.8.

I still like trees.

2009-12-04T21:48:00.004-05:00

Just in case you were wondering...

Transformed.

2009-12-02T22:19:00.003-05:00

It was a bit surprising to watch the latest Transformers movie last week and see featured in it the Udvar-Hazy Center out in Chantilly, VA; even more so to find out that the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is actually some aged alien thingamabob - that's tech speak for "I'm-not-really-into-Transformers-lore-to-know-what-to-call-it" - in disguise.

Here's my one and only image of (part of) it:

Damn, I miss that Zeiss 50mm.

Here's a couple more from that outing with the Zeiss:

Take a bow.

2009-12-01T22:09:00.014-05:00

I recently submitted this image for a landscape challenge at DPChallenge.com, and titled it "proscenium". Didn't do particularly well, but then again, my images rarely do, over there. The best comment came from RKT, who summed up the image for me better than I had managed on my own:

"Oh see how the trees take a bow for us! They are tired from their autumn performance. A winters rest, well deserved."

Thanks for that, made my day.

Several more shots I considered entering for that challenge, but passed on:

Photographic mysteries.

2009-11-29T22:17:00.007-05:00

A verdant hilly view of Pennsylvania while zipping along the highway.

Another Lensbaby panned shot, this time I just held the camera out in front of me and clicked - no checking the viewfinder, no focusing, I just moved the camera horizontally a bit to compensate for the movement of the car. And I'm just tickled pink with what I got. Why do things always seem to come out better when I try the least to "get it right"?

Panning...

2009-11-22T15:29:00.012-05:00

is a bit tricky with a Lensbaby. [Well, panning is a bit tricky anyhow] But on a recent trip through Pennsylvania and Ohio, I gave it a shot. Much gratitude to Tony C., who did all the driving, so I could goof off.

Is this thing on?

2009-11-20T22:00:00.006-05:00

I'm alive. Got some blog posts stewing, including a new long-term project - which I hope, by announcing it here, might just keep me from procrastinating on seeing it to completion.

Stay tuned for more details, o ye 2 or 3 people that actually happen by every month. I do appreciate your visits, even if I can't help being snarky about it. :)

I like trees.

2009-10-07T22:59:00.001-04:00

There, I said it.

Stretch.

2009-09-30T22:08:00.003-04:00

Well, this blog is called "serendipities", after all, so here's one image that fits the profile. Serendipitous, in that it never would have happened had I attended a local classic car show stag - my companion pointed out this guy lost in thought off at the side and suggested I take a picture, so I did.

I have a bit of a blind spot for taking pictures of people. I mean, I know enough at a family gathering to point the camera at human beings, but when I go out to Take Pictures it rarely occurs to me take any candids. I'm too busy tunneling my vision toward a small detail of flora, or finding patterns in debris. Not that these are bad things on which to focus, but I tend to miss other things in the pursuit.

And while my lack of awareness of the human photo-ops around me is due partly to my attentiveness to other, non-human details, I think my blind spot is also partly due to my not wanting to get into trouble for pointing my camera at those who might object. Much as I admire other photographers' abilities to produce outstanding candids and street photography (and I do, very much), I have a hard time convincing myself it's something I should do. I feel like I'm intruding.

That's something I should work on, within reason - not about to go out tomorrow and shred someone else's right to privacy - but the occasional shot-across-a-street really isn't that heinous. Not a bad thing to challenge your fears a bit, give them a bit of a workout.

R&R.

2009-09-04T22:55:00.006-04:00

Another year older. I need a nap...

Updo

2009-09-02T18:20:00.001-04:00

Even zucchini go to Prom.

Slice of life.

2009-08-31T22:29:00.001-04:00

I keep writing posts and saving them as drafts. Can't seem to collect my thoughts this August.

Oh, here's a thought: the Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.4 for Canon is a lovely lens. The rental period was too, too brief, and I miss it already. I thought I would hate the fact it only focused manually, but in the right situation you don't miss it, and having to only and ever manually focus improves your concentration anyway. I focus slowly, so this is not the lens to carry when there are action shots to pursue, but if you're in no particular hurry, it's a wonderful walkaround lens. I love the way it resolves the out of focus areas.

Back in business.

2009-07-12T13:52:00.006-04:00

I'm really digging this dragonfly shot I took when I wasn't jiggling the camera silly during blur-fest for SoFoBoMo, so I thought I'd post it here.

Good news! My book is now back online and working, so you can check it out here.

Taking a break.

2009-07-08T21:44:00.003-04:00

Haven't had much to say lately, with SoFoBoMo finished. But I will soon, as I will also get around to finishing looking at all (217!) the books that people finished for the project (or at least were able to post at sofobomo.org) - I've seen some fabulous efforts so far - sometime before the summer is out I will occasionally post a few here that really caught my attention.. If anyone happens by this blog and has a SoFo book they did not post at the official site, let me know about it in the comments and I'll go 'round to your link and check it out.

By the way, my book is currently inoperative - I got it in my fool head to correct a typo and resubmit, and now it just shows 42 blank pages when you download it. I have some people connected with the site pursuing a solution for me, but in the meantime if you happen to check out my book and the download isn't working, just check back again in a few days. We'll get it sorted soon.

In the meantime, enjoy the twinkly tree. Lensbabies are a lot of fun.

Finish line.

2009-06-27T16:30:00.002-04:00

My SoFoBoMo book is finished, on this, the 31st day since I began the project. Here's a bit of the intro I wrote for the book:

I've always been fascinated by what photography can show us that goes beyond the literal and expected, and been especially appreciative of so-called "happy accidents" - images that come into being without the usual controls in place (whether by the photographer or by the camera) that regulate all the aspects of picture-taking which ensures you serve up the optimal, "successful" photo. Serendipitous images tend to display a bit of chaos, a bit of ambiguity, a bit of uncertainty. Their power lies in how they may unsettle expectation.

Some people consider such images to be technical failures, or worse, too much work to understand. But these are the images that I find I am personally most interested in looking at, and more importantly, want to look at again and again.

What one admires, ones strives to emulate. And so I took this month to concentrate on achieving my own happy accidents.

Which, as it happens, doesn't involve a whole lot of accident. You still need to consider technical details such as exposure and composition. If it were as simple as waving the camera around and firing the shutter repeatedly, I'd have a whole lot more images to show for my efforts. The month produced a lot more failures than successes.

If you are interested in learning how each image was achieved, I included an index in the last few pages that provides the particulars.

All the images included in this book were taken between May 28 and June 21, 2009. I'm very happy with the results, and I hope you enjoy them, too.

Go see my book at SoFoBoMo.org.

Primed.

2009-06-24T23:03:00.002-04:00

It occurs to me, as I approach the finish line and put the various pages of my SoFoBoMo PDF together, that I happened to have only used prime lenses during the project. Hadn't planned it that way, but there it is.

About two weekends ago I started looking into what method I would use to create the PDF book. I approached it with some trepidation, but was relieved to realize that I had plenty of options at hand. I decided to create pages as image files in Photoshop and then bring them into Lightroom's slideshow module, at which point I create a PDF from that. I've got all the final photos assembled now, arranged in six groupings and sequenced - looks ok, I think - within those groups.

I just finished the index/technical specs for the back pages tonight, and have left only the intro to write - long or short, I haven't decided yet. I expect to have everything wrapped up and uploaded on the 31st day - this coming Saturday.

I'm really pleased with how things came out - can't say I'm equally enthused about every image I decided to include, but I'm satisfied enough that I didn't compromise too much. I'm especially happy about the last grouping of images - I got good results from a new technique that I employed on my last day of shooting (this past Sunday).

The idea for it just popped into my head while I was wandering around looking for something to shoot, but maybe I read about it somewhere and just don't remember the origin of the idea - I'm sure people must have tried it before. With a prime lens (only what I used, I'm sure it's not an absolute requirement), determine a point of focus you want to start with and then predetermine (using the lens markings as a guide) either a point of defocus, or one or more points of further focus (focus points deeper into the composition, beyond the first point of focus). Then, set up the shot to give you enough exposure time (ND filters come in very handy here) that you can adjust the focus to the 2nd (or 2nd and 3rd) predetermined point(s) during the exposure. Play with length of time at each point, even, to see how that changes the results. I find you get some nice glowing effect in the subtler examples, and in the several-points-of-focus examples you get a disorienting effect of several planes of focus in the same shot with blur/glow in between. As I said, I'm really pleased with the outcome, so I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone thinks when I finally post the PDF on Saturday.

I can't believe I'm reaching the end of it, and successfully finished, to boot. I'm a little surprised at it all.

Try anything.

2009-06-14T22:18:00.014-04:00

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying this image right now. I tromped through a national park on Saturday, came back with sore shoulders and all manner of tick-y things crawling on me and embedding themselves, wondering if it was all worth it.

But after some work in post processing, I believe I have several more strong candidates for my SoFoBoMo book from this outing, which is huge (one strong candidate per outing is more my style, with a few also-rans). And I think this shot here is one of them. It just makes me want to sing.

So next time you walk past a babbling stream with all manner of foliage just under the surface with the sun shining strong and high down from a bright blue sky, you might want to ratchet your f/stop up and your ISO down, focus your lens on the reflections on the surface of the water and try a few handheld shots in the .6 - 1 second range to see what you get. If you're a persistent weirdo like me you might get about forty shots with this one jewel tucked within.

Everyone in the world can despise this shot, but I would still love it. It's my blog and I can crow if I want to.

Support the Unconventional.

2009-06-09T19:00:00.001-04:00

I came across notice of a new magazine today called Diffusion. Its editor, Blue Mitchell, has this to say about its purpose:

Diffusion is born out of a longing to create something palpable as well as enticing, educational, and hopefully entertaining. I have a keen interest as an artist - and art consumer - in photographers that push the boundaries and limitations of traditional photographic processes. Although I surround myself with artwork from photographers that push these boundaries, I have discovered, outside of physical exhibitions and online, that this type of photographic work is underrepresented in the modern photography magazine.

Diffusion is a compilation of articles, interviews, and images from artists and image-makers that coincide with this purpose. The magazine will be published annually, however, we will be producing special editions periodically that will focus more on specific themes and will not be limited to the photographic arts.

Looks very interesting to me, and I'm all for mainstream magazine access to unconventional photography (and other arts). Have a look at the site and see if you might be interested in helping this fledgling mag stay in production. I eagerly anticipate the arrival of my first issue.

I don't know the creators of this magazine or have any financial interest in it, I just thought it was a great idea and hope to help get it some more notice, even if it turns out I only have a reader-reach of about 3 or 4 people. :)

Rolling along.

2009-06-08T20:35:00.008-04:00

I'm up to about 22 images for SoFoBoMo, and I've got two more full weekends to shoot more images, so I feel like I'm making good progress. Posted here is a long exposure, taken of the Great Falls section of the Potomac after a week+ of heavy rain. It was a lovely breezy day on Saturday and everyone turned out to see the Falls in all its roaring glory. In previous shoots I had relied mainly on defocus; this time out I seemed to favor long exposure and long exposure with movement, aided by a hefty dose of neutral density filter to get that shutter to slow the heck down. It worked out pretty well, got a few more interesting shots.

I like this experimental approach, but it sure can play havoc with your nerves when you have a deadline, it's not like I churn out a whole stable of candidates within a matter of hours - it's more like shoot 200, find 1 in the bunch that worked. Maybe. But I like the sense of discovery that comes with the experimentation, so I guess it evens out.

Sometime this week I'm going to have to start thinking about layout and arrangement of the images. No clear pattern has emerged as yet. I'm considering making some quickie 4x6 prints of all the images so far - nothing "perfect" - so I can lay them out in front of me and get a good look. I can't seem to visualize the grouping as a whole so long as they just stay as files on my computer.

I appreciate the suggestion I've seen in some other blogs to use a trial version of InDesign to build the PDF - I may go that route. Which reminds me, I have to start giving others' finished SoFo books a look, something I haven't had time for recently. I'll set myself the goal to look at two a day, that should get me started.

Finish line for me is June 27th.

On processing and sequence.

2009-05-31T15:24:00.003-04:00

This is a view of the Dunkard Church on Antietam Battlefield in Sharpsburg, Maryland, taken just yesterday. It's also one of my defocus attempts that will make it into the finalized PDF, I think.

So it seems I have about a dozen images now that are candidates for SoFoBoMo (if I'm not too picky about so-called redundant subject matter - get ready for a lot of defocused trees) - which leaves me far more relaxed about the whole thing than I was on Thursday. Day 4 with twelve viable shots is making good progress, I think. Most of those candidates fall under the "defocus" technique, so I guess I'd also better work more on the other techniques I had in mind to inject a bit of variety in the finished product.

However after spending some time working with these images in the past day, I also realized that my book will not feature processing coherence. I know some people aim, and for good reason, for a set of images that are all processed the same, or similarly, so as to provide a sense of relationship among the various subject matters the images represent. It also helps to set an overall "mood", too, I suspect. There are likely even more reasons than I've mentioned here. I've enjoyed viewing collections that have such symmetry in presentation, so I don't have any particular problem with it.

But I've found out over time for me, and in particular with this project's current output of images, that one (processing) size does not fit all, and I wouldn't want to force the issue. I often don't find what is "special" about an image until I've played with it in post-processing, and as a result, I frequently choose a processing strategy that can be dramatically different for any one image, as compared to any other of my images. Which for me, is just fine and dandy. But the body of work will lack that kind of coherence.

Now, there are other ways to achieve coherence of course - I could feature nothing but defocused images, and that choice would lend a certain coherence, as one example. But I wonder if having images that lack a similarity in processing (coloring, tone, contrast, etc.) will make it difficult - or a least a different kind of difficult - when it comes to choosing the sequencing of the images. Given that different processing styles can invoke different moods, perhaps I should be mindful of placement, so that some bright sparkly thing isn't followed by a moody downer of an image. Likely such considerations are just as thorny for someone with "processing consistency"; perhaps someone can weigh in about that in the comments.

Actually, this puts me in mind of how tracks are arranged on a music recording (if we can assume everyone makes those choices thoughtfully). If you think of the book as a journey through the images, regardless of whether the images arose from some focused theme or subject or whether they are all completely unrelated to one another, choosing sequence becomes quite crucial. For those with an overarching focus (of subject matter, of technique, of manner of processing), maybe sequencing arises more easily. Not easy, mind you, just maybe things fall into place a little faster. But with no such focus, it definitely looks problematic.

Blocked.

2009-05-29T20:50:00.010-04:00

Well, I officially started my SoFoBoMo project on May 28, the first day I got out to take pictures, and I wouldn't say it started off with a bang. Was going to start on the 26th, but constant rain got in the way of that - not that Thursday was any drier, but I managed a few rainless hours. Took a grand total of 46 photos of which maybe two qualify as candidates for the project, as I currently define it. Color me underwhelmed.

Then I miscalculated and decided to spend the first half of Friday making soups and such and ended up watching the latter half of the day drown itself in yet another deluge. Good for the plants, that's what I keep reminding myself. At this point a project seeded mostly with indoor, set-up shots seems like a likely alternative. Also from now on I really only have the weekends to take pictures, as I just used up the few vacation days I had set aside for the project's kickoff watching the rain fall. I have to make those weekends count.

But it's not just the weather - I seem to have hit a wall, and ideas for photos aren't plentiful. I am in fact, the complete opposite of my local weather - nothing overflowing the brain banks, so to speak.

On the bright side, the soups came out quite well, very tasty. And a wonderful strawberry cake that I will surely make again.

Tomorrow looks to be clear - I'll aim to up my numbers then.

Focus.

2009-05-14T22:37:00.010-04:00

A photography blog has to have at least one post titled "Focus", doesn't it?

This is a shot of someone's trellised back garden off a quaint narrow street in Annapolis, Maryland, courtesy of a bendy Lensbaby. I do like my Lensbaby, but I fear I don't put it to as much skilled use as certain people I know, mainly because I need to get out and use it more, get to the point where it is a natural extension of my hand. But it's one of those lenses that can leave you surprised at what it shows you, and therefore qualifies as a prime tool for so-called serendipitous shots. I imagine a few LB shots might make it into my final cut of images for SoFoBoMo.

I'm looking at beginning my project sometime around the 25th, but have done precious little planning the last few weeks. My hopes to practice PDF-making before I actually have to produce the project's PDF likely won't happen. So the output for this project might not have a fabulous layout, but what can you do? If I end up having to quickly slap things into a file then that's how it will be. I figure the real benefit and challenge of the project is to produce a coherent series of shots - I can always take time after the rush and scurry of those 31 days to build it into something more polished. But at least the project itself will have prodded me to produce a focused, purposeful body of work that I likely wouldn't have achieved without it.

Don't know whether I'm coming or going.

2009-05-07T22:24:00.010-04:00

Sorry for the long pause in posting, but I've been slammed with work and haven't had much time for musing about the day - fast approaching - when I will finally kick off my SoFoBoMo project. Haven't even taken a single picture for a couple of weeks. Bleh.

I did have one thought, though, the other day: while I've been trending toward a broader definition of my "serendipities" idea all along, it was after reading this post and following the links to check out the two talented artists mentioned there, that I realized I haven't practiced taking ultra-slim DOF shots or defocused shots for quite some time. (Well, defocused with a lens, that is).

So I think a couple more techniques will join the list, bringing my options up to four - shallow DOF, defocusing, double exposure, and long exposure. I may just divide the book that way too, set it up in four parts, with some measure of the 35 shots allotted to each. Although I'm not keen on keeping the divisions clear by identifying the technique used - I wouldn't want sections of the book titled "defocus", "long exposure", etc. I'll have to think some more about how to make these sections distinguishable, but with as little explanation as possible.

In fact, if I reveal technical specifications at all, I might just slap it at the back of the book - maybe repeat all the shots as small thumbs with a short blurb about technicals. For each image page, I'd prefer the images stand alone without supporting text, maybe even without titles - it's just a personal preference. I don't think a viewer needs to understand exactly what the photographer intended or thought about the image in order for it to be successful, so I'd prefer the shots to stand unaided, so to speak. One of the things I dislike about posting my shots at the photography site I frequent is the expectation that the shots should be titled - although I admit I've been known to run at the mouth with too-too much explanation in the photographer's comments section. I've got to learn to let my shots stand on their own two feet and not be moved to justify them all the time.

Well, I might be frazzled right now and not know whether I'm coming or going, but at least I appear to know where I'm coming from. :)

[Note: the sculpture pictured in this post was created by the artist Dana L. Stewart and can be viewed in person at Grounds for Sculpture in Hamilton, NJ]

Choices.

2009-04-28T22:54:00.005-04:00

I was reading Rachel’s excellent post from several days back, and it provoked many thoughts, so I decided to make a post of my own about it. I won’t exhaustively summarize the whole post here, but I encourage you to follow the link and read it for yourselves. Briefly, her post was mainly about the “rules” of photography and how strict adherence to them can stifle creativity. I’d like to take that a step further and suggest it might also stifle critique.

There’s a difference, I think, between “rules” and technique – technique, as Rachel noted, is comprised of knowledge about exposure times, aperture, depth of field, etc. - the basic operations of a camera and, by extension, the production of an image. Rules, however, seem to be more concerned with judgments of good or bad – “good” exposure, the “right” depth of field, the “best” composition, and are more subjective.

It seems obvious how rules can stifle creativity – you don’t dare color outside the lines when overly concerned with The Rules. But that doesn’t worry me so much – my creativity is mine to whatever degree I possess it (and of course it ebbs and flows, and heck, disappears entirely at times). I don’t think I bother so much about rules that they seriously get in my way. But what personally freaks me out is what it seems to do for the viewers of any image.

The way I see it, producing an image and subsequently displaying it for others is at its core a simple offering: Here, look at this, look at what I have to show you. The ideal viewer is receptive – she is willing to contemplate and question what she sees before her. She is also one who takes the image at face value and makes any judgment, if there is judgment, within the bounds of what has been offered. This isn’t to say that the ideal viewer has to like the image, not at all, but she should have a response to it that meets the image on its own terms.

Ok, what do I mean by that? Take the zoneplate image I selected to accompany this post: the cat is a very small portion of the image. An ideal critique would start with the assumption that, for instance, the proportioning of the image (in this case, the smallness of the cat relative to the entire composition) was deliberately chosen. A suggestion that the shot would be “better” if it featured the cat in a close-up, while the suggestion may be helpful so long as you are in the The Rules club, nevertheless does not come from a place that starts with the basic fact of photographer choice – it instead asks that the picture be something else entirely – to be, essentially, someone else’s choice. Ideally, a response that accounts for photographer choice would ask why that particular composition was chosen and not another, and go on from there.

(I won’t even get started on all the other rules this shot breaks – you can imagine the overall reception it received. Oddly, though, it does seem to follow the Rule of Thirds. Purely accidental, Officer, I swear.)

Over the few years I’ve received comments at a photography site I frequent, I’ve observed a depressing reliance on the part of the commenters on The Rules. Depressing, not because such comments tend in fact to be negative about my image, but in that it makes me wonder how a reliance on these contrivances might end up depriving the viewer/commenter from the full experience of what they see in front of them. What frequently happens is that the reception of the image (as I’ve defined the ideal, above) either does not exist, or is boiled down to a declaration of how much or how little the image achieves Perfection (as defined by The Rules). Pass or Fail...Next.

Seriously, if we all followed The Rules for every image, wouldn’t things get homogenous, and a bit boring? An image that follows The Rules is not bad, let me be clear; it’s just that there should be room in any photographer’s mind for more possibilities than that. Making a plea for openness to photographer choice is not the same thing as saying “screw technique”. Why not sit a spell and get to know the image in front of you instead of hoping for something completely different? When the viewer judges rather than experiences, he shuts himself off in a way that ultimately limits his own choices.

And by way of full disclosure, I have not always been the Ideal Viewer. But it's something I strive for, always.

I Don't Need No Stinkin' Lenses.

2009-04-26T17:11:00.009-04:00

Happy Worldwide Pinhole Day!

[And to that certain person who buys me Christmas gifts, ignore the title. I do like lenses, really. I do.]

Going with what I like.

2009-04-21T21:00:00.003-04:00

I had mentioned in the previous post that relaxing a bit on the whole 35 images thing might be a good idea. My comment was more about the desire to not compromise my own preferences just to make up the numbers, as opposed to making a declaration that I wouldn't follow the rules of the project to aim for 35. The goal is still 35 - I'm sure I will take many, many pictures, getting to 35 isn't really difficult - it's getting to 35 "keepers" that will be the tricky part. And I think I would be much more satisfied with the resulting PDF if every image in there was one I really liked and wanted to include - which may ultimately be less than 35 in number. I won't beat myself up about it, if that ends up being the case.

I've been thinking lately about perfectionism (I have it, oddly, concerning some things and yet not for other things) - basically my tendency to hold myself up to standards so impossible that it frequently becomes more of a roadblock than a benefit. For the SoFo book up to now, I've been thinking only in terms of producing shots that others will find interesting - and being perhaps overly concerned about audience. Considering the audience is a perfectly reasonable strategy, don't get me wrong, but perhaps not so much when that strategy gets in the way of producing something that I myself like. I don't just want to finish the project, I want to finish it with a body of images I feel 100% ok about.

So why should I care if any one viewer happens by my SoFo book and likes only some of the images, or even not any? I have loads of books by photographers I like, but I can truthfully say I don't like everything they have produced - some images just don't speak to me. But I get the books, and keep them. So why go about thinking that I have to hit the ball out of the park with each and every image, for each and every viewer? Ridiculous. I don't hold other photographers to that impossible standard (You must PLEASE me! Always!), so I shouldn't hold myself to it, either.

Odds are if I just go with what I like, there will be at least one or two people out there for each image who will like it too. And that is enough.

Setting the date.

2009-04-20T21:40:00.011-04:00

Well, I've officially taken some vacation days the week after Memorial Day (May 25), so I figure my start date for SoFoBoMo will be sometime between May 23-26. I'm leaving it open as I might have some family visiting that weekend and I don't know if I'll get a chance to start the project until afterward. I've been doing a lot of fiddling around with double exposures, trying- well, not exactly to perfect the technique, but at least get a better idea of all the challenges involved and maybe solve a few of the thornier ones before the project starts. Don't need anything getting in the way of hitting that magic number 35. Although, as Rachel noted in her comment on a previous post, I'm similarly inclined to not remain too worried about that number - I'd rather have the goal of having only as many images as interest me in that final PDF rather than as many as I need to make up the quota. I think overall I would be much happier about the project if I adjusted that particular goal.

I've also started sketching out some general ideas about different things I might like to try - different subject pairings, focal length pairings, focus point pairings, on and on. Writing it all down as my brain is much like a sieve nowadays and it's the only way to make sure an idea sticks around longer than a split second.

Also, I've decided to not restrict the project to any particular piece of equipment - I'll use any lens, or even go lensless - I really like that approach, it gives me a chance to explore the technique from however many angles my equipment will afford me. ...although it might make actually carrying the equipment a bit of a nightmare.

As May 1 approaches, I'm looking forward to reading the other SoFo blogs and seeing how things go for those inclined to be the early birds. But for me, I'll be bringing up the rear.

Brought to you by the number 35.

2009-04-09T22:05:00.002-04:00

Who are these people that blog every day? Gods, they must be. I am a mere mortal.

Posting a nice, calming bay-side shot today, to counteract the nightmare that is the topic of this blog post - which I suspect is also the nightmare of other SoFoBoMo participants: the number 35.

That number is really starting to worry me. Mainly this is because I am not what you would call a prolific photographer. Coming up with a half dozen shots during any particular month is usually my speed. How in the world will I manage 35 in a month for SoFoBoMo? Less than a month, even - I probably can't stretch the image-producing side of things longer than 3 weeks, in order to allow enough time in the final days to produce a nice PDF layout.

So I will pursue the tactic that I'm noticing others have mentioned in their blogs too - have more than one project or theme, in case one project ends up being not as photographically lucrative as another - as a backup. And then have a backup to that backup, even, just in case.

I've spoken before about having the general theme of "photographic serendipities", and how I aim to explore that theme with double exposures. I'm now thinking of extending that to include long exposures as well - two techniques serving the same theme. A backup within the same project, if you will. And...then there's the infrared clouds backup, and the backup to that backup - doing more work with pinhole and zoneplate photography. No particular subject matter for the pinhole/zp, just the use of the technique.

Of course, I might end up making things worse by having more than one focus. Instead of striving for 35, I'm striving for 105! But for right now, the multiple projects ease the worry that I might hit a wall in my chosen project that will endanger my ability to achieve the magic 35 "keeper" images. I'll have other options, at least, if the inspiration just isn't there at the appointed time with the main project.

Oh, and with the help of RKT (see "Sites I Like", to the right --->) I finally figured out how to host larger images on the blog, so all the previous posts have resized images too. Hope you like the new look!

Tripod allergy.

2009-04-04T16:48:00.026-04:00

I own a tripod. Two, in fact. I understand what they are for, I know how to use them, I appreciate all the good reasons to use them. So why am I allergic to using my tripod?

I do use them at home - setting up a studio shot, or practicing something with lighting - but too often fail to take one with me when going out to shoot. At first, I thought it was down to weight and size - not being terribly bulky myself, lugging one of the bigger beasts quickly got old - that's why the second one came along. Got a nice shoulder strap for it, to make it even more carry-friendly. I'm working on taking it out more, but even when I do...

Today I went out for a couple of hours to take some pinhole and zoneplate shots of the spring-blooming trees at a local gardens called Meadowlark. Tripod in tow, with the best of intentions. So guess who took several-second pinhole shots hand-held with the tripod left lying on the grass?

I do seem to prefer taking photos while on the move - so perhaps setting up a tripod outside feels like a more serious commitment, an entrenchment of sorts. Oh, good - I'm allergic to commitment... Whatever the reason, it seems to have become quite the psychological roadblock. One to break through before SoFoBoMo starts, that's for certain.

I was going to go on about some further project ideas and strategies I had in mind, but I'll save it for next post.

Photographic serendipities.

2009-03-29T18:34:00.015-04:00

Over the last year, I've been paying attention to how other people's images affect me, and I started to recognize a certain pattern in what I tend to enjoy looking at. Nothing so straightforward as, "I like cat pictures", or " I like flower pictures", but rather images with a certain "feel" to them that can involve, really, any subject matter that comes down the pike. I'm especially drawn to shots that came about accidentally, images that came out not as expected or intended, but have a certain draw despite this - in some cases, they end up delivering an emotive punch that would be lacking in a more technically perfect, planned shot. There are also point-the-camera-and-see-what-happens or "what if?" kind of shots. All of them, happy accidents.

In my own work lately, I've tried to apply the "what if" principle more often; today's post pic is an example of one of my "what if I threw everything out of focus" experiments [since it's a Lensbaby shot, there's already a fair bit of defocus built into the exercise, but that time I let everything fall just short of the "sweet spot"]. Admittedly, much of the time such experimentation yields nothing special; but when you come up with that one shot out of a hundred it's pure, joyful serendipity. I much prefer to let the camera show me what it sees, than to force it to keep only to my own vision - boy, does that sound unbearably pompous. Ok, I've been sitting here trying to think of another way to put it, but really that's exactly what goes on with "happy accident" shots, I'll have to risk the pomposity: those images that work best (work best for me), are those where I've stepped back from full control over the camera, the setting, the subject, the light, and let a little (or a lot) of chance into the mix.

But if the exercise is deliberate, how serendipitous is the result, really? Still pretty much so, I think - accidents aren't necessarily about waiting around for something to happen, you can certainly foster the environment to encourage it well enough. So what I would like to do, for 2009's SoFoBoMo, is to spend the month working on fostering an environment (or in this case, a technique) that will help me discover 35 photographic serendipities.

The technique I want to work on is double exposure. Real, honest-to-goodness, in-camera double exposure. I say "in-camera" because I could - and I'm not suggesting it's a sort of comedown, it's simply another way to achieve a similar effect - overlay two shots in Photoshop, fiddle with various settings, and hey presto! produce a double exposure-like image. But while there is some chance involved in such a technique - choosing the images to overlay, happening on a setting I like - the exercise involves far more deliberation than I think would allow the result to be characterized as serendipitous. But in-camera fits the bill neatly - given that I shoot Canon digital, I'm pretty much on my own with regard to any magic that might have come boxed with the camera model - I know some Nikons have an image overlay feature, but no such thing exists in the cameras I have. I'll need to set the camera to bulb and hold a black card over the lens between exposing the two parts of the full exposure. I've been thinking over how to streamline the process, and it will definitely be challenging (details of which I'll mention in later posts as I go along). Unlike a film camera, I won't be able to take a picture and just refrain from advancing the film, and then recompose a second exposure later, as much "later" as I want.; but rather, because the shutter will be open the entire time, it will be important to set up each shot so that the full exposure is not very long at all, ideally no more than half a minute. That certainly imposes a certain level of constraint on the types of shots I can aim for. But I'm hoping the process will yield a bumper crop of surprise - and surprisingly effective - images.

Certainly this current project idea will involve a learning curve and a hefty dose of chance in the outcome, two aspects that might threaten to sink the whole endeavor completely. By not following a more familiar route, I risk making my experience with this project less relaxed and enjoyable, and less successful, ultimately. I worry, not so much that the project isn't worthy enough to pursue, but that the SoFoBoMo time constraints are an awful fit for it (I've been working on the technique lately, and the results have not been consistently encouraging). It is possible that while the basic idea of "serendipity" will not change, I may need to modify my methods and expectations along the way.

Some thoughts on infrared photography.

2009-03-26T21:17:00.008-04:00

I know, I know, I promised "next post" I would talk about project ideas, but it's not ready yet...

Would like to take a moment to say a few words, an apology of sorts, for all things infrared-photographic. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, and after about a year or two of dabbling in it myself, there are times when I can attest I don't care much for it, either - or at least how it usually manifests itself, all-white foliage and bizarrely colored skies. It's definitely striking, when you first encounter it, maybe stays that way after a few more encounters, but starts to get a bit old after a while. Gimmicky, some say, that IR look. I confess I agree with that point of view, a bit.

But IR is just another tool, a technique, after all, and there are really no rules that say you can only use it one way and not in other ways. I've been frustrated more often than satisfied with my IR photography in the last couple years, but persist in it, because...well, partly it's because I'm of the opinion I just haven't figured out the right use for it yet (that "use for it" that yields an image that truly interests me). So I'm still looking for an interesting subject or genre for IR. I think that cloud thing has definite potential, something I should revisit, so long as I approach it as an abstract form - I think if I pulled back the perspective and saw the clouds in their whole environment, it wouldn't quite have the same force. I've also found that I far prefer rendering my IR shots in black and white, with toning sometimes, than in color, and especially in "false color" IR. Bumping the ISO to insane levels also provides a nice bit of grain right there in camera, which translates well in black and white, I've found. Like the example above, I'm starting to actually tease a few images out that I really enjoy looking at.

Dammit, I'm going to find what I like about IR even if it kills me.

And so it begins.

2009-03-25T10:22:00.004-04:00

Welcome to my new, and first, blog. I've put off starting a blog for some time, but I was motivated to begin this one as a record of my participation in the 2009 SoFoBoMo project. For those of you who might not know of it, here's a snip from the website:

"SoFoBoMo is short for Solo Photo Book Month - a group event where a bunch of photographers all make solo photo books start to finish, in 31 days, at more or less the same time. It's modeled loosely on NaNoWriMo, where participating writers all write novels in a month, and NaSoAlMo, where musicians write and record solo albums in a month."

The 31 day period has to fall within May 1, 2009 and June 30, 2009, so long as those days are consecutive. We shoot for a minimum of 35 images. The "book" here is mainly defined as a PDF document, to be shared online, but you can certainly get a real book out of it if you wanted to take it that far. (I'll save my thoughts on "book or no book" for another blog post.)

My first idea for the project, a few weeks back, was to try photographing cloud formations in infrared. I had produced a few such shots last year and found the result interesting but hadn't pursued it to any great length. SoFoBoMo at first seemed to be the perfect excuse to explore it some more. But then I started to think about the parameters of the project, wondering if I could actually manage to produce at least 35 distinctly different shots of clouds, and whether in doing so I wouldn't render my audience stuporous with boredom. I also wondered if weather and other circumstances might get in the way of the shooting, make it harder to get to that target of 35 "keeper" images (can there be 31 straight days of cloudless skies?).

So you might be pleased to learn that viewing 35+ cloud shots won't be in your near future. I figure the one at the top of this post has negligible soporificity (yes, I made that word up). I still think it's something to pursue, but maybe not a good fit for this project; or, maybe I can have it as a sideline during those 31 days, as a backup if my other project encounters insurmountable problems.

I'll say more about my newest project idea in my next post.