Going deeper into the weird

Further and further I slip away from the norm, from what most want.
I find the pursuit of perfection futile and senseless if only applied to one parameter: sharpness.
I find less focus in images that are regarded as technically sharp but lack direction and emphasis on the subject that matters.


adapted Kodak Anstigmat 63mm f2.7  1/640sec

Lately I have been exploring the style applied to impressionist paintings: dots and brush strokes that form an image but are not intended to document a scene but rather give a feel for the moment.


refitted Helios-89  30mm f1.9  1/800sec

Purist photographers are applauded by such "low standard" style and a few years ago I would have been too...
Oh, how things change :-)


adapted Jupiter-11 135mm f4  1/250sec



.

Image softness storytelling

Following my thoughts on image storytelling (in this post) I now can reason why I like this image I captured the other day.
Would the photograph "tell the story" in the same way if the image would be pin sharp?
I don't believe so...


adapted X-Fujinon 50mm f1.6   1/8000sec

This image is a combination of slight miss-focus with a lens that is not that sharp to start with.
As I used an adapted old SLR manual-focus lens wide-open the view appeared slightly blurry and glowy. That lens renders a sharper image and much better contrast when I close its aperture a bit; but in doing that I would have lost the vintage appeal and separation of the main subject against the background.

Would I have been using instead my superbly sharp (comparable angle of view) modern lens done a better job?
Maybe.
If the viewer is bent on sharpness and precision, recording an event and place with minute details, then yes, by a long margin.
But if the viewer can create in his/her mind a story around that image then I am afraid to say that the super sharp lens would probably not help to create that look of nostalgia.
And that is why I burden myself with the awkward old glass from film days, where I can create "the feel" that my modern lenses can not.

Story telling through an image

I like the concept of story-telling through a static single image.

While beautiful landscape photographs do capture my attention and I often admire the location and the capturing techniques, rarely are those images remembered.

And then there are moments that are captured where the photograph goes beyond the initial visual appeal: an image that tells a story.

Alone

Cosmicar 50mm f1.4  1/320sec

These images however have limited appeal because each viewer perceives them on a different level, depending on his/her personal life experiences and cultural background.
Images that evoke a certain emotion are very subjective as individuals draw on their emotional precedents (and image memory-bank) to be stirred by the two dimensional representation of a feeling that might have experienced in the past.
To reinforce one's perception the title usually gives away the photographer's intention.

PS. If all you see above is a poorly executed photograph of an old park bench and a blurry passerby in the background, then this concept might be lost on you...

Social isolation

I saw this image of original artwork from a gallery: some found it funny but it actually made me sad.

On a recent Sunday, a beautiful sunny day, I walked around my city's urban park; it was crowded with families and (real, not virtual) friends, some were in groups.

But there was a disturbing trend: I rarely saw direct interaction...

adapted Cosmicar 50mm f1.4   1/160sec

Are we too driven by social media to actually be social?

.

Make-believe

We make the mistake to think photography represents reality, we want to believe that.

Kodak Cine Anastigmat 63mm f2.7

If we satisfy ourselves with the idea that a 2 dimensional, frozen-in-time moment, cropped vision of an event/place is depiction of reality, sooner or later we probably will find disappointment.

If we accept that photography is an interpretation at best and deceit at worse in showing us a snippet of reality then we are closer to its concept.

Anything else is make-believe, including the emotion that we create around a poignant image.

Two images, taken moments apart. Two different messages.

Are they real? they are real to me where real is used as believable.

But no image is real, and all are.

If one looks at them at a philosophical level, yes all images do exist, but do they represent reality? They can't, as mentioned earlier, reality is not a two dimensional print or screen display; it's just make-belief.

If we grew up understanding that photographs represent reality than probably we can satisfy our mind when seeing an image. We can create a story around it, feel an emotion, or none of it.

In the end images are nothing but triggers for our brain to believe what we want.

As Galen Rowell said so well before: ​"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell​

but ultimately:

• “All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.”
  — Richard Avedon

Immortality

It was sun-setting and I rushed to reach the top of a prominent rocky outcrop, I wanted to catch the last rays.
I was suddenly very disappointed when I came across this totally vandalized large sandstone lookout: names and dates have been carved into the soft rock.


adapted cine lens Kodak Ektar 25mm f1.9  1/1000sec

Upon reflection, I am now in two minds with the message behind this image: is it environmental vandalism or is it the primeval urge to mark one's presence?
Initially I was miffed to see this rock totally covered in carved graffiti: there are a few declarations of love but mainly I noticed persons' names and dates.
Then it came to me: humans have been marking their presence on earth before history, almost like to preserve their spirit to immortality .
We all have the need to belong and the want to be needed, it's part of being human. Is marking our presence the fact that we existed and a way to preserve our memory?