Photography / PotD

Balancing Act

June 11, 2015

The Bird Cage (2012)

“Unfortunately, in many cases, the rule book goes way too far – it tries to tell people how to be instead of explaining what we’re trying to do. We need recipes, not rules.” ― Howard Behar, It’s Not About the Coffee: Leadership Principles from a Life at Starbucks

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I am far from being the most graceful person on the planet. I’ve fallen in front of presidents. I’ve tripped over red carpets. If there’s a cup of coffee near a white table cloth, I’ve spilled it. When I was young, my mother used to say I was like a bull in a china shop, which is why we never visited any china shops or anywhere else that tended to have a lot of glass. For myself and a lot of other people I know, that thing in our inner ear that keeps us level and helps us establish equilibrium doesn’t always work as well as it should. As a result, we go blundering through life, being especially careful when required to handle anything sharp or otherwise potentially dangerous.

What I’ve learned from my somewhat lop-sided life, though, is that being slightly off center, looking at life on somewhat of a tilt, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Not every measure we take can or should be balanced because there simply isn’t enough detail or information or content to support the balance that everyone seems to think is necessary. Even a ship can have a bit of a list and still manage to sail its way into port safely. Being unbalanced isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it is quite different.

The rule broken in today’s picture is that of balance, but it’s one where the circumstances create such strong leading lines that we might not notice at first just how uneven the image is. Note that there are two models. Ideally, each would be given an equal amount of space. They needn’t occupy the space in the same manner or even the same general position, but the space should be available to them. In this image, though, the model on the left is limited to the left third of the image. The panel trim on the wall behind her creates a very strong visual barrier that, at least as far as our eyes are concerned, holds her to that side of the space.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]However, one might also notice that the entire frame is a bit askew. The lines are not parallel with the horizon; they’re not even close. Our entire perspective of the scene is thrown off balance by the angle from which the image was taken. The uniqueness of the angle ends up being a strength that allows the unintentional division between the models to exist without making us want to move one of them.

Not that we had much choice. The picture is taken in an elevator built sometime in the 1920s. This is one of those small, residential elevators where one has to manually close the gate, then close the door, before engaging the lift. If the models appear uneven and off balance, it’s because the only way to get the shot was by lying on the floor, having someone out-of-frame hold open the gate, and praying that no one in the building would need the elevator before we got the shots taken.

Metaphors for life, anyone? There are some things that claim to be fair and balanced and intentionally are not; their claim to equality is an attempt to mask just how one-sided their view actually is. Other times, we look at something that appears to be off-center only to discover that our eyes deceive us because of the limitations of our perspective or the specific angle from which we view the situation. What we learn with experience, hopefully, is that balance is precarious and not always something that is even possible. Returning to the ship metaphor, even the largest aircraft carrier moves back and forth along the waves; sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left. That ability shift weight from one side to the other is critical to preventing the vessel from capsizing.

Balance is something our eyes like to see, but what appears to be is not always true.[/one_half_last]

Editorial

Genetically Modified People

June 10, 2015

Most of the intelligent world, and by that I mean the portion whose reasoning is not polluted by mythologies, understands the necessity and general concepts of evolution, especially in regard to human development. While true evolution takes place slowly at the DNA level over hundreds of generations, one need not look back much more than a couple of generations to see the more immediate environmental impact of changing conditions. As a species, we are generally taller, more sedentary and therefore, more obese, and living longer. We have largely eradicated the diseases that killed our great-grandparents but succumb to autoimmune diseases that were once quite rare. How this might all balance out on the evolutionary scale remains to be seen, but without question the actions we take today affect what our species is tomorrow.

How much control do we have over our own evolution? Some would claim that we are in total control of our evolution with technological and metaphysical advances that allow one to choose not only physical traits of our children but also their temperament and even the basic structures of their belief system. If we develop the means by which to conceive, gestate, and give birth to live humans totally outside the physical body, is there any real limit to the changes we might make in human physiology? Eradicating disease is one thing, but might our attempts to make ourselves smarter change the evolutionary construct of the brain in ways we cannot anticipate? Does giving one the ability to run faster change the skeletal and muscular evolution of our legs?

Some suggest that genetic modification interrupts and eventually might bring an end to evolution; that by preventing latent genes from dying or promoting certain DNA strands out of order, we deter the species from its natural course of adaptation. Yet, are we not, through natural biological processes, doing the same thing when we choose with whom we mate? Two red haired parents are more likely to produce a house full of red haired offspring. The combined DNA of two track champions yields children with a higher potential for physical development.

Genetic modification might change the appearance of one person for one generation, but in order for that modification to become part of the greater human genome, it must be duplicated identically across the whole of the population for multiple generations until that modification itself becomes a part of our very nature. For such modification to overtake the natural course of evolution, the population must first surrender all personal choice.

One must then ask, at the point humans surrender their personal choice, are they really still human?

We don’t just make this up. Here are our sources:

http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/situation_trends/en/

http://www.livescience.com/13081-8-reasons-obesitiy-americans-fat.html

http://www.livescience.com/45376-why-did-humans-grow-four-inches-in-100-years-it-wasnt-just-diet.html

http://www.livescience.com/36217-early-bacterial-exposure-immunity.html

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20131210130858-75054000-big-idea-2014-you-will-transform-your-own-biology

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/artificial-wombs-are-coming-and-the-controversys-already-here#

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1911

Miller, Geoffry F. The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. April 1, 2001. Anchor Books, Random House, New York.

This article was originally published in EspritNu, Vol. 1., November 2014.

Photography / PotD

Right Smack In The Middle

June 10, 2015

Pin This (2012)

“More than ambition, more than ability, it is rules that limit contribution; rules are the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They are a substitute for rational thought.” ― Hyman G. Rickover

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Stop and think for a moment what you might do if there was no one to tell you no. Ever. You want ice cream for breakfast? Go for it. Wear a yellow jumpsuit to a funeral? Sure, why not? Build an elevator into space? Others have talked about it, let’s see how you do. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to innovation and progress is the fear that someone will object to what you do. There are too many people who are afraid of upsetting the status quo and that keeps them from ever venturing into an area of imagination and experimentation that could quite possibly lead to fantastic inventions and dramatically wonderful changes in society. But first, one has to be willing to break the rules.

Breaking the rules in photography is actually rather easy. First, there are too many damn rules and most of those are under-supported and fail to take into account all the possible variations one might encounter when shooting. Second, those rules are generally not explained too terribly well, even in photography courses, and some of them are so confusing as to make it difficult to know whether the rule is actually being broken or not. Breaking photography rules is about as easy, and pretty much as earth shattering, as rolling out of bed in the morning.

Breaking the rules of society, not just society in general, but the very specific society of which you are immediately and constantly a part, is more difficult, though. Why? Because you have to live there. If you venture out and make a mistake, the people around you know about it, and might possibly remind you. Constantly. Cruelly. Taking risks to do something as different as changing the brand of coffee used in the office means taking on the possibility that others, especially the boss, might disagree. Breaking rules in life, no matter how small they are, can have some very large consequence and that risk is enough to keep the majority of people quiet and toeing the line.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s image is sneaky and breaks a visual framing rule that may not be noticeable to anyone who is not a photographer or works with visual layout on a regular basis. This is one of those violations of good imagery that rather sneaks past the rule checkers without immediately setting off any red flags. The model is attractive. The set looks good. There are strong leading lines. Makeup, hair, accessories, styling, are all pretty much on point. This is such a quiet little bit of rule breaking that some might not even think that it is worth mentioning at all.

What’s wrong is that the model is positioned right smack in the middle of the frame, which is actually a fairly strong framing no-no. We would much rather have positioned her slightly to the right just a bit. Making the rule violation even worse is that the positioning puts the dead center of the image right at the model’s crotch. Awkward. And now that I’ve mentioned it, you won’t be able to not notice. We went ahead and broke this rule for two reasons. 1. The leading lines created by the car put our eyes there whether we like that or not. 2. Size restrictions of the frame made it impossible to move left or right without creating additional visual problems. Sometimes we have to decide which rule to keep and which to ignore.

Earth shattering? Not hardly. You’ll go on about your day and quite possibly won’t give it a second thought, unless you spending time looking at a lot of pictures. The picture won’t cause the overthrow of any dictatorial government or change the economic policies of the Midwest. But our whole purpose this week is to reinforce the idea that breaking rules is not something we should be afraid to do. Should we give thought to the consequences? Yes. But if more of us were willing to break rules, even the simple one such as this, we might be surprised at how wonderful the changes would be.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Shooting For Exposure

June 9, 2015

Through Different Lenses (2011)

“If you follow the rules, it’s your own fault.” ― Marty Rubin

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Life is busy for everyone and it is quite nice that we have at our disposal now a variety of tools and applications to help ease just a little bit of the strain here and there so we can better focus on the truly important aspects of whatever it is we’re doing. One of the applications I have installed assists me with catching common grammar errors. More than just spell checking, it looks for proper subject/verb agreement, makes sure the verb conjugation is correct, and that I’m putting the most appropriate punctuation in place. When I’m typing quickly, and especially early in the morning when I’m still on my first cup of coffee, the tool saves me a lot of time going back and proofreading, especially since I’m really lousy at proofreading.

There’s a problem with this application, though: it doesn’t like the Oxford Comma. Personally, I quite like the Oxford Comma and find that the meaning of some word lists changes significantly depending on whether the comma is used. If I have a sentence, or thought, or fragment, or phrase such as this one then I am going to use the extra comma every time. Unfortunately, the application marks it wrong every time and attempts to correct the matter. I end up having to take extra steps, and time, to keep the comma in place and assure that the list is going to infer exactly what I intend.

Image processing software is no different. Applications such as Lightroom and Photoshop are full of little guides and measuring devices to provide photographers and graphic artists with multiple checks and balances so as to, hopefully, prevent errors that might result in bad print. However, none of those tools is accurate 100% of the time and relying on them too heavily can sometimes result in even larger errors than if they hadn’t been used at all. Certainly, the tools are helpful and are included with the best of intentions, but in the end there’s no substitution for pulling a hard print and going with what your eyes tell you is best.

Today’s image is a perfect example of the tools not always being the best judge. This is also an example of just how much the appearance of an image can change from one computer monitor to another. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]When I shot this image in 2011, I processed it using the most current version of Photoshop, but on a Frankenstein computer I had been carefully rubber-banding together since 2005 using a monitor that dated even older than that. While the monitor was calibrated to the best of its ability, I knew from experience that what I saw on the screen was not a true match when pulling a print. So, I tried making adjustments as best I could and most of the time I was at least within the ballpark.

The primary challenge of this image is one of exposure. The model’s hair is jet black, to the point that one has to dramatically open the shutter to even begin picking up any highlights. Without a high level of exposure, her hair would appear to be nothing more than a black mass sitting on her head. In a studio, that problem is easily resolved by putting a light specifically on her hair. We’re not in a studio, though. We’re using natural light and even with a reflector there wasn’t enough natural illumination to pull out the highlights in her hair without risking over-exposing the entire left side of the image. I made specific choices and was pleased with the result.

Then, a couple of years ago, I got a new computer and monitor and loaded newer software. Going through the archives to see what needed to be revised, I brought up this image and it instantly showed a warning that the left side was over exposed. I tried correcting the image to what the software said was appropriate, but doing so left the photo flat and dull. Finally, I had no choice but to pull a print and, wouldn’t you know it, the over-exposure was still within gamut (barely), and the image looked fine.

Exposure can be a very tricky thing at times and while generally running highlights out of gamut is a no-no, there are times, arguably including this one, where the risk is worth the effect. Are we going to make mistakes? Yes. Is everyone going to agree with our choices? No. But again, what matters is whether the image generates the emotion the photographer intended. At the end of the day, perhaps a little too much light is better than not enough.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Guessing At The Rule Of Thirds

June 8, 2015

A Moment of Sun (2012)

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]In a strange, almost psychotic social twist, “breaking the rules” has possibly become more admirable than following them. For every person out there yelling and screaming about something not following one rule or another, there are two applauding that the rule has been broken. Breaking rules, regardless of where they’re found or to what they apply, is seen as a measure of one’s independence; a willingness to stand out from the crowd and break away from the status quo. Those who create new technologies or build huge businesses from scratch are often said to have “broken the rules,” either of business or technology, in achieving their goals. Adventurist billionaires such as Sir Richard Branson or Elon Musk are widely considered to have gotten where they are by breaking all the rules.

So, do rules exist only for the purpose of being broken? What good is it to have a set of guidelines if no one is going to follow them? I know one of my most frequent non-photography pet peeves is matters of grammar and improper spelling on social media; not those committed so much through acts of “fat-fingering” or victims of auto correct, but those intentional misdeeds such as substituting U for you and R for are, along with other idiosyncracies of what is commonly referred to now as text speech. While such abbreviations appear to me as a lack of attention and most likely diminished intelligence, more than a few linguist have decided that such rule breaking is part of the natural, continual, evolution of language. If breaking the rules is actually just evolving the rules, then why is anyone worried about rules in the first place?

Sociologists tell us, as do those of severe moral convictions, that without rules society decays into chaos. We must have a system of laws, rules, and guidelines that set the standard for acceptable social participation for society to have any meaningful cohesion. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not try passing off a Bruce Springsteen tune as your own. Where we have rules, we typically have people assigned to enforce them: policemen, teachers, court systems, and government agencies come to mind. Photography, and creative media in general, doesn’t have any official authority reprimanding or punishing those who break rules of art. Does that mean we’re doomed to chaos?[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s image, for example, breaks the rule of thirds. The rule of thirds, for those not familiar, relates to how an image is framed. An image is theoretically divided into thirds both horizontally and vertically and the four intersection points are considered the strongest areas of the image. If there is a horizon, for example, it should occur on either the top or bottom line. Whatever the primary focal point is, it should be positioned on one of those imaginary lines with other content placed as to guide the flow of vision from one intersection to the other. The rule of thirds is so basic and fundamental, that software tools such as Photoshop offer guides to help position an image along the correct lines.

But this image just won’t fit. The young woman in the picture should be positioned along the left vertical line; her bust and her hips, ideally, would fall along the horizontal lines. If this were a painting, those issues would be easily resolved. This isn’t a painting, though, and we are limited by a couple of issues that are immutable. First, this image is part of a series that, for the sake of visual continuity, all have a canvas of the same size (reduced to 1200 x 900 pixels for use here). Cropping the image differently just to make it fit the rule of thirds would have made it awkward and interrupt the visual flow of the whole set. Second, there was just behind the model an open and rather unattractive space that would have altered the aesthetic had it been included. So, expanding the frame to fit the rule of thirds is not a solution either.

What ultimately matters is whether the image works and, to a large degree, this one does. While I might not submit the image for adjudication, I still find it quite lovely and would have no problem with it bring part of a gallery presentation. Breaking the rule, in this case, isn’t so much a matter of innovation as it is necessity because of the constraints. Are we plummeting into chaos? No, not at all.

We must be our own guides. Not every rule should be broken. Not every image should try breaking them. What every photograph should do is make us feel, and if we’ve done that we have found success.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Life’s A Blur

June 7, 2015

Watch Me Hoop! (2011)

You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over. -Richard Branson

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Photography has enough rules to choke a mule. There are rules about exposure. There are rules about depth of field. There are rules about framing and composition. There are rules about color, rules about black and white, and rules about mixing the two. Rules here, rules there, and there will always be that social media troll who wants to argue that you didn’t follow this rule or that, therefore your image is flawed. I have even seen student photographers carry around and religiously consult notebooks full of rules, making sure with each shot that they weren’t breaking any of the important ones. I don’t think any of those students ever actually made it as photographers.

While rules are certainly there for a reason, and the greater majority of the time actually do make sense, photography is not about rules. It can’t be. When photographers set out to only play by the rules, they get photos that may be technically correct but are emotionally lacking in anything resembling passion. Photographs without emotion are pointless. Why capture something that doesn’t make us feel, that doesn’t stir something inside us, that isn’t worth remembering? We take enough flak already from those who say photography is too automated, too reliant on technology, to be an art. If all we are doing is following the rules then we prove our critics right: the results are not art.

So we are devoting a full week of #POTD to breaking all the rules. Well, okay, we won’t have time to break all the rules. After all, there are only seven days in a week and just about any photographer can come up with at least ten rules that govern their specific style of shooting. So, I’ve chosen rules that I, personally, am likely to break most often; the ones where, for me, passion and creativity are more likely to outweigh the need to observe the rules. Young photographers, please note: when I break a rule, I almost always do so intentionally and with a specific purpose in mind. This isn’t arbitrary, except when it is. Totally.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]The obvious error in today’s image is the amount of blur, not just in the hoop, but the little girl as well. We talked about motion blur just a couple of days ago, so click the link and read that piece first if necessary. I won’t repeat much of it here. One can easily argue that the motion blur of the hoop is like the effect of water in a stream: the picture just wouldn’t look right without it. That part isn’t really breaking the rules. The question comes in whether I should have used a slightly faster shutter speed to stop the motion of the little girl. My answer, obviously, is no.

Children are, themselves, a constant blur of motion, especially when they are between the ages of two and three. I love being at the playground with Kat’s little ones and seeing all the motion, and with it an equal dose of emotion, coming from all these tiny creatures who are having the time of their lives. If children are so naturally given to motion, shouldn’t their photos reflect that reality? Sure, we can make them sit still momentarily for a portrait, but when one is trying so very hard to show me, with incredible amounts of pride, just how well she can hoop, just like momma, to not include the motion of her little body would have been absolutely criminal! She was gyrating so fervently as to involve every muscle she has.

So, we break the rules about motion and blur. We still managed to capture that look of determination on her face and all the colorful richness of that early summer morning. She’s framed well and the background isn’t overwhelming. We still have a very good picture. What’s most important, though, is we have a picture her mother cherishes. This little girl just finished kindergarten and is growing, as children tend to do, with more speed than a parent wants. She’s beautiful. She has a little sister now and I’m guessing by this time next year she’ll be trying to teach her how to hoop as well. Capturing the joy of these moments is more important than following a set of rules. [/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Of Highlights and Shadows

June 6, 2015

The Other Side (2010)

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography. – George Eastman

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I chose today’s quote quite carefully and with deliberate intention. I’m not sure anyone has ever understood light in relationship to photography quite as thoroughly as did George Eastman. When a friend suggested he make a photographic record of a trip he was about to take, Eastman found the wet plate camera and equipment so bulky and difficult that he ended up never taking the trip! Born from that frustration, though, were innovations such as fixed-lens cameras, rolled film, and a chemical development process that was significantly less likely to kill the photographer. Eastman saw what photography could become and then took the steps to make sure it got there. The bulk of his contributions to our profession are unparalleled and quite likely will never be surpassed by any one person.

Eastman knew, among many other things, that photography needed to be accessible, that people needed to be able to capture all the moments of their lives, not just those for which people had time to sit and impatiently wait. When he introduced the Brownie camera in 1900, it sold for a mere one dollar and while a dollar was still of significant value at that time, Eastman’s invention put cameras in the hands of more people, and made it possible to capture more images, than anything or anyone had done prior. In his opinion, Eastman felt that there was absolutely nothing, no single aspect of the human existence, that was not worth photographing.

One of the challenges Eastman faced, though, was the fact that many of the people buying these new cameras of his had absolutely no concept of what photography was, how it worked, or how to take a good picture. Those early Brownie users had no idea that a subject sitting fully in the sun was likely to be over-exposed, while those sitting in the shade were going to be quite in the dark. A very high number of unrecognizable pictures could have very easily caused the new inventions to fail in the market. One of the most under-recognized aspects of Eastman Kodak amateur film was its ability to balance out some of those lights and shadows so that errors of ignorance would be less severe.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Over time, we’ve come to understand more about highlights and shadows and how to manipulate the two so as to achieve different styles and tones and ranges of depth in our photographs. We are able to meter with relative position the best camera settings for images such as today’s photo. Our highlights are high enough to be bright, but not out of gamut. Our shadows have nice, measured gradients that gently define curves and muscles. Eastman would have unquestionably been amazed by the ability of contemporary cameras to translate and manipulate highlights and shadows to such accurate levels.

Highlights and shadows are not only part of photography, though. They are part of business and they are part of life. Eastman Kodak has struggled to adapt and find its way in a digital world. The company that once defined photography for a large number of people around the world is now but an afterthought and many younger photographers don’t even recognize. George Eastman had his own shadows as well. Faced with increasing pain from a spinal disease that made it difficult to walk, on March 24, 1932, Eastman penned a short note:

Dear friends —

My work is done.
Why wait?
GE

He then shot himself through the heart, ending an era of some of the greatest innovation photography has ever seen.

Natural light is an amazing tool and certainly the more we understand light better able we are to create stunning photographs. We do well, though, to mind the highlights and shadows, to use them effectively and be careful to keep them in balance, both on camera and off.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Riding The Wave of (e)Motion

June 5, 2015

Removing the Afternoon (2010)

I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do — that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse. – Diane Arbus, On Photography by Susan Sontag

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]When I first started taking pictures, holding so tightly onto a Canon F1 to the point it couldn’t help but shake, motion blur was my most common menace. Figuring out how to work the combination of f-stop and shutter speed with whatever ASA film I was using (usually 400) so that I wouldn’t get blur was a severe obstacle for me to overcome. I don’t even want to think about how many potentially great pictures were lost, or how many rolls of film I wasted, simply because I could not, for the life of me, keep the damn camera still. The bad news: I still can’t, even though it’s for much different reasons now. There are days when having a tripod, even for simple shots, is a lifesaver.

What has changed over the years, though, is our attitude toward motion blur. While there has always been some acceptance of the error under very limited circumstances, such as pictures of flowing streams of water, it is generally considered a mistake. The most common one I caught then, and still often have problems eliminating, is that the subject will move, just a hand or maybe shift a foot, right as I’m clicking the shutter. I hate having to count aloud before taking each shot, but there are some people who cannot stand still for more than a split second, and some toddlers who can’t stand still at all. For them, warning exactly when the shutter is about to click is the only way to get a clean shot in environments where one can’t work with a super-high shutter speed. Otherwise, you’re throwing away the frame.

Today, we’re more forgiving of certain kinds of motion blur, such as in today’s photo. We are more likely to understand that the motion is necessary to communicate the story of the photo effectively. Capturing just the right amount of blur confirms for us that the subject isn’t just posing for a picture, but that something is actually happening; that we’ve captured an event as it was taking place, something that will never happen exactly the same way ever again.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Natural light indoors makes motion blur practically inevitable. Shooting natural light indoors always requires a higher ISO (we used 800 for this shot) to capture the light, and a slower shutter speed/f-stop combination (we were at f/2.8, 1/125 for the series from which this shot is taken). If we put the camera on a tripod, which is generally what I would suggest, then those settings are probably workable for most portrait situations. But if you’re not shooting portraits, if there is actually something happening in front of you, then blur is inevitable. That puts the photographer in the position of asking themselves, “Is it worth the blur?”

Honestly, when I took these shots, I fully expected that it was the fringe on her top that was going to give me the most problem, and there’s not a shot in the set where every strand is staying still. Could I have fixed that on camera? Sure, but doing so would have left us with a much less emotional image. With the motion, we have a greater sense of what is going on. We are closer to understanding the story (or creating our own) and connecting to the energy of the image. Without the blur, especially in her hair, this picture comes off bland and a bit boring.

This is an example of natural light sometimes giving us what we don’t know we want. Experimenting, being willing to risk some mistakes, knowing from the start that nothing you’re about to shoot may be usable, is one of the things that makes photography exciting, and that excitement becomes part of the fabric of the resulting image. Motion blur still isn’t something we want to see too often, and the majority of images do better without it but, don’t be afraid of the emotion that comes with a little bit of blur; it may just make the whole picture worthwhile.[/one_half_last]

Editorial

Shades of Blue

June 4, 2015

Want to drive a graphic designer crazy? Tell them you want something a primary color and then complain that it isn’t the exact shade you had in mind. Stand back and watch their head explode. Every time. Even the most patient designer eventually grows tired of the thousands of shade variations to any given color.

Blue seems to be especially difficult. Everyone has some sense in their mind of what blue is. My coffee cup is blue. The handle on the scissors is blue. The cover of the book next to me is blue. Yet, none of them are the same color. Get into the intimate nuances of graphic design and simple differences of opinion become horribly complicated and difficult. Making things all the more challenging is the fact that hardly anyone actually color calibrates their computer monitor, which means anything viewed online is going to look different on every computer by just a little, and sometimes that “just a little” is too much.

Fortunately, for our purposes, it is perfectly acceptable to combine and interchange shades of blue. We can take our background from teal to indigo and change the entire tone of the image with a simple nudge of a color slider. Could they all be exactly the same? Sure, we could have taken that route, but where would be the fun in everything looking the same, especially when our model, Tiffany Beckett, came all the way in from Utah to give us such a diverse set of expressions? Such wide-ranging emotion deserves backgrounds that are as equally malleable.

Of course, all those variations give graphic designers headaches as well. They would much prefer we stick with one specific shade and run with it. All this moving around and adjusting things is distracting and takes away from the cohesion of the project.

Damn good thing I’m not a graphic designer, isn’t it?

Art / Photography / PotD

Best Thing Next To Being There

June 4, 2015

Morning Dance (2010)

Any photographer who says he’s not a voyeur is either stupid or a liar. -Helmut Newton

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]We, photographers, like to talk and behave in public as though we’re all about the art. We’ll extol the virtues of natural light as though it is the holy grail of photography. We’ll compare our work to that of truly great artistic masters as though anyone will actually give a damn about our work once we’re dead. We try to take an academic approach to what we do and find some philosophical justification for every shot we take whether it actually exists or not. To talk to some photographers, one might think that it is possible for a photograph, the right photograph, to solve all the world’s societal problems.

What really makes me laugh is when a young photographer who never had a chance to actually meet him attempts to invoke the name of Helmut Newton as though they were good buddies. It almost always happens during a conversation about natural light, and how they’ve “studied” his work and apply his “philosophy.” I value the time I had with Helmut, whether working or just having lunch, like no other. He certainly had much to teach and opinions about everything. But, you know what? Helmut was every bit as real as you and I and the exact same struggles and challenges we face were those he had to tackle. Want to know what Helmut was really like? Try this on for size:

I say to a person, I want to see you naked, and in my head I say, Well I would like to fuck her but the reason I don’t is because I’m scared to gets AIDS or something…

Helmut really struggled with finding the line between what was socially acceptable and what wasn’t. He tended to blame his German upbringing. Even though he contributed to Playboy for some twenty-odd years, he had a tendency to sometimes go too far, to be too provocative for even a men’s magazine. He claimed (magazine publisher) Hugh Hefner once told him to shoot something nice, not that “kinky stuff you do for French Vogue.” Helmut also despised anyone calling photography art and one might want to duck if they even uttered the words “good taste.” Those were two things that would get his temper up in a hurry.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Want to know the real power of natural light photography? It gives the viewer the feeling that they’re actually present. Art nudes may be popular with the intellectual crowd because of the studies in form and light, juxtaposing muscle and tissue with highlights and shadows. Let’s not pretend, though, that there isn’t a salacious element to what we shoot, especially when we do it in color and especially when we do it with natural light. While I may want to proclaim the artistic value of today’s photo, and I do believe it has more than a little of that, don’t think for one moment that I’m not aware of the base appeal found in the fact that it is ultimately a picture of two people who, as far as we can tell, are fucking.

Stop and think critically for a moment. When digital photography started putting “real” cameras into the hands of more people, why was it so much popular among young men than it was women? There have been many women, such as Eve Arnold and Annie Leibovitz and Diane Ackerman and Diane Arbus, who could shoot circles around any male photographer. Why didn’t more women jump at the chance to pick up a camera as quickly as did young men? Easy: young men were less interested in the art and more interested in the possibility that a camera might be an easy way into a young woman’s pants. The same answer explains why more men give up on chasing a photography career after two or three years. A camera is not an aphrodisiac.

After 30 years of this mess, I still love photography and still prefer natural light but don’t think for one moment I don’t consider how “sexy” a photo is before I post it. I watch the statics for these pages carefully and you can be sure I’ve noticed how much more attention is paid to a nude photograph versus a non-nude. Tuesday’s photo, as lovely as it is, received less attention than any image the past 30 days. I’ve all but stopped posting landscapes because they’re often ignored altogether. What makes natural light photographs popular? Because they’re the best thing next to being there.[/one_half_last]

Experimental / Published

The Digital Person

June 3, 2015

The following article and photos, both by charles, were originally published in EspritNu, Vol. 1 Issue 1. November 2014, pp. 15-17. Reprinted here with permission.

EspritNu Cover, 11/2014

The honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts stated in his opinion for the unanimous court in Riley versus California that cell phones “are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” While most consider the Chief Justice’s statement one of humor, those watching the gradual but certain merge of human and digital worlds found the expression far more serious and perhaps even worrisome.

When Mr. Roberts speaks of “a pervasive and insistent part of daily life,” he is referencing the preponderance of personal and private information that is held in digital form for each individual. Even if one does not own a cell phone or has never set eye upon the Internet, there still exists a collection of digital information, a catalog or dossier if you will, of details such as birth records, land ownership, marriages, divorces, employment, credit and medical histories, education, and most anything else that might touch public record in any way, shape, or form. As that information is bought and sold, accessed by friend and foe alike, each touch adds to the digital image of who we are. The more one is involved in digital matters, the more comprehensive that picture becomes. For example, I am composing this article from my phone and will proofread from another device, then an editor will have a go at it from yet another device not even in the same city, all without exchanging any form of physical media at all. Everything is digital. Therefore, as this article becomes part of my personal catalog, it contributes to the digital definition of who I am.

Eventually, one comes to the question of whether the collection of digital personal data might create sufficient sentience as to replace this carbon-based structure by which I am currently identified? Might machine replace human?

Here, matters become interesting, controversial, and even a bit frightening. Concepts of various forms of artificial intelligence have existed in ancient mythologies almost as long as we’ve been telling stories. Some tales credit deity, others credit demons, but it’s not until the 20th century that Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) gives them the name that we’ve come to meet with uncertain anxiety. Robots existed in one of the first movies Metropolis, and H. G. Wells wove them into tales of science fiction that still stimulate our fears and fantasies.

For some, such as Google’s Ray Kurzweil, the inevitable amalgamation of digital with biological is wonderful as it opens doors to greater opportunities and discoveries. Others, such as Elon Musk of Tesla Motors and SpaceX, fear ultra-intelligent beings would find us carbon-based life forms slow, flawed, and useless. Philosopher Nick Bostrom makes a rather stimulating argument that we are already puppets of some universal “Matrix” device and that we’ve no concept of true reality. Plenty of scientists and philosophers disagree strongly with all these opinions.

Argue though we may, our lives unquestionably grow more digital with each passing day. There is no returning to a purely analog existence. Some slight digital component exists for every human on the planet. We may either embrace our digital persons or run from them, but we cannot hide; they already know where we live.

Photography / PotD

A Casual Intimacy

June 3, 2015

All Wet (2012)

It doesn’t matter if you use a box camera or a Leica, the important thing is what motivates you when you are photographing. What I have tried to do is involve the people I was photographing. To have them realize without saying so, that it was up to them to give me whatever they wanted to give me… if they were willing to give, I was willing to photograph. – Eve Arnold

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Good photography isn’t about things. It’s not the cameras, the studio, the auxiliary equipment, the makeup, or the wardrobe. While all those fun things are nice to have, they do not make the picture. What’s more important are the relationships. Inviting someone to come and shoot with us is an unexplainable cross between having someone over for tea or coffee and a therapy session. Please, have a seat. I hope you’re comfortable. Now, tell me about yourself, your past and your present, your hopes and dreams, difficulties and disappointments, achievements and failures, challenges and success. Oh, and did I mention that I want you to do that without verbally speaking? Let your face, your posture, and maybe your wardrobe, or lack thereof, be the means for communicating.

One of the great aspects of working with natural light is that it is not pretentious. One does not have to create an environment for the photograph that is daunting, fearful, or incites anxiety. Many people get quite nervous enough the moment I pull my camera from its bag. For those people, there’s almost always an instance in their past where someone has criticized how they looked in a picture. The comment, at the time, may well have been innocuous, but the emotional effect was lasting. Other people, though, see the camera and come alive in ways we might not have expected. That seemingly shy, quiet person steps in front of a camera and has suddenly found a voice no one knew they had.

Working with natural light enhances communication by allowing one to feel more comfortable about expressing themselves. Studios too often have a sterile, business-like feeling to them and that is certainly appropriate for some situations. But when one is looking for a photograph that communicates, that implies a story, that tells us something about the subject, the best setting is that which is most natural to the subject: a barn, a living room, a kitchen, a field, or any other number of places that are not a studio.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Photographers cannot make great photographs of people who are unable, or unwilling, to communicate. Expression is key. Consider today’s picture. Fresh out of the shower, still dripping wet, the series of which this image is a part runs a gamut of emotion from fear to questioning to relaxing. But to deliver those poses, to say those things in a strictly visual context, was up to the model, not the photographer. I could have suggested things (but didn’t need to), and even given precise direction had I wanted. I rarely do either, though, because I prefer to see what is natural versus what is forced.

I firmly believe that taking pictures, especially portraits, in natural light gives people more freedom to open up and express themselves, but how the photographer responds is just as critical. People begin communicating with their bodies the moment they walk through the door and it’s the photographer’s job to watch and interpret that non-verbal message. If a person is excited then plug into their anticipation and run with it. Where we see anxiety requires a more careful, less hurried, and cautious approach. It is up to the photographer to introduce the subject to the light, to let them become acquainted and comfortable with how it feels. Take your time. Find this is a safe place with no judgment outside your own. Now, talk.

By the end of a productive session, the photographer and their subject have created a sort of casual intimacy; certainly not as deep as lovers, but at least slightly more than passing friends. We have shared a moment of expression, perhaps one that the person we’re photographing has not expressed before, and may never do so again. The photographs capture a special moment that do more than present an image, but preserve a story. Natural light helps those moments feel real and fresh every time we look at the pictures. Nothing fancy required. Just light.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

But Soft! What Light …

June 2, 2015

Comfortable With Here & Now (2010)

When I say I want to photograph someone, what it really means is that I’d like to know them. Anyone I know I photograph. – Annie Leibovitz

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Shakespeare may not have been a photographer, but he certainly understood the emotional impact of a subject bathed in soft, natural light. Juliet, caught in the rays of a full moon, quickened the heart of the smitten Romeo to the point of tragedy. Dinner is most romantic when a couple has only the softness of candlelight illuminating their meal. Sitting on the porch in the soft light of a fading sunset may be the perfect end to a summer’s day. Light can take many forms, but when it is at its softest is when it makes us look the most beautiful.

Painters have known for centuries the benefits of a soft, natural light and how to achieve such without needing special equipment. While not appropriate for action shots perhaps, portraits benefit from the softest light we can give them. Photoshop hasn’t been around forever you know, but natural light at its softest works a magic that makeup and software could never achieve so accurately. Look at today’s photo, for example, and notice how soft the complexion is. Did we airbrush her skin in any way? No. First, her skin was quite healthy from the outset. But then, the gentleness of natural light diffused through lead glass at just the right time of day worked a magic that makes any thought of post-process manipulation preposterous.

Good photographers often struggle with finding just the right light for portraits. One needs shadows to help define features, so a light that is too bright or all-encompassing doesn’t work. Yet, too much shadow, or shadow from the wrong direction, can distort features, make a face look harsh and more angled than it naturally is. Light coming in at too high an angle can have the appearance of re-shaping features and is especially tough on noses or anyone with bags under their eyes. Good, soft light rarely just falls onto a photographer’s set. Even chasing that mythical “golden hour” is no promise of good light.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Soft light, such as in today’s image, is a diffused light. Light is diffused, or spread out, when it passes through some material that is at least partially opaque. In this case, it was an old window of lead glass. Despite how it appears, leaded glass has a graduated opacity in that over time the lead in the glass pulls the material toward the bottom of the frame, making it thicker at the bottom than at the top. When working with a window composed of sixteen smaller frames (four rows of four frames), the shifting lead lets more light in from the top of the frame than the bottom imprecisely so there is variation within each small frame. This effectively diffuses the light when the subject is at least two feet from the window.

Many different materials diffuse lights at different rates, giving one a lot of choices to get just the right light for just the right portrait. My personal preference is for white cotton, but that doesn’t work as well if the sunlight is not directly positioned at the material. I’ve also gotten wonderful results inside an old taupe canvas army tent, surprisingly enough, and almost always carry a commercial diffuser as part of my reflector kit. Of course, clouds are a natural diffuser and at times can be the perfect answer to a challenging portrait, but they also tend to reduce or eliminate shadows as well as muting color. Other natural diffusers, such as tree leaves, might work depending on the type of leaf, but can also give a green tint to the warm light.

Ultimately, we want a soft light on our subject, though, because it makes them appear approachable, friendly, even kind. Portraits captured in softest light can have that same effect as moonlight did when Romeo saw Juliet, bringing out the natural beauty in a subject. A portrait has done its best when it causes one to feel that someone we don’t know, somehow, has become our best friend. Even Shakespeare couldn’t do better.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

In Defense of Color

June 1, 2015

A Splash Of Yellow (2010)

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Color has been the Rodney Dangerfield of photography, struggling for respect from the moment the folks at Eastman Kodak labs tried selling it to the general public. Before then, it was considered highly experimental, one of those things that couldn’t be trusted, was hardly useful in a practical manner, and hardly worth the time it took to make it a reality. Black and white was where it was at, especially if one wanted a crisp, clear photograph. Anything else was just wasting your time.

I should probably clarify that when we talk about color photography now, more often than not what we are referencing is color process photography similar to what is achieved using negative film processing during the 1940s. Prior to that, there were plenty of experiments going all the way back to 1861 when physicist James Clerk Maxwell achieved a form of color reproduction by shooting three black and white frames using a different color filter, red, green, and blue, for each one and then superimposing them together. Through World War II, that stacking method dramatically improved but still lacked accuracy and refinement necessary to be effective on a large commercial scale.

When color negative film was first developed, the critical issue was the relationship between the negative and the dark room solution known as fixer. It was up to the fixer to accurately translate the negative and produce the correct color onto the specially coated paper. Results varied dramatically from one fixer to the next and even from one person to the next. Color labs began popping up with their reputations lying on their ability to accurately reproduce color negatives. Color reversal film, or slide film, finally came along in the 50s with dramatically more accurate results, but to achieve a print they still had to be translated back to negatives where the process was still less than accurate.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Given all the problems surrounding color film, it really is no wonder that the people who made their living in photography wanted little to do with the mess and uncertainty. Even museums and galleries refused to show color photography any respect for the longest time. The first gallery showing of color photography didn’t occur until 1976! When the Museum of Modern Art in New York showed William Egleston’s Guide response was still based more in curiosity with the medium than acknowledging it as a medium that had finally come into its own. For the best photo possible, photographers still turned to black and white film.

Digital photography has actually helped change color’s reputation. Unlike film, digital cameras capture a color image right from the start, even if the camera has a black and white setting. Digital imagery removes some of the guess-work, so images are more likely to come out looking closer to what our minds remember our eyes saw. Digital imagery using natural light may be the most accurate translation of color achieved on a regular basis to date. While everything can be manipulated and corrected during post processing, natural light and color photography are the best buddies that have been looking for years to find each other.

Yes, there are still plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the fact that most computer monitors are not accurately balanced to produce true colors. Yet, can you imagine how incredibly boring today’s picture would be if it were in black and white? Color conveys emotion, warmth, and contrast. We look at the picture and can wonder why in the world I would put powdered cheese dust over half the model’s body, and be intrigued by the effect it has on our eyes. In natural light, color photography finally begins earning the respect it deserves.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

The Joys of Natural Light

May 31, 2015

A Little Gaga (2010)

It’s that I don’t like white paper backgrounds. A woman does not live in front of white paper. She lives on the street, in a motor car, in a hotel room. -Helmut Newton

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]There will be no white paper backgrounds this week. White paper has its place. I have whole sets of images shot on it, but they will never be among my favorites. I am, fundamentally, at my happiest when I’m shooting with natural light. We are looking specifically at natural light photos this week for just that reason: to make me happy. While I hope they make everyone else happy as well, I’ve not been able to shoot a great many of these images in a while so it’s nice to take a look back and be reminded.

Specifically, the images we’ll share this week are all indoor with natural light. There are two important distinctions here. First, there is a difference between natural light and ambient light. Ambient light can include artificial light, reflected light, and any other light source available. With ambient light, one can have light coming from several different directions at the same time, which can diminish the appearance of shadows. Natural light is strictly that which comes from the sun. When shooting natural light indoors, that means it is being diffused at least through glass and often through some form of drapery as well. The light is about as soft as we can possibly make it, which in turn makes for very soft edges and easy motion blurs.

We’ve also made the decision to not include any black and white images this week. Helmut would not be happy about that; he quite disliked color transparency film and the difficulties that came with processing. We’re not working with film, though, and have an infinitely greater number of processing choices than did Mr. Newton. To that end, we did re-process all of this week’s images using the identical processing on each one to provide some visual continuity and minimize some of the less appealing factors of digital processing.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Natural light, indoors, in color, has some very natural challenges. The first is noise, or grain if one is still shooting film. While newer cameras minimize the amount of noise in low light, that’s not the instrument with which I’m working and to some degree I like that. There has always been noise/grain in low light images and to some degree I find it disingenuous to expect natural light imagery without it. This race for the “perfect” image is unnecessary and removes from the natural creativity of the medium. There’s something to be said for working with the light to minimize the noise effect using things such as pose and position rather than technology.

Motion blur is also a frequent issue with natural light, because of our need to use slower shutter speeds. I have mixed feelings about blur. There are times when I feel it adds a sense of motion to an image, especially when the image is of a more editorial nature. At the same time, it is admittedly frustrating as hell when every aspect of a portrait is perfect except for the movement of a couple of fingers or the jingle of dangling earrings. You’ll see a couple of images this week where I think the motion works, but know that sometimes, especially when the subject is not a model, the blur isn’t always attractive.

Natural light photographs are, in my opinion, their own form of beauty. They are, especially in this digital age, a very separate and distinct genre. Low processing, no air brushing, and an emphasis on the relationship between the subject and the light are factors distinctive to this week’s photos. Taking pictures in natural light is one of the most basic forms of photography, and it can almost be the most enjoyable. I hope this week’s pictures make you as happy as they do me.[/one_half_last]

pop culture / PotD / Social Commentary

12 People Who Totally Suck

May 30, 2015

Indiana Tea Party Republican Governor Mike Pense (2015)

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

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Ha! I bet you thought we were going to give you a list of twelve individuals who totally suck! Okay, we did think about doing that, but then the number of Republican candidates for President grew to 16 and that just made the list too long.

Kidding. Sort of. Almost.

Sure, we preach being nice and inclusive and loving most the time. After all, that really is the only way the world is going to improve. However, there are certain groups of people whose actions as a group are so reprehensible that they need to be called out and shunned. Furthermore, we as a society should do everything we can to encourage the demise of these groups. Some I doubt will ever go away, but many can, and should. Here’s our list of the most despicable.

Pseudo-Celebrities

Real celebrities, those who have some significant talent that thrusts them into the public eye for good reason, can be challenging enough; there have been many in that group whose behavior is less than stellar. Pseudo-celebrities, though, have no significant talent. They have no significant reason for being popular. In most cases, we have reality television to thank for this phenomenon. When networks find amusement in airing the antics of talentless, classless, and too often clueless people, we all suffer. Greatly. Better they all go away. Forever.

Terrorists

These people are just straight up mean. They do not value life in any form, theirs nor anyone else’s. When people don’t value life, they do stupid things such as see how many people they can blow up. Ostensibly, they all have some cause they are trying to defend, but what cause would anyone support that doesn’t value life? Where on the scale of reason does that even remotely make sense? Here’s the thing: not all terrorist are in the middle east or carry guns. There are more in corporate boardrooms. They’re all just as dangerous and all need to be stopped.

People Who Knock On Doors

When I was little, I would get excited every time I heard a knock on the door because it almost always meant a friend had come to play or the UPS guy had dropped off a package. Now, the UPS and FedEx guys just ring the doorbell and disappear. So help me, I swear they’re using teleporters. I’ve not seen a truck in front of our house in years. Now, when there is a knock at the door, it’s someone wanting to change my religion or ask me for money. I’m not interested in doing either and, quite honestly, even if I was looking to do either I wouldn’t wait to see who showed up on my front porch. If I didn’t invite you or you’re not bringing me something fun, go away. Forever.

Racists

This is one of those groups that, no matter how much we rail against them or point out how totally ridiculous they are, they’re probably not going to go totally away. Why do I think this? Because racists have been here pretty much from the moment hominids developed and separated into different tribes. Just because they won’t go completely away doesn’t mean we should in any way, shape, or form tolerate their unacceptable behavior. To the degree we ignore them, they fester and grow like an untreated cancer. We have to stay on top of them, stopping them at every possible juncture, or else they will take over.

Homophobes

Here we have one group who can, should, and must go completely away. More than anything else, these people are quite simply ignorant. We can’t even complain that they’re believing in ancient myths. These fools are making up nonsense out of the clear blue. While we would like to think we can love them into accepting everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, history would seem to indicate otherwise. We must instead focus on educating younger generations correctly, dismantling the nonsense before it has a chance to grab hold, and hoping that those who refuse to learn die out quickly.

Sexual Predators

Rapists. Pedophiles. Anyone who sexually takes advantage of another person, or commits any sex act against them without their permission and compliance, is someone who needs to be immediately removed from society. There’s actual science to tell us that recidivism among sexual predators exceeds 80% no matter what type of treatment or intervention they receive, or who their parents are, or what reality show they’re on, or which presidential candidates have had their picture taken with them. If we want to keep them from committing further crimes, they have to be removed from society. We simply have no choice at this point.

People Who Don’t Hold Doors/Elevators

Compared to the previous group, this one may seem completely insignificant. However, I challenge that people who don’t hold doors and/or elevators, especially when they see the person approaching is in some form of distress, are more than just rude: they have no respect for other people. Those who have no respect for other people not only don’t hold doors/elevators, they are capable of doing any despicable and mean act of which one can think. Murder is not off the list of choices for these people, given the correct set of circumstances. Note, we’re not talking about someone who is just having a bad day and lets one instance slip. These are the people who, every day, despise everyone else on the planet and do their best to be mean. They can all go away.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

Justin Bieber Fans

I’m relying on statistical analysis for this one. I’m not sure I’ve ever had the displeasure of actually running into a true Bieber Believer. I don’t go to the places where they are likely to congregate and run in the opposite direction at the first sound of anything that might possibly be the beginning of that noise Bieber calls music. Bieber fans elicit screams and other sounds that exceed the measurable quotient of the human ear. Rumor is they’ve actually had to re-route aircraft to avoid the shockwave of disruptive noise caused by Bieber Fans. Many cities are considering a ban on indoor Bieber concerts due to the screams of fans compromising the structural integrity of the buildings. Fortunately, most Bieber Fans grow up, discover real music, and move on.

Self-Righteous Assholes

You know at least one. They are convinced that they know better than everyone and no amount of evidence to the contrary is ever going to convince them otherwise. They believe they have the best religion, went to the best school, drive the best cars, live in the best houses, and could have just as easily invented Facebook themselves accept for the fact they’ve never been a loser geek. These people delight in putting everyone else down in an effort to make themselves look better. We have another word for them, too: Bullies. Like many others on this list, we have to stand up to them to keep their numbers from growing. Fortunately, there is evidence they can be converted when shown the error of their ways. We have no choice but to try.

Non-Tippers

If you’ve never worked for tips in the United States, you don’t understand the severity of this crime. All over the country, we hear people talking about the minimum wage being too low. What rarely gets any publicity is that groups of very necessary people work for even less, roughly 75% less, on the promise that if they do a good job people will tip them. Your server’s base wage is a mere $2.75 an hour. Who can live on that? No one! And while the concept of tips sounds good, the fact is that as meal prices have gone up, and the quality of food has in many cases declined, tips given to servers, who control neither prices nor food quality, get shafted. Not tipping should be a crime. The punishment: working three doubles in a row at a busy restaurant … with no tips.

Murderers

This one is a no-brainer as well. Murder is probably the worst crime of them all, and often the most difficult to catch. Police can’t look for a murderer until they have evidence that the crime has been committed and contemporary murderers have all kinds of methods preventing that from happening. Murderers can be divided into two groups: passionate murderers who were simply pushed to far and killed in the heat of the moment; and psycho murderers who think, plan, and prepare before carrying out their nefarious deed(s). The first group probably isn’t all that dangerous with a little psychiatric help. The fact that they killed once was totally related to a specific situation. The second group, though, can’t be trusted no matter what. That there are still a huge group of them running loose should make all of us afraid to go to bed at night.

Tea Party Republicans

The Republican party has a grand tradition and holds a valuable place in political conversation. At least, it did until this small group of jackasses calling themselves the Tea Party started taking over. Tea Party Republicans have done more damage to the country, especially at the state level, than ISIS or any other terrorist group ever could. Consider their list of crimes:

They’ve gutted civil rights laws and the 1964 Voting Rights Act,
they deny women the right to control their own body,
they deny much-needed services to the poor and incapacitated,
they deny assistance to military veterans,
they’ve turned education into nothing more than a test-taking machine,
they are systemically killing the environment,
they have attempted to usurp the First Amendment with laws explicitly promoting Christianity while oppressing everyone else,
they claim they do not have to obey decisions made by the United States Supreme Court,
they believe rape is the woman’s fault, and
they refuse to recognize the civil rights of the entire LGBTQ community.

Sadly, that list is just the most common grievances to be held against Tea Partiers. These folks are nothing short of insane. Running on a platform of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, once elected they decimate every necessary program that does not kick back funding to their cronies. They are the very definition of a real and present danger that, if not completely removed from the political system, could single-handedly destroy the country.

See, I made it all the way through the list without naming anyone specifically. Well, okay, there is the idiot in today’s picture, but that’s more implied, don’t you think? Besides, he’s already proven this year just how much he sucks. He doesn’t need my help.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

5 Reasons We Can’t Have Nice Things

May 29, 2015

The Worry of Bills (2010)

“If I were to teach, I wouldn’t teach a course in photography. I’d teach a course called ‘What Matters.'” -Ralph Steiner

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I used to watch the animated television show, The Jetson’s when I was a kid. Set somewhere in this century, they lived in condos balancing in the sky on giant pedestals, wore unitards with unexplained but uncomfortable looking collars and cuffs, had robot maids, and most importantly, cars that flew. We were supposed to have flying cars by now!

While the practicality of many of the predictions launched in the cartoon are far-fetched, one can scarcely deny that we are not as far along the developmental scale as possible. Had we realized a bit more of our potential, it’s quite likely that we would be off fossil fuels, have more efficient means of transportation, and perhaps even solved problems that put our natural resources in danger. So, what happened?

I don’t have all the answers, but here are a few reasons we don’t have nice things.

Jailing The Wrong People

We have developed a bad habit over the years of jailing people for little things and letting those who commit more egregious crimes walk away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. A failed war on drugs has saddled way too many young men, especially young black men, with criminal records from which they can’t escape, making education and employment difficult. Meanwhile, the bankers, brokers, and politicians responsible for the 2008 recession received … nothing. The institutions for which they worked received fines, but none of the individuals were held responsible. Even worse, politicians pushed us into a totally unnecessary war, committed acts in gross violation of the Geneva Convention, were responsible for the deaths of thousands, and yet are allowed to continue living lives of luxury as though nothing happened. If we are going to move forward as a society we need to fix this issue promptly and find ways to keep young, non-violent offenders out of jail.

Religion

Every time society begins to take a step forward, such as with birth control to help stop over population, or gay marriage so those who love can legally be with those they love, or allowing women to make their own decisions and run their own lives and dress how they please, there is always one religion or another claiming that such a move defies their mythology and therefore, no one should be able to progress. While one has the right to believe whatever they wish to believe, they do not have the right to impose that belief system upon anyone else or use that belief system to prevent others, or society as a whole from progressing. Religion is great at bringing comfort and peace to people who can’t find it elsewhere. Society seeks out religion when there is none. However, that is not to say that religion should be allowed to dominate society or determine its progressive direction. There is no place for religious authority outside the religion itself.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

We’re Rude

How we treat other people is a significant factor in how society progresses and we seem to be doing a great job of blocking ourselves simply in the way we treat others. Not only are we, as a society, still dealing with issues such as homophobia, racism, bigotry, and class warfare, we can’t even drive to work without being disrespectful and rude to each other. We fight for the best parking space at the gym. We bully people for dressing different or having body shapes we don’t find attractive. We make fun of people behind their backs and there’s no way we’re letting that co-worker get that promotion. A progressive society has to figure out how to be supportive, considerate, and caring of each other. Otherwise, we’re dooming ourselves.

Big Everything

We know monopolies are bad. We know oligarchies are oppressive. Yet, we’ve not done anything to stop either. Big banking. Big pharma. Big tobacco. Big media. Big Internet. Big Oil. By allowing certain industries to become, “too big to fail,” we’ve put them, rather than us, in the position of deciding when, where, and how society progresses. If they don’t like an invention, they squash it. If they do like it, they try to buy it and control it for themselves. There is no “trickle down” to the economics here. What big industry captures, it keeps. Forever. If we are to move forward, we must do more to prevent progressive development and innovation from being squashed and swallowed before it gets off the ground and break up the monopolies and oppressive industries that hold us back.

Politicians

I’m still not sure how we’ve gotten here, but politicians and governments, especially at the state level, have done more to hold back progressive development and social change than anything or anyone else. They’re purposefully and maliciously imposing themselves over things in which they have absolutely no business being; things such as who can marry whom, restrictive business regulation, and even who can or cannot be consulted on important matters. Scientists have been banned from discussions on the climate and space. Experts are not allowed to be consulted on matters ranging from education to public transportation. We could easily be light years ahead of where we are if the politicians of the world would simply get out of the way!

We could and should be much further progressed as a society than we are. Yet, much like a parent disciplining a child, the universe will not let us have the nice things such as flying cars until we learn to be more responsible. We control our destiny, and we can blow it.

Don’t blow it.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

8 Things REALLY Smart People Know

May 28, 2015

The Boss (2010)

“This photographic thing has changed the entire vision of the world. It will go through every activity of humanity — science, medicine, space, ESP, for peace, against peace, entertainment, television, movies, all of them — you will not find one without photography.” -Lisette Model

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Clickbait lists are especially good at spreading pseudo-science and fear mongering. Lists such as “10 Foods You Shouldn’t Eat” and “5 Big Companies You Can’t Trust” do more harm than good, destroying any trust we have in our fellow man. Personally, I tend to defer a number of issues to those smarter than me; a lot smarter than me. I’m not talking about the “four out of five” ratio, but more like 99 of 100, and only the really intelligent thinkers among those. They tend to be unanimous on a number of issues the rest of us still waste time arguing about. Here are a few such examples.

Humans Cause Climate Change

For the smartest people in the world, this is a no-brainer. They stopped arguing about it 40 years ago and have been focusing their attention where it belongs: finding a solution. Is this a convenient fact? No. Does a solution likely involve a dramatic shift in the way some industries do business? Yes. Is there any reason is should be limited by political belly-aching? No. The argument has been over a long time. Move forward.

You’re Only As Good As The People Around You

Smart people surround themselves with smart people and make every effort to bring those people up to their level. Very little is achieved working alone and doing great things that change the world requires everyone on the team be at the top of their game. Really smart people know that and manage their teams by teaching them and encouraging to learn more and develop their skills. Is there any reason we all shouldn’t take that approach? No, there isn’t.

No6 Don’t Just Focus On One Thing

Just as you were likely taught to not put all your eggs in one basket, focusing on only one thing at a time is rarely a good idea, either. Really smart people know that our brains are designed to multi-task and need stimulus from a number of different directions in order to operate most efficiently. Science and music work remarkably well, for example, as do business and sports. Even within a general industry, focusing on multiple projects, having more than one ball in the air, keeps our minds more alert and creative.

Evolution Happens

The smartest people in the world just assume the rest of us know this and laugh and scoff when encountering someone who’s not on board. They understand the amount of evidence accumulated at this point is too high for there to be any alternative. They’ve known this for well over a hundred years now. That anyone is still arguing the point is rather like saying one would rather believe in magic than science. Governments that promote magic rather than real education are ultimately enslaving their people.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]
No4 Artificial Intelligence Is Scary

Really smart people do have fears and the one that bothers the smartest, from Elon Musk to Stephen Hawking, is Artificial Intelligence (AI). We’re talking about something much more advanced than your smart phone, though. What bothers them is giving a device the ability to make changes and adjustments based upon its input without direct human interference. While it’s nice to have devices doing the thinking for us, eventually they figure out they don’t need us. We need to proceed carefully.

Vaccinations Are Important

Want to entice a really smart person to smack you? Tell them you don’t believe in vaccinations. Really smart people know that vaccinations save lives. How many lives we can’t know because the people who were vaccinated never became ill in the first place! What we do know is that in parts of the world where vaccinations don’t happen disease is far more rampant and much more difficult to control. The whole anti-vaccination movement is based on something proven to be a lie. Get your immunizations now.

Most GMOs Are Safe … And Necessary

Again, pseudo-science and outright lies spread across the Internet have done a great disservice is causing us to distrust our food sources. Don’t like Genetically Modified Organisms? Put down that strawberry; they wouldn’t exist without genetic modification. Stop eating asparagus; its current form is almost unrecognizable from the little annoying weed it once was. Same is true for a number of foods one now laughably sees marketed as organic. Really smart people know that to feed the seven billion plus people in the world, we need food that can adapt to being grown in a variety of climates and soils. Without GMOs, we’re all going to starve.

Just Because It Hasn’t Been Proven Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t True

Really smart people understand there are some things we will never know (because we can’t go back in time) and some things we don’t yet have the ability to know. They’re okay with that because the preponderance of evidence points to a single solution. Really smart people are also okay with Truth not being an absolute. Truth once said that the universe revolved around the Earth. As our ability to understand and observe the universe changed, so did Truth. This is why they use the word theory; it is the Truth as we are able to understand it at this moment.

Really smart people agree on a lot of things. Maybe we should listen.[/one_half_last]

Art / Experimental / PotD

Reality and Desire

May 27, 2015

How we behave in public is something we guard closely. There’s always someone watching, always someone ready to judge whether what we are doing is appropriate for where we are and whom we might represent. One step out of line and someone is sure to say something or, worse yet, bitch about it all over social media. The situation has gotten to the point that one has to question whether one is genuinely free when one has to always watch over their shoulder for someone with a phone taping their every move.

What we hide are our desires, that part of us that really doesn’t give a fuck about being appropriate and longs to give in to our more instinctive nature. Perhaps that desire is to wear fewer, different, or even no clothing. Perhaps that desire is to sing at the top of one’s lungs. Perhaps that desire is to smoke something that is still stupidly illegal in their state. We all have desires that we hide, or at least mute, but desperately long to let loose.

I am fortunate to have friends who are willing to let the camera see a part of them that can’t be shown publicly. This is a short set, only five images, but what we’ve done is attempt to juxtapose how one is presented in public versus how they might prefer to express themselves. Reality versus desire. If you could, what would you do? Would you let me take pictures? Think about it.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

PotD / Social Commentary

6 Reasons No One Likes You

May 27, 2015

Broken Princess (2011)

“Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face, the beauty of the earth and skies that man has inherited, and the wealth and confusion man has created. Photography is a major force in explaining man to man.” -Edward Steichen

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Yesterday we explained to everyone that you’re going to die. Armed with that knowledge, one might think that people would be a bit nicer, more accommodating, and trying to leave an enduring legacy of peace and hope. Nope, that’s not happening. Instead, we’re surrounded by people who are absolutely rotten and don’t seem to be capable of understanding exactly why it is that no one likes them. The whole situation might be funny if it weren’t for the fact that roughly half the US population is not only unlikable but absolutely baffled as to why. Please, allow us to try and shed some light on the subject. While the justifications are myriad, we have concatenated them down to six primary reasons that no one likes you.

You Are A Homophobe

Let me state for the record that we are combining all negative attitudes toward anyone within the LGBTQ community. Gay jokes are no longer acceptable. “That’s so gay” is one of the most rude statements you can make. All those derogatory terms you’ve been using? I can’t think of any faster way to get reasonable people to turn their back and walk away. LGBTQ people are absolutely no threat to you, so stop being so damn afraid. They’re not out to recruit you. They’re not going to cause the downfall of society. They’re not responsible for bad weather. Letting them marry isn’t going to effect your sham of a marriage. Get over yourself already and accept them for the beautiful people they are.

You’re Greedy

Interestingly enough, we’re not necessarily talking about the 1% here. At least, we’re not talking about the richest .o1%. I’ve met some of those people and found them to be among the most generous because they realize that, to a very large extent, they got lucky. What no one likes is the person who is among the nouveau rich and can’t be bothered to share their wealth with anyone else. They think they need a third house, a fourth car, or a bigger boat while complaining about all those “other” people who simply would like a living wage without having to work three jobs. For you, I have a very important message:

Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, Cease from your consideration of it. Proverbs 23:4

You Only Think About Yourself

Whether one has any money or not, only thinking about yourself, insisting that the world revolves around you, is just as bad a social crime as being a greedy SOB. This would include the sales manager who keeps demanding more of his/her floor people so they have less work to do themselves. Bosses who make everyone else work weekends but doesn’t work one themselves also falls into this category. Oh, and let’s not forget the people who demand everyone help them move but are always “busy” when someone else needs help. It is time you understand that we see through your bullshit and we don’t like you.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

You Diss People Who Genuinely Need Help

I genuinely fail to understand this whole war on the poor and disadvantaged that has popped up over the past few years. This is very much not a part of the United States in which I grew up and it has the ability to make me angry about as fast as anything can. I was raised that when you see someone who needs help, you help them, not spit at them or yell at them to “get a job.” We felt pity for those who were unemployed and had difficulty finding work. There was an understanding that even those who are on government assistance still often need additional help with clothing and transportation. Helping people was not just the Christian thing to do, it was the human thing to do. Now, not helping is actually a plank in some people’s presidential platform! Poor are called greedy just for wanting to feed their children. Homeless are shamed because they lost jobs that went overseas. You talk bad about disadvantaged people and not only does no one like you but I firmly believe the universe will wreak vengeance on you.

You Enjoy Hurting People

There is a whole culture of violence across the country that seems to be growing. Perhaps it is fueled by anger to some degree, but more than anything I find it is fueled by fears that are totally unreasonable. Racism is part of it, but there’s more than that going on for violence between people of the same color is higher than ever. We’re finally starting to call out publicly those people who commit acts of domestic violence against family members, and unnecessary violence among law enforcement is getting some attention. But bullying still remains a critical issue and gang on gang violence hasn’t backed off for years. If you’re involved in hurting other people on any level, no one likes you. No one wants you around. No one wants to risk being your next victim.

You’re a member of the United States Congress

Nine percent. That’s how many people in the US approve of Congress. Let’s flip that number, shall we? Ninety-one percent of all the people from one end of this country to the other dislike the United States Congress. This isn’t a new revelation, of course, but it is an all-time low and damned if the members of Congress don’t seem to care. We send them to Washington, we pay their salaries, we pay their staff’s salaries, we entrust them with the care of the nation and what do they do? Nothing. Well, that’s not entirely true; they generate a lot of hot air as complain about how horrible everyone else is. Heaven forbid any of them actually set a good example or anything like that. Members of Congress, we loathe you.

Of course, how you choose to behave is something totally under your control. No one forces you to be an asshole, you choose it. You have the ability to change. That doesn’t mean everyone will suddenly like you because we’re used to not trusting; but if you can change, so can everyone’s opinion of you. Just try.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

10 Reasons You Are Going To DIE!

May 26, 2015

When Dreams Die (2010)

“It is said that mourning, by its gradual labour, slowly erases pain; I could not, I cannot believe this; because for me, Time eliminates the emotion of loss (I do not weep), that is all. For the rest, everything has remained motionless. For what I have lost is not a Figure (the Mother), but a being; and not a being, but a quality (a soul): not the indispensable, but the irreplaceable.” ― Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]You are not safe. You are going to die. If you don’t believe me, just check any of the clickbait lists on social media expounding upon the many ways in which that just might happen. Everything from e-cigs to orange juice has one problem or another if you ask the right person. The internet has made it possible for bad science, or often no science, to have a voice it really shouldn’t have and the result is fear mongering over issues that really shouldn’t exist. So, here’s a list of all the things that really, seriously, could result in your death.

There’s Someone In Your Life Who Needs The Insurance Money

Sure, you like to think that everyone loves you. Your spouse adores the ground on which you walk. Your parents think you do no wrong. Your siblings aren’t the least be jealous. Your co-workers are proud of your accomplishments. Right. Go ahead and think that. In reality, most murder victims are killed by someone they know, often a family member. The larger your insurance policy, the greater the risk. Be careful with that OJ this morning.

You’re Starving While Searching For Non-GMO Food

I’m still not sure how genetically modified food suddenly went from being the god-send that would end hunger around the planet to the horrible poison that is going to kill us all. There isn’t a substantial amount real science to back up all the fear mongering and political arm-twisting on the subject. Fact is, strawberries as we know and enjoy them wouldn’t even exist without some genetic modification. Same is true for a number of standard foods, which makes it absolutely laughable when one sees them in the organic section of the produce aisle. As the world becomes less hospitable to traditional farming, the choices are likely to be GMO or die. Your call.

When The Polar Ice Cap Melts, You’ll Drown

I recently heard one climate-change denier base his entire argument on the fact that property he owns in Key West isn’t yet under water. The key word there, pardon the pun, is yet. Climate change wasn’t an argument when I was in elementary school. Over 40 years ago we were being taught that as greenhouse gasses increased, the earth’s temperature would warm and the oceans would inevitably rise, eventually dramatically reshaping the continents as we know them now. What has changed is the timetable. Back then, most scientists were estimating that rise would take effect somewhere in the 22nd century. Now, most are saying it could happen in this one. I hope you know how to dog paddle.

You Drive Like A Moron

I no longer drive. What being a passenger the past few years has taught me is that those of you who do drive are nuts. Every day, we encounter so many near-misses that I’m amazed we’re not burying more drivers. The fact that people have actually become proficient at dodging each other should tell us just how bad our driving has become. Driving rules really aren’t that difficult. Stay in your lane. Use your damn turn signal. Slow the fuck down already! Keep your eyes on the road, not your phone. Perhaps most important, though, is that you actually plan your trip so you know where you’re going and know when you need to leave. Traffic is going to suck. Plan on it and maybe you won’t be the reason everyone else is late for work.

The Elevator Cable Broke

I have a habit when I get on elevators. I look for the weight limit and then check the people who are around me. If it appears we might be pushing that weight limit, I get off the damn elevator. I’m not taking that risk. Yes, I know modern elevators have emergency braking systems in case the cable breaks. I don’t trust them. Why? Americans are obese and one place where that creates a real strain is on elevator cables lifting our fat asses from the first floor to the second because we get winded taking the stairs. Breaking cables are inevitable. Go ahead and keep eating like a pig if you must. Just be careful going to your doctor. The cardiac specialist is on the fourteenth floor.

[/one_half] [one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

You Share Needles

Southern Indiana has recently experienced a dramatic increase in HIV/AIDS cases due to one specific problem: needle sharing. Now, while a lot of the political rhetoric centers around the state cutting funding for public health sources, the reality is that if you’re sharing needles you’re just asking to die. Period. I’ll admit that I don’t really understand what drives a person to share needles in the first place; that’s not an addiction that has ever been remotely tempting. I do, however, realize that the problem is ultimately, politics aside, one of your own doing. So, let’s get this straight: if you share needles, you’re going to die and it’s not going to be pretty.

You Weren’t Immunized

Here’s another piece of bad science that has just gotten totally out of control. A recent measles outbreak is evidence of just how stupid some people can be when it comes to the health of their own children. Measles. Really. We had that disease all but licked until a few idiots decided to stop immunizing their kids. Next think you know, children everywhere, especially those who already had some form of immune deficiency, are breaking out with one of the most easily eradicated and totally unnecessary diseases possible. There is no real science behind anti-vaxing, just paranoid stupidity and the end results are lethal. Not immunizing your children is signing their death warrant. The risk is just that real. Stupid.

You Left The Oven On

Haven’t we all been there? We’re driving down the road, 30 minutes or so from home, when we suddenly wonder whether we actually remembered to turn off the oven. Okay, so millennials don’t have this problem because they don’t know how to cook, but older generations understand. There’s always that chance that you left on the oven, which means there could be gas building up inside your own right now, creating an inevitable powder keg. All it needs is the sudden rush of oxygen you’ll make available when you open the door, and boom! You, your house, and possibly even your neighbor’s houses are all going up in smoke. You know it could happen. You’re never really sure. Maybe you should turn around and check now.

Elves

I’m not kidding. They’re out there. We’re not talking about the little guys that help Santa deliver presents on Christmas Eve, either. Elves are evil, mean, and waiting to sabotage your every move, your every plan. You never see the little suckers until it’s too late. They tampered with your break lines. They put sleeping powder in the pilot’s coffee. Elves stretch electrical cords across the floor and then make them invisible until you’ve tripped over one. The water on the floor that cause you to slip and fall? Elves. I tell you, man, their everywhere and they’re out to get you. I swear it.

The Bible Tells Me So

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27 KJV

Sorry, I’m not making this one up. It’s really there. There’s no getting around it. Nothing you do is going to save your ass. You’re done for you’re going to die. The Bible says so. You’re toast.

Are you scared yet? Are you ready to crawl in a hole and hide? Can we get real for a moment? Sure, we’re all going to die, sooner or later, one way or another. I frequently tell the story of my Uncle Fred who died from smoking two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. He was 96. He didn’t stop smoking until he was 94. How, where and when one dies matters much less than how one lives. You have one life. Are you going to spend it worrying about what might kill you or are you going to spend your life actually living? You don’t have to listen to all the doomsayers on the Internet. You’ll probably live longer if you spend less time on the Internet completely. So go ahead. Defy death. Live. [/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

6 Reasons We Remember

May 25, 2015

At Rest In Formation (2015)

“What use is having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling?” -W. Eugene Smith

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]When a young man or woman enlists for military service, especially as a volunteer, they do so knowing the sacrifice they may pay. Over the course of our nation’s history, there have been thousands of brave military personnel, both officers and enlisted, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, many paying a price we most dread paying. Each and every one of those stories is worth telling, but neither time nor space permit doing so here.

What is often overlooked in all the combat-related stories are acts of heroism by members of our military on the humanitarian front. Military involvement in relief services around the world is ongoing, even in times of Peace. When disaster looms, anywhere people are hurting and are in need, the US Military is there, sometimes even when the “need” is only two small children. Here are just a few reasons the people conducting these services need to be remembered.

Berlin Airlift, 1947-49

After World War II, as Allied forces first divided up control of Germany and then started arguing with each other, the Cold War created its first crisis. The Soviet Union formed a blockade preventing necessary supplies from getting to West Berlin, which was under the control of the US and UK. Two million people were at risk. The city had been bombed out and there wasn’t sufficient shelter. There was no fuel for heat. Food and water were controlled by the black market. Starvation was imminent. The US sent C-47 Bombers to Britain and for two years they made daily flights to Berlin delivering 646 tons of flour and wheat, 125 tons of cereal, 64 tons of fat, 109 tons of meat and fish, 180 tons of dehydrated potatoes, 180 tons of sugar, 11 tons of coffee, 19 tons of powdered milk, 5 tons of whole milk for children, 3 tons of fresh yeast for baking, 144 tons of dehydrated vegetables, 38 tons of salt and 10 tons of cheese every day. Their service and dedication to “Operation Vittles” kept the people of Berlin alive.

Biafran Airlift, 1968-70

While most of US were committed to conflicts in Vietnam and Cambodia, the civil war in Nigeria created an incredible humanitarian need in and around Biafra. Non-government charity organizations (NGOs), most with religious affiliation, attempted to address the situation independently, but found that doing so was practically impossible because of the ongoing tribal wars. US military personnel provided logistical support in addition to considerable security and air support in a dramatic airlift that was at times every bit as dangerous as flying missions over Vietnam. Often a thankless task, it was frequently difficult to tell who was friendly and who wasn’t, but the US military maintained its point relief program despite criticism of aiding the “wrong” kinds of people.

Ethiopian Famine, 1984-85

A weak government and drought brought Ethiopia into the worst drought seen in several centuries. Even before the international community was fully aware of the disaster, over 400,000 people had died; that number quickly climbed to over a million. Agencies such as the United Nations and the International Red Cross did their best to help, but the government’s inability to distribute food was a constant issue. Today, popular media likes to highlight Bob Geldof’s Live Aid event as being responsible for turning the tide, but in reality it was the combined efforts of the United States military relief services with Britain and other allies that made the difference. US troops provided ground-level security while planes dropped food and medical supplies to remote parts of the country even long after the television cameras went away.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]

Sudan Medical Missions, 1988

Extensive flooding throughout Sudan in August, 1988, created a severe health crisis that had the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention begging for help. The US Army sent teams of medical personnel on immunization missions into the most remote parts of Sudan among a group of people who were unfamiliar with the practices of modern medicine. Army teams often found themselves at odds with the very people they had been sent to help and had to carefully develop relationships with each community before they were able to achieve any level of success. Meanwhile, Army medical personnel were subjected to malaria and other diseases, some of which proved fatal. Despite incredible hardship and constant criticism in far from adequate conditions, Army medical teams persevered until the threat was eliminated.

Air Rescue Crew “Komodo 11”

The weather sucked on 23 March 2003 at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. While all other aircraft were grounded, orders were issued to scramble two HH-60s not because of any direct enemy threat but to rescue to Afghan children who had been severely injured. Without immediate medical attention, they would die. The two helicopters took off in the bad weather and, for reasons unknown, one of the choppers using call sign Komodo 11 went down, presumably because of the weather. Killed were: 1st Lt. Tamara Archuleta, 23, of Los Lunas, N.M.; Staff Sgt. Jason Hicks, 25, of Jefferson, S.C.; Master Sgt. Michael Maltz, 42, of St. Petersburg, Fla.; Senior Airman Jason Plite, 21, of Lansing, Mich.; Lt. Col. John Stein, 39, of Bardolph, Ill.; and Staff Sgt. John Teal, 29, of Dallas. The children were rescued and survived.

Nepal Mercy Mission, 2015

The final entry on our list this morning is the newest, and in some ways the most difficult for me to write. It was less than a month ago when a devastating earthquake hit the small country of Nepal killing over 8,000 people. As aid flowed into the country from all over the world, actually getting assistance to people outside Kathmandu was extremely difficult because almost all roads had been destroyed. In answer to this predicament, we sent in our best: The United States Marines. Not all of those missions have gone well, though, and this past week a helicopter carrying a relief team went down, killing everyone on board. NPR has an article remembering the six Marine lives lost. They were all young; Lance Cpl. Jacob Hug turned 22 while delivering rice in Nepal. Many were parents; Capt. Dustin Lukasiewicz was married with a young daughter, looking forward to returning to Nebraska for the birth of their second child. They were all committed to helping the people of Nepal because they were all committed to being US Marines.

The men and women of the United States Armed Forces do more than carry guns, fly planes, shoot cannons, and kill bad guys. The US military represents the entire United States, doing for us what we either cannot, or perhaps in some cases should not, do on our own. Every time someone puts on a uniform, they understand the risk and it is one they assume with pride. Today, we remember not only those who served in times of war, but those who gave their lives helping others. We thank you all.[/one_half_last]

Photography / pop culture / PotD

5 Reasons You Can’t Take A Good Picture

May 24, 2015

Untitled (2009)

“Which of my photographs is my favorite? The one I’m going to take tomorrow.” -Imogene Cunningham

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]Anyone who has a social media account of most any kind understands the clickbait list trap. They pull you in with an enticing title such as “Warner Bros. Cartoon Characters: Where Are They Now,” and you click the link thinking that this might actually be interesting information, especially since Speedy Gonzalez just disappeared suddenly without a trace. Oh, but when you get there, you have to click and click and click and click! The average ten-entry list requires you to click at least 30 times to see all the information, and even then it’s usually not as awesome as you’d like. Then, there are auto-play videos and other articles and ads all over the place. Mis-click just once and you’re down a rabbit hole from which there is no return.

So, this week we’re turning the tables a bit with a set of lists that sound as though they might be something that would appear on a clickbait site, but we promise you won’t have to keep clicking in order to see all the information. In fact, depending on how you view our page, we’ll even try to keep scrolling to a minimum. Some of our list, such as this one, are silly. Others, such as tomorrow’s, are quite serious. Either way, we hope you are informed and/or entertained without all the hassle of clickbait.

Now, for today’s topic: there are a lot of people running around out there trying to take pictures. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people running around taking lousy pictures. We have five reasons why that might be happening.

You can’t take your camera off auto

Your camera arrives from the factory with an auto setting. This is a lot like the little Instamatic film cameras of the 1960s and 70s. It’s acceptable for snapshots under well-lit conditions, but vary away from those conditions and the quality of the pictures degrades quickly. The solution: take the damn camera off auto and set the ISO, aperture, and lens speed manually! What, you’re camera doesn’t have a manual mode? That’s the manufacturer’s way of calling you stupid. They don’t think you’re smart enough to figure out how to work your own camera. You should suit them for defamation of character.

Your camera is really a phone

I already know I’m going to catch some shit for this one because there are a bunch of people running around who think that taking pictures with a cell phone and then manipulating them in Photoshop or some other program is a form of art. Bullshit. You’re still just taking a snapshot with your damn phone and I don’t care how many filters you apply it’s not going to make up for the fact it’s still a shitty picture. I mean, you can’t even hold it still enough to take a selfie without 37 tries! Come on! That’s not a camera! It’s more like a digital crayon. Get a real camera already!

[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]

You don’t have a clue what aperture or ISO do

This is the reason your camera’s manufacturer didn’t give you a manual mode. They make image capturing devices for people like you who look at the ISO setting on a camera and think it’s pronounced EE-soh. No, it’s not. I. S. O. Think International Standards Organization. It’s a globally agreed-upon standard for how digital media responds to light. Aperture is how large the hole is in the lens that lets in light. Those are pretty fundamental settings for any camera and are critical to taking a good picture. If you don’t know those then there are probably a host of other things you probably don’t know. Consider taking a class or better yet find a professional willing to mentor you.

You think a frame is what goes on the wall

Ever notice how you keep cutting off people’s heads in your photos? Or that people look much smaller and further away in the picture than they did in person? There’s a reason for that: bad framing. Or maybe not framing at all. Framing is the ability to accurately get the things in the picture that you want in the picture at the size and in the position you want them. Framing takes practice, to be sure, but more than anything it requires actually looking through the viewfinder, not that preview screen on the back. The preview screen is an estimate and does not give you the framing accuracy that comes from looking through the viewfinder. Beyond that, practice, practice, practice!

You’re blind

Sight is fundamental, people. If you want to take good pictures, it really helps that you’re able to actually see what it is you’re photographing, unless you’re just really into for the abstract value, which you’re still not going to appreciate if you can’t see the finished photo, either. Vision is perhaps the most critical element of taking a picture!

I realize that seeing may seem inherent, but I can’t begin to tell you the number of people I’ve seen hold a camera up to their face and then close their eyes before snapping the shutter! Over and over, no matter how much I might try to help, they would close their eyes every damn time! I’m sorry, but if you’re not going to look at your subject then you shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed if the photo comes out looking differently than anticipated.

Of course, if you’re blind, you wouldn’t know either way, would you? So maybe it’s not such a big deal after all.

[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

Not Quite Naked: Unspoken

May 23, 2015

Undisclosed (2011)

When women pose thoughtfully and artistically – in nothing but their bare skin – they find themselves. They discover that they are truly alive. They become a Nude. -David Allio

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]All this week we’ve been talking about being naked and how social media inherently dislikes anything too close to showing a nipple. We’ve talked about artistic purpose and artist intention and all the other topics that are inherent any time someone posts a picture that just might make those of impure thought a little uncomfortable. Fact is, no matter what kind of picture one puts online, there is always going to be someone who objects for one reason or another and someone else who is secretly perverting it in their own way. Nothing we do or say is ever going to change that.

What we can do, however, is make sure the act and conversation around being naked isn’t dominated by the negative. We don’t need to be shy about being comfortable in our own skin and no one has any right to judge or speak maliciously of someone who prefers to not wear clothes. Being naked should not be limited to works of art. People who enjoy living au naturale should be able to take selfies just like anyone else without needing to censor who they are or what they are doing. Nudity should be as casual a part of conversation as might be the coffee one had for breakfast this morning or replacing a belt on the vacuum cleaner. No one should be made to feel they have to hide such a normal part of who they are.

I have to admit that the conversation is doing better today than it was a mere 15 or so years ago. On the backside of the freewheeling 60s and 70s came a knee-jerk conservatism that had everyone buttoned up and anything that might be remotely considered sexual was demonized. If one was naked, the public perception was that one was also likely doing drugs and having sex with multiple people and not raising their children correctly. Discovery of HIV and the subsequent AIDS panic didn’t help because during that initial period where we weren’t sure exactly what caused the virus anything that could possibly be considered sexual, including kissing and holding hands, was demonized. Fear drove people to chastity.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Getting past those unrealistic and misinformed fears has been quite a chore but from that has come an even stronger urge to make being naked more socially acceptable. We’ve already discussed the Free The Nipple campaign, which is a wonderful thing, but there are also those who look at nudity as a form of expression to be protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and judges have begun upholding that right. Portland, Oregon’s annual Naked Run sounds like a lot of rebellious fun, but it is actually designed and intended as a means of peaceful protest, again protected by the Constitution. You have a right to be naked without that nudity being sexualized by someone whose own mind can’t be trusted.

Early in the 20th century, before all those stupid wars and politics got in the way, there was a strong naturist movement across Europe. During that period, doctors were actually prescribing patients to be naked, especially outdoors. The well-to-do would commonly hold tea parties on their patios that were completely sans clothing. Not only were these events largely asexual, but children were also included and there was no fear that a child seeing a naked adult might have any adverse effects. Quite the opposite was true. There was a greater acceptance of homosexuality and other lifestyles during this brief period than there has been at any time since.

Can we again achieve such a level of casual nakedness? I’m not too terribly optimistic just yet because the Internet has allowed those who would impose their own morality on the world a level of volume larger than their actual size. One thing of which I’m certain, though, is that being naked is not something that needs to remain unspoken. Be proud of who you are, the skin you are in, regardless of your size, age, or sexuality. And if someone doesn’t like that, allow them to go away and deal with their problem on their own. [/one_half_last]

Art / PotD

Not Quite Naked: Inherent

May 22, 2015

Mmmm, Chocolate (2012)

Modern pessimism denies the intrinsic beauty and replaces it with a subjective vision that cares little for the objective truth. In this thought the figure, whether nude or clothed, loses its form by putting more value on its symbolism than its actual form. That’s when you need a Rembrandt to step in a remind us of the value of content in its relation to form and beauty! -Shane Conant

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]Everyone gets naked, but not everyone knows how to be nude. Being naked is inevitable; one bathes, one changes clothes, sooner or later naked happens to everyone. Being nude, though, requires a level of comfortability with being in one’s own skin. The person who is naked is more likely to run for cover is the doorbell rings while the person who is nude may go ahead and answer the door. The person who is naked is careful to keep the blinds closed and the curtains drawn while the nude individual enjoys the warm sunlight coming through the window. Being naked is inherent, but being nude is a choice.

Artists often focus on the nude, not the naked, and I think it is important that we understand the difference between the two not just in the personal sense but how it makes a difference in the basic condition of approaching a work of art. Art school is partially responsible for our focus on the nude because it necessarily looks at the figure first as an object to be drawn. Even some photography schools insist that their students first take figure drawing classes before moving on to other forms of photography. Understanding the basic mechanics of the nude form is essential to accurately portraying the figure in other settings.

At the same time, part of our need to find symbolism and meaning in the nude form comes from a defensive position wherein we feel the need to justify having an unclothed person in front of our lens or our canvas. Moral criticism of the nude, which by its very nature objectifies the body as a thing to be shamed, puts artists on guard and finds us looking for meaning in work that, such as today’s image, doesn’t necessarily need any additional meaning for it to be appreciated. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Insisting that there be meaning to every aspect of an image takes away one’s ability to enjoy the human figure for the natural work of art that it is. The human form does not require us to explain what makes it beautiful for it is beautiful beyond the ability of our words to describe. Imposing unintended symbolism on every image of a human form we see is just as improper as those who impose unnecessary morality upon everything that exists. Not everything requires our intervention or interpretation in order to be a work of art.

I very much like this quote from an artist who understood the difference between nude and naked:

Hitherto the nude has always been represented in poses which presuppose an audience. But my women are simple, honest creatures who are concerned with nothing beyond their physical occupations… it is as if you were looking through a keyhole. (Edgar Degas)

Dripping chocolate down a naked back has absolutely no symbolism, no greater meaning, no architectural inference. Mmmm, Chocolate is simply dripping chocolate down a naked back. That’s it. Nothing else. Any artistry comes naturally in the juxtaposition of light and dark, highlights and shadows, contrast and toning. One needn’t be an artist of great experience or full of profound thought in order to take this picture. Sometimes we don’t need any reason for capturing an image beyond the basic desire to capture that specific image. Art doesn’t always need an explanation or deeper meaning. Let art be art. Let naked be naked.[/one_half_last]

Blog Archives

“Unfortunately, in many cases, the rule book goes way too far – it tries to tell people how to be instead of explaining what we’re trying to do. We need recipes, not rules.” ― Howard Behar, It’s Not About the Coffee: Leadership Principles from a Life at Starbucks

Share this:

Like this:

We don’t just make this up. Here are our sources:

Miller, Geoffry F. The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. April 1, 2001. Anchor Books, Random House, New York.

Share this:

Like this:

“More than ambition, more than ability, it is rules that limit contribution; rules are the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They are a substitute for rational thought.” ― Hyman G. Rickover

Share this:

Like this:

“If you follow the rules, it’s your own fault.” ― Marty Rubin

Share this:

Like this:

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

Share this:

Like this:

You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over. -Richard Branson

Share this:

Like this:

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography. – George Eastman

Share this:

Like this:

I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do — that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse. – Diane Arbus, On Photography by Susan Sontag

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Any photographer who says he’s not a voyeur is either stupid or a liar. -Helmut Newton

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

When I say I want to photograph someone, what it really means is that I’d like to know them. Anyone I know I photograph. – Annie Leibovitz

Share this:

Like this:

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

Share this:

Like this:

It’s that I don’t like white paper backgrounds. A woman does not live in front of white paper. She lives on the street, in a motor car, in a hotel room. -Helmut Newton

Share this:

Like this:

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

Pseudo-Celebrities

Terrorists

People Who Knock On Doors

Racists

Homophobes

Sexual Predators

People Who Don’t Hold Doors/Elevators

Justin Bieber Fans

Self-Righteous Assholes

Non-Tippers

Murderers

Tea Party Republicans

Share this:

Like this:

“If I were to teach, I wouldn’t teach a course in photography. I’d teach a course called ‘What Matters.'” -Ralph Steiner

Jailing The Wrong People

Religion

We’re Rude

Big Everything

Politicians

Share this:

Like this:

“This photographic thing has changed the entire vision of the world. It will go through every activity of humanity — science, medicine, space, ESP, for peace, against peace, entertainment, television, movies, all of them — you will not find one without photography.” -Lisette Model

Humans Cause Climate Change

You’re Only As Good As The People Around You

Evolution Happens

Vaccinations Are Important

Most GMOs Are Safe … And Necessary

Just Because It Hasn’t Been Proven Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t True

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

“Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face, the beauty of the earth and skies that man has inherited, and the wealth and confusion man has created. Photography is a major force in explaining man to man.” -Edward Steichen

You Are A Homophobe