Absence.

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...

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.