Without Prejudice 3

[armand]

.

[Telecaster]

I like the atmosphere a lot.

You display (in both pix) a positive attitude that I would immediately have felt compelled to crush by converting into black/white and then taking into the realms of threat and foreboding.

This seems, to me anyway, to illustrate that the subject, per se, can be the least important aspect of an image; that it often serves just as springboard to whatever else if cooking deep inside the mind.

Perhaps that's why I believe that hand-of-man subjects are more relevant to personal photography than nature's freebies. Man-made enables the base usurping of the object by the photographer as a second step along the path of connections between people. I feel no connection whatsoever with a redwood nor even an oak. I find a powerful connection, however, with a '59 Coupe de Ville, despìte never owning not having the most remote chance of owning one, but none at all with an equally distant Ferrari, yet I find both beautiful.

In other words, perhaps hand-of-man ultimately encourages searches of the soul. For those who suspect we have no such thing as a soul, what in the name of all that's good do you search in your private moments?

I rarely take a photograph with a concept already in mind. It's why my subject matter tends to be scattered, especially in this thread where I'm often posting shortly after snapping. Stuff that wouldn't make the cut with a more considered edit can get through.    If I see something that catches my eye and I have a camera handy, I'll use the camera to examine it more closely. Paying closer attention to my surroundings, seeing more precisely, is what I'm after. In this trees and Caddies are equal game.

I think of the "soul" as the aggregate of the participants in one's internal dialogue. If so a "soulless" person is one who lacks the capacity for self-scrutiny and -reflection. I *notice in myself a strong cautious inner voice, a more reticent dark one (check out an essay or two in John Gray's book Straw Dogs for an idea of what this voice sounds like) and a strong sanguine voice. The latter one seems to have solid control over my visual cortex.    I was in Jerusalem on the first day of the first Palestinian intifada in late 1987. Took many photos that day, yet few indicating anything unusual going on, even as rocks were flying and tires were burning. I'd make a crap battle photographer.

-Dave-

*There must be at least four inner participants then, including the one noticing & evaluating the other three.

[Telecaster]

Just finished restringing a guitar I'm breaking in for a friend of a friend. It's a Collings 290, one of a number of current small-batch instruments that earn the "better Gibson than a Gibson" reputation. It's based on the Les Paul TV model from the 1950s, which featured the same "limed mahogany" finish commonly used at the time on TV & HiFi cabinets. It's owner, new to electric guitars, wanted me to make sure everything was in order. Not that I've had to do anything other than put on his strings of choice…it's a Collings! The wraparound bridge (pictured) even has a functional intonation pattern. You'll see it if you know what I mean.    Because of this the guitar plays nicely in tune up & down the neck, unlike most of the originals I've tried out.

The 290 name comes from the guitar's two P-90 pickups and also from US-290 in Texas. (Collings is located in Austin.) These particular P-90s are made by Harry Häussel in Germany and are both strong and clear. The guitar is light & resonant and plays & sounds terrific. I'm jealous.

Photo taken with a 1950s Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar at f/2.8, mounted on a Sony A7rii via a lovely Yeenon adapter with a built-in focusing helical. The Yeenon allows much closer focusing than do the old Contax rangefinder cameras: ~40cm. Focusing action is very smooth. And the focus ring turns in the proper Leica/Canon direction rather than the backwards Contax/Nikon/Pentax one. 

-Dave-

[32BT]

Perfect? A disgrace!

Why was the gig given to a woman when there are dozens of male models perfectly willing to model absolutely anything at all?

A blatant case of sexual discrimination and, worse, an insult to the innocent passer-by (now forced forever to feel threatened, possibly embarrassed and mocked for her natural, highly unretouched avoirdupois), through the brash, insensitive visual comparison that only a chauvinist pig could have made! Where the Me2 and Porc-eaters when you need one?

But a damned nice picture nonetheless.

You said it yourself Rob: in photography we can only depict reality, and if we consider it a little longer, the truth can never be politically correct now, can it?

[Rob C]

I rarely take a photograph with a concept already in mind. It's why my subject matter tends to be scattered, especially in this thread where I'm often posting shortly after snapping. Stuff that wouldn't make the cut with a more considered edit can get through.    If I see something that catches my eye and I have a camera handy, I'll use the camera to examine it more closely. Paying closer attention to my surroundings, seeing more precisely, is what I'm after. In this trees and Caddies are equal game.

I think of the "soul" as the aggregate of the participants in one's internal dialogue. If so a "soulless" person is one who lacks the capacity for self-scrutiny and -reflection. I *notice in myself a strong cautious inner voice, a more reticent dark one (check out an essay or two in John Gray's book Straw Dogs for an idea of what this voice sounds like) and a strong sanguine voice. The latter one seems to have solid control over my visual cortex.    I was in Jerusalem on the first day of the first Palestinian intifada in late 1987. Took many photos that day, yet few indicating anything unusual going on, even as rocks were flying and tires were burning. I'd make a crap battle photographer.

-Dave-

*There must be at least four inner participants then, including the one noticing & evaluating the other three.

Dave, things are worse (or should that be better?) than you suspected: there's also a powerfully Freudian one at work: have your collective ids and egos not noted the fascination with orifices, naturally sealed and thus frustrating, within your recent photography of the family tree out there, both in fair weather and foul?

But in direct contradiction (or is it culmination of a subliminal fear?) your musical interest resides in holeless(?) electronic instruments that ape those other, naturally functioning ones with holes. This is very interesting, and not just in the Rowan and Martin sense of interesting. Or is it in precisely that sense of interesting?

[Rob C]

Marilyn; what a pretty name. First came across it in school, where it was borne by the daughter of a Canadian missionary. The next time, it was in Photoplay, where it had nothing to do with missionaries of any kind.

Rob

[RSL]

Great catch, Rob. Besides being significant, street's fun.

[Rob C]

Great catch, Rob. Besides being significant, street's fun.

Thanks; yes, it is indeed a great reason for owning cameras from which one no longer expects any financial return! In my own case, I get a lot of pleasure from coming up with titles that pop into my mind.

That they do, that they are obviously triggered by something other than the placing of names in a hat, gives me a feeling that there is more in what the eye sees, that the ear hears, that can easily be explained. So apart from the obvious visual buzz that snaps give me, I enjoy (sometimes) the further revelations of myself that I discover through them.

How delighfully complex the world beyond the door through which photography leads us!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...where it had nothing to do with missionaries of any kind.

Depends on the position one takes (on the issue)

[pegelli]

Sometimes my two hobbies collide 

[Rob C]

Depends on the position one takes (on the issue)

Alas, poor Marilyn, I never knew her well...

;-)

[Rob C]

Sometimes my two hobbies collide 

So, does an embouchure work better with medium or small formats?

Rob

[Telecaster]

Dave, things are worse (or should that be better?) than you suspected: there's also a powerfully Freudian one at work: have your collective ids and egos not noted the fascination with orifices, naturally sealed and thus frustrating, within your recent photography of the family tree out there, both in fair weather and foul?

But in direct contradiction (or is it culmination of a subliminal fear?) your musical interest resides in holeless(?) electronic instruments that ape those other, naturally functioning ones with holes. This is very interesting, and not just in the Rowan and Martin sense of interesting. Or is it in precisely that sense of interesting?

  Are the things we project onto others not inevitably the very things we wish to avoid seeing in ourselves? (That's a paraphrase of someone, I think…)

-Dave-

[pegelli]

So, does an embouchure work better with medium or small formats?

Rob

I thought that was obvious, small formats of course

[Rob C]

  Are the things we project onto others not inevitably the very things we wish to avoid seeing in ourselves? (That's a paraphrase of someone, I think…)

-Dave-

Not a parrot phrase at all: a deep, psychological study of photographers at large, methinks. Well, sometimes.

Rob

[armand]

.

[farbschlurf]

.

[pegelli]

You just wish you could get on some trains, but unfortunately that's not always possible

[Telecaster]

In keeping with today's mono vibe…from my yard earlier this afternoon.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

For the birds.

Rob