Cool article (based on the abstract and source – I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet).  Another benefit to being smarter and more technical that 95% of photographers is to realize how abjectly dumb you are and how relevant some of those unknowns (and unknown unknowns) are… which means you go out and read the work of really smart people.

I will say this again-

There is no “too technical,” only “not artistic enough.”

Hi everybody.

So last year, this site more than doubled in traffic. Not a bad result from flirting reluctantly with self promotion – handing out maybe 200 business cards since the end of October 2010. This year, goals are explicit, higher and pursued with intent. My public presence now includes:

• This site with formal collections of finished artwork.  The visual component will be fairly static.   Text, in the form of blog posts and information pages, will be frequent and more importantly, useful.  Expect equipment and technique reviews from my unique standpoint, and I plan to add a good bibliography in the next few days.
• My new, public Facebook page will have my most up to date work, often in a raw, lightly edited state.  What was once accessible to a select group of artists and friends will be public.  Please hit “like” and “share” it with your friends, too.
• My work will be represented on one more site, but that’s a bit down the line and somewhat hush hush.
• My twitter feed collects much of the above and serves as an overall RSS feed.  I still need to figure out a proper flow for these microblog links – I want to inform, not spam.  It should be manageable, but if you find a flood, let me know.

And that pretty much covers the online stuff only.  Other things are in the works – and that doesn’t include the real work : the art.

2011 was a mixed bag – everything about it could be described as half-hearted – and yet, still a success.  Let’s see what happens with some intent behind it.

Well, I’ll admit I like this one:  Laurie Ann Farrell, Executive Director of Exhibitions at SCAD put Two by Four in her 19 piece online exhibit drawn from the 1,552 (according to the site artist entries). In general, I find the individual curation to be far better than the jury panel. I do think that the selections need to be blind. I thought that last year, and I think it remains an issue, though it would be problematic as the impetus of the project is to garner attention to less known NYC artists. I’m sure something can be worked out.

However, my 2nd selection aside I couldn’t really bear using such an old piece – I’ve gotten better since, but I had my reasons for doing what I did – and since the judging and additional curating is done, I uploaded what was going to be my submission for this year to my profile; Quiptych. It also forms the centerpiece of my “cohesive” printed art portfolio, arrange just so to use the problem of vertical pieces in an horziontal presentation book to my advantage.

Now, finally, to get some real writing done.

Well, Curate NYC, which was something of a mixed bag last year – and my first entry (and selection) for anything public – is back again.  This year it seems that they are really looking to do more than just make an online list of 150 promising artists in NYC.   This year introduces online curated subcollections on the site by guest curators as well as having local galleries review submissions for proper shows with actual pieces, rather than a few posterboards in obfuscated corners in obscure city properties with postcards depicting pieces in a 5×6 boundary.  Well, they’ll be doing that too – the 150 postcard collection remains the core Curate NYC exhibition.

In any case,  here’s my entry for this year.  Now I’m always reluctant to use something “old” when choosing a piece “that best represents you as an artist.”  In this case, I feel that it’s an exception – this piece is just as much 2011 as 1997 being reconstructed off three partial (and somewhat soft) 5×7 test prints using HDR techniques, free transforms, curves, and grain simulation.   In effect spending the time to rebuild this image is not simply a reflection on the 10 year anniversary of 9/11, but directly reflects an aesthetic that preoccupies me these days.

As far as my chances for being selected, well, I’m not concerned about the selection per se.  I do think there is a chance that on the one hand it might seem pandering given the subject, the location of the program, and the date – and the other hand, the notes that went along with it may well seem extreme in callousness; stressing the unimportance of the image of a now revered building. So I’m not too bullish on my chances.

At the risk of impinging on the range of interpretations people will (hopefully) have, I’ll write more about this – specifically about divorcing form from content – later.

Ok, this just got blurted out in my write up of the Koni Omega Rapid M, (so obviously I’m working on that) but it grew to the point that it ruins the flow of that text. Also, I’d like to keep the format comparable between the “reviews” and not distinguish it from the other camera/system writeups. So -unsnip- here be pasted my problem with film photography retronyms:

I have a penchant for asides, but given the writeups ahead of me, I have to get this out now.  I may have even written a line or two about it before.Don’t care.  It bears repeating. 

Analog photography.  Analogue Photography.  Analog/ue Film Photography.  Spare me.  First of all, cameras are pretty much the same.  Yeah, there are sciencey differences at the image plane which actually have ramifications in the act of photography, but spare me.  Light doesn’t come in digital or analog.  I mean, analog film photography – I get it, analog corresponds to the “photo-” while “film” is obviously the -graphy, so analog film photography treats light as a wave only; it must be that photons are for digital pixel geeks only.  Right.

I suppose if you were doing “analog” photography where you used both film and glass plate, you’d have a point.  And I’d shut up.  And I’d apologize.  And I’d tell you to keep on rockin’ in the free world.

You’re not doing glass plate work.

A friend once described them as the same but different – digital is dry and film is wet photography.  I assure you, this man is well aware of wet plate photography and was making a poiginant historical reference.  If you do wet plate, please don’t be offended.  We love you and your tintypes.  No one is trying to steal your name.  I still haven’t had the chance, but I promise, as soon as budget and space allows.

But please, if you don’t know what a dark slide is, what ortho film is, what shoulder and toe has to do with any of this – I’m glad you’re interested.  Please keep learning.  I hope your interest can keep the remaining film stocks alive (Astia, please don’t go).  But know that it’s nothing special to shoot film, especially roll film.  Enjoy it, learn it.  But analogue film photography sounds like you’re trying to hammer home how different you are.  If you can buy film at Urban Outfitters (i.e. 120 and 35mm) you aren’t.

And finally, stop protesting technology changes and refinements in photography.  Stop for a minute and think how stupid that is, especially in comparison to visual arts which go back millenia.  Digital doesn’t have soul.  It’s not supposed to have it.  You are. (Maybe.)

Film photography. 
Better yet, Medium Format.  Or Large Format.  Or 35mm. 
Best, “I like 6×9.  645 feels like half frame.”  Or “4×5 is great for versatility, but you need to be at 5×7 or better to make a decent contact print.”

The first tells me what you don’t do.  The second tells me what you do. The third tells me you might actually know what you’re doing.
Analogue Film Photography tells me that you don’t.

It’s 6am, so a quick note.  The photo section is in flux.  The “same as printed” portfolio is fine; the idea is to provide an online equivalent to a set I use as such, both in content (plus one added image) and experience.   Consequently, images are bordered as they are in print, vertical sets appear together, the two page panoramic composite (50+ MP) shares the same three border opposing approach.  In essence, every webpage is equivalent to a print. 

The rest, however, are not so lucky.  I have a bit of an upload going on; “retrospeculum” (formerly, “Start Here”) will be changing a bit.  Too much overlap with other sections.  “Destilled” will be getting, well, destilled, as soon as I figure out what belongs there.  I know there are things that don’t belong there right now, and they will go.

Oh, the bio, which was boring and stupid was rewritten.  A lot fewer details and a lot more informative.  I did remove my ICQ account listing.  It kills me.  It was six digits, and I had the thing since (cringe) high school.

Moving along, that stuff will sort itself out.  More important is what is coming to this section.  Since my trip to Miami this past March, I’ve been shooting a fair amount of film, mostly MF (6×7 and 6×9 in particular), but also a little 4×5 and 35mm.  I just took possession of – god help me – an 8×10, but nothing is happening there until I build, buy, or steal a new bellows.

The upshot of all this is that I have a significant range of film cameras, many of which are system cameras, and have developed approaches to using and specific purposes to each.  I mean everything from a Mamiya C330S to a Graflex 4×5 R.B. (with factory Graflok!) sporting a 8″/2.9 slapped in front with gaffer tape, epoxy, and a steel lensboard from an unknown system.  All of these systems have reviews online: none of these are new cameras and lots of people have things to say.  I do not intend to duplicate that.  I just want to give my notes on these tools, especially since I have a pretty good cross section of MF offerings (thought LF and 35mm will get some notes).  Systems include Mamiya TLR, Mamiya RB67 and RZ67, Mamiya Universal, Koni Omega, Pentax 67, Horseman 970, Kiev 60, Hasselblad 500 series, and more.  I think the first up will be the Koni, representing one of the best price/performance ratios in film cameras, which is remarkable given the current prices of systems like the RZ67 and the Fuji GX680.

But for now, I sleep.

I know, this blog seems dead – it’s been a very long time, even by my standards.

Well, it isn’t: I’ve just been very busy printing and doing some new work. I’m sure I’ll take a break one of these days soon and write about rant-and-read-worthy matters.

Over the last year, people who met me – or ones who thought they knew me, to whom photography was “my new thing” – have inundated me with questions – mostly related to photographic technique, purchases, and education. Now a glance to the right will show that my commitment to this blog has been essentially negligible. Nevertheless, I find myself willing to share techniques to some degree and with a number of email responses that could easily be reworked as blog posts. I’ll give it a shot.

Moreover, despite my fairly long list of lenses, my shooting kits are light, typically 1-3 lenses. Only recently did I carry five for a short trip – and of course ended up using one only of them over three days. I’ve already started a write up on my primary bag (based on my 5DII) and will extend it to the other loadouts, including my GH1 setups.

No promises that I’ll ever get this done.

June’s about done and the chaff accumulated through the spring is about gone.

There are distinct smells to seasons, and in New York, this is not limited to the floral dawn of spring.  Here, at least, the smells are decisive heralds, for once they come, they and their season do not leave until complete.

Winter’s is perhaps my favorite of these, and as of yesterday afternoon, it seems Fall has drawn to an early close.  You can never be sure what precisely produces it – it is the amalgam of all things grey: woolen clothing, the smoke of roasted nuts, the exhaust of overtaxed cars. Appropriately, it arrived a few hours after the victory parade for the Fall Classic.

Given these circumstances, and that relocating to the South is at its most uncertain today, necessity mothered me with:

Winter Tea

3.5 oz Rye
2 oz Simple Syrup
1 oz Dry Vermouth
1/2 oz Grenadine
Lemon Bitters

Bring Rye, Simple Syrup, and Grenadine to a boil, pour into mug, add vermouth cold, add bitters.

The drink can obviously be overly sugary, so add water and time to the boil according to taste.  In the alternative, a weaker but still enjoyable concoction can be had by mixing this with hot tea. I used green tea (shamefully from a bag) in a 3:2 tea to “Tea” ratio.  The trick is to boil the alcohol while waiting for the tea to steep.  Pour the hot alcohol, then the cold alcohol, then the tea.

Be careful with high proof drinks and fire.