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.”

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, I didn’t place in the top 150 this year, but apparently a couple of days ago, one of the art galleries, this one specializing in photography, put me in their online exhibit of some 30 pieces.  I’ll continue to sound skeptical and dismissive about, well, everything, but I really, honestly do appreciate the appreciation.

To be accurate, they put a 19 year old me in their collection.  It’s particularly nice to be in a set with my buddy Russell Frederick. I had little expectation for a 14 year old piece to be selected in an emerging art competition in 2011, but there you go.  True, to me it’s like the film just came back from the developer – yeah, I made some 5×7 prints a decade ago, but I never really worked the negative.  It really is best described as 1997/2011.

Now, with that in mind, I’m not strongly attached to this piece.  So lets toss it aside – it was made 14 years ago; my ego isn’t attached to it – if it were, I’d have to think I hadn’t gotten any better since.  What’s nice about this collection is that while I don’t like every piece, they are photographer’s photographers: I don’t know most of these people’s work,  but I’d recognize them as photographers and not the crap that floats to the top.  I’m glad a few – and only a few – of these people made it into the top 150, because on the whole, the photography selections were terrible.  I could go point by point, case by case, but I don’t think I can bring myself to do it.  I did walk a dear friend through the postcard display at Rush Gallery this past week and explained either in terms of composition, last year’s selections, historical pieces, and to a lesser (if any) degree, technique.  (That last point may be shocking to those who think me as “technical.”  For another post.)  I swear I used several of the selections as examples to teach people what not to do.  This also applies to many of the online curators/live shows.  Whatever.  I hope some of the selectees make good in the market so I can critique the pieces as they deserve.

Anyway, congrats to 19 year old Adam, you don’t suck as much as I thought.

Finally scored a Fuji GL690.  I really like 6×9.  Of course, this means I have to add another to my list of – erm, not reviews – usage notes (?) to write.  Next up, Mamiya Universal.  Which is a 6×9.  Or a 3×4.  Or pretty much whatever you want.  It’s Universal.

Sorry. Zenphoto had a gaping security hole and got hijacked. Working on it now.

[3:02am EDIT: fixed. WordPress might have a similar hole. need to check.]

For various reasons, I’m doing the social media thing. It’s a bit of a long game, but I know one girl who’s already worried. And this is just to test that wp autotwits. The other direction, as you may have noticed, works just fine.

A bit of fun in LEGO blocks. Old, but I wanted the original site (I hope it is) to get the link.

I’m late in adding this, but I was just at Lisa Diakova’s show in Chelsea, and if you are around you should check it out too. Absolute master of blending oil paint. The show runs through November 5th and then after a bit of a breather, I think it heads out West to Cali and possibly further. You can find it at 526 West 26th, suite 609 in Chelsea. Buy something. Say hi from me.

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.