My non-verbal, non-literate, review of the Fuji 60mm f2.4 macro lens as a daylight, outdoor, good light shooting tool. No conclusion beyond what you can see when you blow these up.

 ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
  ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.
 ©2019 Kirk Tuck. Austin, Texas Downtown.

Sleep walking beside Fifth Street. A humorous essay on the wearisome duality of modern existence in a populous city where no one is outside.

In a more serious artery, this was my experiment in using Fuji's flat, "Eterna" color profile. It's one they suggest for video production, taking the place of an even flatter F-Log profile for people who don't have the time or inclination to learn how to grade in Premier or Final Cut Pro (or Resolve...). I also gilded the lily by using the DR +200 and +400 settings which are supposed to increase highlight retention by one or two stops. Before I color corrected them you could see so far into the shadows that it was as if you had painted all the interior spaces stark white. But flat is boring so I added back some needed contrast and popped up the saturation just a bit. And here we are; back where we started....

Camera: Fuji X-H1. 60mm Macro lens. Jpeg. Eterna. 
Photographer: Self-Propelled. 

Napping Near the Kitchen. An Enthrotopic Dissection of Post-Industrial, Post-Techno-dustrial, Cultural Dysphoria Mapped to Benton-esque Layerscaped Flattening Poems.

Peanut Butter and Jelly in a Post Apocalyptic Funk. Sink-Situated.
Rendered onto archival nano-acute pixels.

This one was difficult for me. To show the entire apparatus seemed too obvious
but I wanted to show enough jakondiscity to engage the sympathetic resonance of 
suburban essentialism and render it licorice. So much punctum. 

The brutalism of crushed and segmented fora pressed into
unwelcome and unethical debasement for the sybaritic pleasure of 
caffeine addicts causes the mind to reel and fabricates 
ripples in our shared cultural ethos. 

Towels for wiping mud off the dog's paws when she comes in the back door. 
"Repudiating the flatness of our two dimensional canvas of photography. And our one dimensional understanding of its potential." 

Thank you to manifesto writers everywhere. 
My application to Magnum is now in the mail.

Wake up. Swim. Photograph.

©2012 Kirk Tuck. "Noellia."

I'm still trying to get back in shape after that rotten cold and cough I lived through the last few weeks. The weather is helping by delivering beautiful mornings. I hate not feeling physically fit so I've been hitting the pool and the hike and bike trail every day. I've also cut out any trash food until I'm back to 100%. (So sad. I'd love a big plate of Tex-Mex food for lunch....).

I got up early this morning, parked the car at the pool and jogged down to the lake to run the four mile loop. I can barely claim to have run since I doubt I broke 12 minutes for any one of the four miles even though I was huffing and puffing. I finished the run back at the pool, grabbed my swim gear, showered off, and made it into the pool in time for the 8:15 workout. We did some distance this morning. The total workout was around 3200 yards; a couple of miles. The interesting two sets in the middle of the workout were: Six 100s, alternating by 100s, freestyle and individual medley. Then a set of 50s, alternating by 50s between freestyle swimming and then kicking with a kick board. Hitting the same interval for the kicks as for the freestyle swim meant really moving one's ass during the kicks. Even then it was pretty much touch and go.

I like to take my blood pressure, once a week or so, after a longer workout set so after I came home and ate breakfast and made a decent cup of coffee I sat down in my favorite chair and used the little automatic blood pressure tester. 118 over 66. I'll take it. I chalk up the decent numbers to finally getting a couple good nights sleep in a row.

Now I'm heading out the door to take some photographs for no good reason other than my own entertainment. I'm playing with the Fuji X-H1 and I'm currently fascinated with seeing just how far I can extend the dynamic range of the system in Jpeg. I'm using what is quickly becoming one of my favorite color profiles: Eterna. Today I'm using that profile but I'm also tossing in the 200% and 400% settings on the DR feature. Ostensibly, I'll be able to increase highlight retention by one or two stops but will most likely have to re-map the files in PhotoShop. Lens choice of the day? 60mm f2.4 macro.

While I'm pretty clear about how and why to get back into shape I am having, for the first time in ages, trouble getting motivated to really apply myself to the business side of life. I'm feeling a bit paralyzed. I know I should be calling on clients, doing routine promotions and working the social media smarter and harder but I'm just not feeling it. 

It may be I'm ultimately just emotionally fatigued by taking care of my dad, and by extension the rest of my family. It may be that the work just feels repetitive and some of the fun slipped out when I wasn't looking. It may mean that I'm looking for something new to challenge me. The worst thing I can think is that I've done so much stuff I've worn myself down and just want to step away from commercial work for a while. 

I guess that's not as bad as I imagine it could be. At some point, if you've followed good advice from your wealth managers and estate planners you should have enough cash flow to take long breaks. But it's foreign territory for me. I'm used to being busy, and at least marginally engaged. It feels odd to have lost motivation. I guess that's the next problem on which to work....

I'm feeling lazy hanging around the house with Studio Dog. Ben and Belinda are both working full tilt at their jobs downtown. Life is weird.


Hanging out on the ranch.

Experience tells us that some days are best spent on a quiet ranch, away from the random chaos of life and commerce. A few thousand acres of private land seems to be a nice cure for too much social media. Spend it with an interesting singer/songwriter and a camera and it's like a mini-vacation for the mind. 

I only wish the resident chef had not taken the day off...

Best lighting value of the week and then most fun light of the week. Kirk's pick.

I had two projects this week and I enjoyed them both very much. On each project I used the same two lights. One is very sensible and very economical and, if it had been on the flash market ten or fifteen years ago it would have demanded a thousand dollar price tag and been a piece of "kit" coveted by legions of working professional photographers.

The other light is by no means a lavish or silly tool to have a around but since it's battery powered it fits into a different set of production niches. Both lights come from the same company. It's called, Godox.

I've probably mentioned the first light before but I'm bringing it up again because it worked well and made the photo shoot easier for me. It's a Godox SK400 II. This is a traditional monolight, plug-in-the-wall, Bowen's mount, electronic flash. It's got a nice metal body, a 150 watt modeling light, a built-in cooling fan (not too noisy), it puts out a good amount of power and is rated at 400 watt seconds. The ad copy says it uses robust, European standard capacitors, is controllable by several different Godox 2.4 gHz wireless controllers and recycles, at max output, at around 1 second. All-in-all, unless you are a total gadget freak, it's pretty much everything one would want in a studio electronic flash; if 400 watt seconds is enough power for your needs.

I bought it a month of so ago when I was prepping to do a shoot on a dark stage and needed my two main flashes to have modeling lights so I could actually see what we would be photographing. On Tuesday I needed to put a main light in a small (2x3 foot) soft box, then drape the soft box all the way around the business end with black cloth, to form a ersatz snoot; and then I needed to hang the whole assemblage up on a boom and tall C-stand, with the face/flashtube pointing straight down. So, pretty much, I had the electronic flash totally encapsulated and I had the heat generating parts of the flash at the bottom so the heat could rise through the rest of the unit. Not the smartest way to ensure long life with flash circuits but sometimes it's what the photo demands.

With the flash up about twelve feet in the air and the control panel of the flash inches from the ceiling it's unreasonable to think that I could operate this assemblage via that rear control panel. Instead, I used a X1-F wireless flash controller to adjust the SK400 II power output from camera position. I put the big flash on group A and the secondary flashes on groups B and C.

We shot about 250 shots over the course of one hour in this configuration, with the modeling light set to full output, and every frame was perfectly consistent. Both for color and for exposure. I've owned many Profoto (Swedish premium lighting company) and Elinchrom (Swiss premium lighting company) flashes and this Godox unit was as consistent as anything I've come across. And, after all, consistency and reliability are the top two attributes one wants in electronic flash gear. So, the cost of this unit, not on Amazon but at my local bricks and mortar camera shop, was a whopping $140. New. In the box. With a reflector, power cord, flash tube cover and various owner's manuals. Compare that to the last Profoto 300 watt second monolight I bought nearly ten years ago at over $1200 and you'll understand why I'm so impressed with this unit. You could outfit a working studio with three good, strong lights for less than $500. Amazing.

The fun light is, of course, the Godox AD200 and all the bits and pieces that you can buy for yours. I used it one day this week as part of the overall light design, in conjunction with my swaddled SK 400 II. The AD200 is battery powered, small and light. I put a grid spot on the front and put it just out of frame for our shot and used its tight beam to add just the barest amount of fill to the bottom of our frame. I've covered the AD 200 before so I won't go into all the features, benefits and specs but I will say that it's a great light to use out on location. I can carry two, with accessories, in one small Pelican case and, with the right trigger, also get them to work well in HSS mode. Add a small soft box or octobox and a couple of light stands and you can make outdoor location portraits all day long with very good results.

Having good, cheap, agile lights to play with makes the jobs go quicker and keeps the fun quotient a bit higher.

I used the same two lights the next day to do a portrait of a radiologist in the studio.  I used the SK400 II with a 48 inch octa-box and I used the AD200 as a background light. The AD200 accepts a dome modifier over its circular flash head and it provided very even exposure on

Godox AD200.

the background. A quick set up and a very consistent group of portrait images! The color between the two units is a close match as well.

The cameras did what they were supposed to do and they were connected to an Atomos monitor for quick and easy evaluation by clients. But having lights that work well and with a big degreee of flexibility is a very nice thing. Now I just need to make sure I've always got a handful of double A batteries sitting around for the wireless trigger.

We've got quite a few flashes now. I'll have to stop buying new ones or I'll run out of cabinet space and we'll have them all over the floor..... but it's always better to have a dozen too many that one too few.....

Photo Celebrity Origin Stories. Or, why can't we admire people who do stuff right?

Jimmy Moore as "Black Stash" in Zach Theatre's, "Peter and the Star Catcher." 

I find it comforting and natural that in most professions people admire those who worked hard, worked smart, paid their dues and didn't let their own demons and crappy (selfish?) lifestyle choices derail their ascendence to top positions in their fields. It's rare to find someone in the field of investing that doesn't admire Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett became one of the richest people in the world the old fashioned way; he studied and read (and still reads) everything he could get his hands on. He mastered the details of investing which include research and analysis. He does his homework. He has succeeded not just in business but by all accounts also in his family life, his role as a parent and as a valuable member of his community. He lives modestly and without drama. He seems to be living a very happy life.

Great movie directors like Steven Spielberg can point to the same sort of trajectory; through deep learning, mastery, imagination and a keen eye toward figuring out how to best finance the work he wants to do. He was not side-tracked by the drama of going into situations in which he was in well over his head. No big personal dramas which affected his clear path toward getting done what it was he wanted to get done: Direct big (and small) wonderful movies. 

I look to people in my own life who have become successful in their fields (including photography) and see people who may stumble from time to time but who mostly hew to a course they want to follow, learn more every day, and follow the time proven advice of experts. They save for a rainy day, they understand that compound interest can be their best friend or their worst enemy. They have insurance against unexpected pitfalls. They are responsible. They don't blindly spend money they don't have in a reckless fashion, which would endanger their family's financial health and limit their own opportunities. 
And mostly they work with their family and friends as an interconnected social team.

Why is it so different in the popular quasi-fiction of our current web-celebrity photographers? Why are examples of people who've repeatedly made horrible life decisions, amazingly poor business decisions, and who have tossed themselves and their families into painful (and unnecessary) debt, held up to us as exemplars of our industry. People to emulate? Why do we find Icarus Resurrected to be a fable that we want attached to our pursuits as artists, or just as business people who do imaging? 

Do we believe that their self-inflicted suffering imbues them with some special understanding of life and the process of art? If that were true would they not be practicing their art full tilt with this new understanding, gained while having their wings melt apart, and while screaming in terror as they plunged back down to the firmament? But no, most who fail because of their lack of discipline, or preparation, or planning are just making arrangements for their latest trip down another rabbit hole:  "teaching" (as in workshops).  Do we really want to believe so strongly in redemption stories?

Wanna gauge whether or not you should be taking business and shooting advice from one of these repeatingly failing wunderkind? Demand a look behind the curtain. Who benefits from their "teaching?" Beside the fees they take in does the student really benefit or is the whole enterprise a charade underwritten by a sponsor who, in the end, is the real winner? Is the "teacher" still teetering on the edge of a financial abyss? Have they really learned anything other than the magic incantation or promise of hidden knowledge readymade for pulling in workshop attendees in order to supplement the new "teacher's" income. Is the incessant sharing of their foibles meant to foster some sort of preferred underdog status in our industry? 

Maybe a better series of workshops (and something that would really help our industry) would be structured  around how to actually do the business successfully. How to set up a retirement account. How to save money for a rainy day. How to grow your business in a smart way. How to bill. How to market. How to sell. How to stay married (a proven way to become wealthier, by the way...). How to balance a career with your family. How to make your kids proud of you... And maybe the courses could be taught by solid professionals instead. 

The real secret to a happy and fulfilling life in photography, as far as I can see, is to do well every day. Being happy doing good work. Sustainability. Freedom from anxiety over money. Because wherever you go in this world you still have you to work with....

Just a thought after reading my 50th back from bankruptcy redemption fable from photographers on the web.

Easy lesson? Don't buy stuff you can't afford. 


Taking a break today from having opinions about photograpy.

A friend told me today that his Instagram account had been hacked. This started us down the path of trying to understand just why we continue to post things on social media. He's been a long time user of Twitter and he's decided to close that account in August this year, it will be the tenth anniversary of his interaction with the platform. Last year I made the determination that I was wasting too much time on Facebook and I deleted that account. What my friend said to me was, I think, prescient. He said, "I've never made a cent posting all that stuff. The only place where people pay attention and where that attention is sometimes connected with someone who has the ability and willingness to write me a check is on LinkedIn. If I post something relevant to my business there I sometimes get great responses. Every other avenue of social media, at best, just delivers a parsimonious dose of dopamine, and then only if someone leaves a comment about my "contribution." 

I thought of my own Twitter account which languishes with the same follower count from month to month= 253. Why do I bother to post stuff on Twitter? Certainly it's not a practical place for clients to find photographers or videographers. And it's filled with too much politics and negative content. I hope I remember tomorrow that I want to delete that account as well. I'd eliminate my Instagram account but for the fact that a famous curator dropped by and "liked" a handful of my work, as did one of my favorite creative directors....

I know why I started this blog back in 2009 but for the life of me I don't know why I keep pounding away at it today. The books I wrote were my original impetus for starting the Visual Science Lab; I wanted to help market them, but they have all entered the "long tail" death rattle of declining sales and I don't have the energy or desire to revise any of them. At one time I thought I might market workshops but I looked around realized that the people who were doing workshops were the ones not doing the actual, real world or fine art work and I made the choice to pursue commercial clients, fees and usage instead.

I worked on a great job yesterday. It went quickly. My lighting design was exactly what the client wanted. The art director and the traffic manager of the advertising agency both wrote e-mails to me today to tell me how happy everyone is with the (singular) photograph. I am basking in the glow of a job I did well and enjoyed putting together. For today, at least, the photographic world can take care of itself. I'll start dismantling the less productive piece of my social media memberships tomorrow...

For the foreseeable future I'll keep posting to this blog. You might not like the new content but then again you've never paid me for it either.
I do know that I really like the colors in the two photographs here. I'd put them on Instagram but it's starting to feel so gratuitous.

I appreciated Andrew Molitor's take on the Notre Dame fire. Go check his writing out on PhotoThunk.


We're doing an assignment in the studio tomorrow. The photography will take two hours. We'll bill more.

Putting the divisive discussions about what constitutes modern photography and whether or not Alec Soth is relevant aside I thought I'd talk about the anatomy of a small photo assignment for an advertising agency. In spite of my arguments that all photography is headed to the web this particular job will have us creating an image that will end up in printed magazines. We think we'll be able to style our model and do the relatively simple photographic work in a couple hours in the morning but we'll end up billing for far more time + usage. Here's why:

We bid the job back in October of 2018 but it kept getting delayed. It's a shot of a doctor against a black background illuminated by a hard spot light from high above which also creates a shaft of light against the black background. Seems simple, right? But a single spotlight would create a very hard light source with bright highlights etched against empty shadows. We've tested and tested and the way we'll actually light is to put a 2x3 foot soft box up on an boom arm and then drape the bottom edges of the soft box with black fabric. The black fabric hanging down on all sides by about a foot and a half keeps the light off the foreground and background. It acts as a soft-edged snoot. Our talent will be sitting and working with a piece of high tech medical gear. I have extra flashes and large panels standing by in case we need to decrease the lighting contrast even more.

When we got the go ahead to do the ad we started with a half hour call to the agency go over all the details again with the art director. Then I spent a couple of hours casting an age appropriate model. After that I headed to the photo store to fetch a long roll of black seamless background paper and a new Kupo boom arm. 

We've been doing artsy portraits in the studio over the last week so most of today was spent packing up the lights and modifiers I generally use for those kinds of shots and then pulling up the foam floor tiles so we could cover the floor with the black seamless paper. I had to sweep and wash the floor in the mid-afternoon so it would be clean and dry after dinner when I could prevail upon Ben to help me get the seamless aligned and spread just right, and taped down to the concrete studio floor. I also had Ben sit in while I played with the skirted soft box, working with the distance from the subject and power settings to get the exposure combination I wanted. Something that would give me enough depth of field but also a large enough f-stop to prevent sharpness loss from diffraction. I wanted to hit the right level to get f7.1. A good light meter helps... Also, the distance from the light to the subject will determine how hard or soft the light will finally be.

I spent time last week, as soon as the assignment was confirmed, getting together medical props. We needed face masks (I got three different styles so the A.D. can pick). We needed surgical aprons, clean room shoe covers, forest green scrubs, and both disposable and re-usable surgical hats. I got gloves but they were blue. I also wanted plain gloves so I hit up my physician and dropped by his office to get a small Baggie with a variety of gloves.

Some of the stuff came from Amazon.com and some of the stuff came from the oral surgery practice that I work with. They were great about handing me a stack of daily use materials. After I got the props, the photo materials, and the talent squared away I stocked in a can of Illy coffee (medium roast), a fresh carton of half and half and an assortment of muffins from my favorite bakery. The last step before I walk into the studio tomorrow will be to come home after early morning swim practice and clean the guest bathroom. 

After the actual photography we'll bid everyone farewell and I'll start breaking down the set-up and archiving the raw files. I'll edit down the take, which, for a change, will be more like a still life shoot, meaning far fewer frame shot,  My client is going to have some needed compositing done by a professional retoucher and they'd like the raw files so I'll send them along via FTP and then bill the job. 

I'm shooting with studio flash and the camera will be locked down on a tripod. I've gone through the camera menu twice to do some fine tuning and have remembered to turn off the image stabilization and to make the raw files uncompressed. I don't like to shoot tethered but I will have the camera connected via HDMI to an Atomos Ninja Flame 7" monitor for the convenience of the art director. The screen on that device is much bigger and brighter; easier to assess. The camera will be a Fuji X-H1 with the 16-55mm f2.8 lens. Trying to make it as easy and flexible as possible...

I've gone through and tested every step. When the A.D. hits the studio at 10am tomorrow we should be able to make our wardrobe and prop selections and get right to the shoot. After I deliver the images I'll spent the rest of the afternoon stowing the still life oriented gear and black background, and re-setting for a doctor's portrait I'll be shooting the next morning against white. 

So, yes, the actual shoot might only take two hours but the prep time and post production time are much more extensive and someone needs to pay for that as well. Photography may be going through many changes but some niches in commercial photography haven't changed much at all. 

Can't wait to try one of those raspberry and walnut, oat bran muffins tomorrow. Ah, craft service.

Gratuitous coffee syrup shot.

Once my favorite pair of frames, now destroyed by the ravages of time....


Searching for meaning in the current state of photography.

Reflection. Sixth Street. Austin, Texas 

Lotta hand-wringing going on about the state of photography today. Most of it pessimistic and some of it downright apocalyptic. We seem to have gotten to the point where people who have been doing photography for a long time have the perception that everything that gives "real" meaning to the craft is in the process of imploding. The sale of "serious" cameras is in decline, there are no new superstar photographers rising from the modern ranks to take up the mantle being discarded by our dying super heroes of the 20th century. There's even a ripping of cloth and a wringing of hands  over the lack of curators placed to guide us to whatever meaningful crumbs are still left. 

Most of us writers have in our heads our lists of all time great photographers and we carry it around with us like holy scripture; sadly, there is little impetus to make many changes in our structural hierarchy of master photographers even though ones most of us carry around did their best work forty or fifty years ago. In our collective haste to grasp onto seemingly connected life buoys; remnants of the curated past, we tend to reflexively make bad decisions. How else to explain the popularity of MFA-Style hacks like Alex Soth? No one who has really taken time to look long and hard at his work would really consider him as a replacement for any of the Thaddeus John Szarkowski Corps of New Documentarians or Window people, or even Mirror people.  

What we have here is a failure to understand the tectonic shift that happened to photography as a result of going from collected physical object to program flow. Our engagement with photographs, like that of everyone else in our culture, has gone from a contract that revolved around holding a physical object in our hands and looking at it and its corresponding pieces in a one-at-a-time embrace. We also like sorting stuff, categorizing it and putting it in neat stacks. A physical print made our brain happy in a certain way. If we liked something that other, cooler people liked then we were on the threshold of being part of a cult of appreciation. If we wanted to step over the threshold we could buy and "own" the actual physical manifestation of the artist's intention. Which seemingly conferred a certain part of its power to us as the new stakeholder. 

While people use new tools to shoot much of the same stuff the two shifts that changed everything in the embrace of modern photography were that there is no implied cost to additionally own the camera that already comes in our phones, making, for the first time in history, the creation of the visual/intellectual content FREE. Also, for the first time in the history of history everyone could share, disseminate, spam, curate, disgorge and present their work to, potentially, the entire connected world, also at no discernible financial cost. It's the ultimate expression of the market economy. And, at the same time, pure art socialism.

In the old days, with much less handholding and information sharing, one would learn the intricacies of film photography and then the magic of the darkroom. Proficiency took much longer and was painfully expensive for most. Proficiency took longer because the feedback loop that is part of any education was also much longer. Days instead of seconds. If people can learn to take technically good images with phones, and we reduce the time of their learning curve massively, is it any wonder that the world is inundated with new photographs? Many of them very, very good.

The problem for people with both an ego investment and a financial investment in traditional photography is that the new progression of the craft seems unfair. The old guard still wants barriers to entry. Knowing that digital cameras have become almost universally available they've shifted the barriers from economic ones to more ephemeral requirements for entry into "real" photography. 

The biggest stumbler is the idea that no photograph has value unless it is printed. Once it enters the printing milieu the value of the image rests on many physical attributes. There are extra points awarded for larger prints. Even more extra points if the image is printed on costly paper stocks. Super points for images printed as black and white prints. And maximum points when one goes all SebastiƄo Salgado and has physical internegatives made from their digital images in order to print the digital images onto traditional double weight, black and white, archival paper, in a traditional darkroom. This fascination with ordination by printing is the first step in creating an orthodoxy for appreciating "real" photography. If your fingernails don't turn black and if your shirts are all stained with brown fixer splashes then you haven't graduated to "real photography" yet, or so goes the thinking.

Next is the idea that someone important and certified needs to vet the work, and the artist, before they can be let into the private club which confers authenticity to the artist and the work. In the recent past being included with a spread of images in an arts oriented photography magazine was one way of attaining bonafide celebrity. If you got your portfolio into Lens Work Magazine you were one step closer to one of the ultimate prizes; either inclusion into a museum show or acceptance by a name gallery. Hopefully a gallery where Penn or Avedon images once hung, or a museum attached to a real, world class collection of past photography masters. If you were lucky enough to get into the Modern  with anything at all you could conceivably be the next Stephen Shore. The third most banal, widely collected photographer in the western world. Brought to you by......Thaddeus John Szarkowski and his celebrity photographer making machine at the Modern

So, now photography is more or less universally enjoyed on screens, from artists located all over the world, and damn few of them have ever had their rings kissed by the photographic kingmakers from....anywhere. I see more beautiful portrait work in five minutes on my Instagram feed than I have seen in an adult lifetime of visiting galleries and museums. Amazing stuff. All ephemeral in a sense because it doesn't exist over time, in a physical state. 

And this drives the old guard absolutely crazy. "Who let these interlopers into our once gated communities? Where are the curators? Where is that artist's vitae of shows? Which gallery represents them? Left to our own devices how will we know whether they are good or not? Did they study with Minor White? Did they matriculate through the Yale program? Did they study with Callaghan? Have they ever been to gallery week in Sante Fe? Have their portfolios been reviewed in Palm Springs?" 

The answers are pretty much no. The new artists don't give a crap about being knighted by the queens of the old guard. They just want to make work and share it with their friends and the rest of the world. It's more like making television programming than building monuments. But you know what? I think they're having a blast. The kids are alright. A lot of the work is good. And to some extent the world is better off not needing "super heroes" in every category. 

Super heroes are like magnets. Their work attracts a following which attracts an army of imitators. If every generation has a pantheon of about 100 photographic super heroes then the concept gets locked in and becomes a specific generation's idea of what constitutes photography's meaning and relevancy. When I look at current photography there are very few players who stand out for any reason other than being selected by an old guard hellbent on making the new generation a resonation of their choices. What I love about the new generation of artists is that they don't really give a shit what the old guard thinks and they are playing by their own rules. 

The word "curation" gets bandied about a lot these days. It just means you get a list of things that someone else likes along with the presumption that this "someone else" is smarter and has better taste than you do. There are millions of self-appointed curators and each one comes with an agenda of some sort. Much the same way that a small group of curators made abstract expressionist painting the darling (for a while) of the 20th century art collectors. Get the Tom Wolfe book, The Painted Word, to really understand the cultural clusterfuck a concentration of curatorial power is to the health and diversity of art....

So, what I'm really saying is that the rest of the world is moving to a time and cultural ethos in which physicality is no longer a gate-keeper to making good, connectable art/photography. What museum curators liked and encouraged when access to art was location limited, the access to the work was scarce, and the work itself was expensive to create, no longer has much, if any, connection to the value of art in the current age. It might for collectors but not for most creators, appreciators and users of the work. 

In a nutshell we now do work as hobbyists because we love the process, we love the ability to share our work instantly and nearly universally and we love playing with the cameras. For full time professional artists nothing really has changed at all except the need to learn how to market in a whole new marketing environment. Silly collectors will still pay large sums for work that their clique vets (more if you'd do them the courtesy of being dead first) but most people will embrace art in a different and more fluid manner. If you know someone in their 20's who is interested in photography you'll know that they have a collection of their favorite artists' work on their phone and they share this work with their friends, phone-to-phone. It doesn't mean that they appreciate the work less but they have a new freedom to unleash the work from its physicality and to share it in a manner that has just never existed before. 

More work gets shared more often. We may never figure out how to monetize the new work as we did with the old work in the time of signed and numbered, limited edition physical items but most people will appreciate it and incorporate it into their lives in an entirely new fashion. More about flow that about ownership. 

And, maybe the whole concept from the age of print collection; partial ownership of an image by possessing a print, is also a dying concept. It's interesting to think about as we consider throwing away our own power to have opinions and favorites of our own and surrendering all that discretion to the same kinds of curators who gave us........Alec Soth. Thomas Struth....or Andreas Gursky. Do we really like any of their work? Do we? Really? No, be honest! Really? Can you explain it to me? I mean can you explain the work in the absence of a "curator approved" manifesto? I dare you. 

Pretty flowers on Congress Ave.

Making sharp photos with a cheap lens on a small camera. 

If I print this 8 feet by 10 feet can I say I "Gursky-ed" it?
Will it look more interesting? Doubtful.

In the one I was exploring the idea of the flatness of the canvas.....

A Critical Road Block to the effective practice of street photography which 
few people discuss with their favorite curators....