I will say this again-

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.