Showing posts with label Bucky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bucky. Show all posts
September 29, 2015
October 30, 2014
Heraclitus, revisited. (Or, sorry I haven't written lately; what's been happening this month?)
I've written recently about Heraclitus, and my goal of taking photos of Bucky that are distinct.
Sometimes, though, like when he stands in the window-light at the top of the stairs and looks into my portrait lens, images from different days can be pretty damn similar:
![]() |
| (19 October 2014) |
![]() |
| (27 October 2014) |
So, it was nice to get a chance (at bedtime) to snap a shot that is different:
![]() |
| (25 October 2014) |
Thanks, Bucky.
(Click on any image for full-screen.)
(Click on any image for full-screen.)
October 2, 2014
September 12, 2014
"...close to music..."
"The true content of a photograph is invisible, for it derives from a play, not with form, but with time. One might argue that photography is as close to music as to painting."
- John Berger, from "Understanding a Photograph" (1968).
| Bucky, December 2010. (Click image for full-screen.) |
September 4, 2014
August 23, 2014
The Bucky Variations*.
Heraclitus said that "Everything changes and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream."
If, however, you take several photographs of the same stream – or dog – they may not look all that different.
But what if you use different lenses?
Here is Bucky standing at the top of the stairs, as seen through three different lenses** (click any image for full-screen):
| Fuji X100S***, 5/28/14. |
![]() |
| Nikkor 105 mm f/2 "defocus control" lens****, 8/9/14 |
| Lensbaby LM-10*****, 8/12/14. |
And there you have it: Three different views of Bucky at the top of the stairs.
I admit that these may not reflect three different ways of being, a la Heraclitus, but instead may depict three different ways of seeing, a la John Berger. But, for most of us, ways of seeing are ways of being. And, as for me, I am grateful to Bucky, who has taught me new ways of being, and of seeing.
__________________________
* With footnotes.
** And cameras.
*** Built-in 23 mm f/2 lens (35 mm equivalent focal length = 35 mm).
**** On a full-frame Nikon digital SLR.
***** On an iPhone.
August 19, 2014
August 8, 2014
July 31, 2014
July 29, 2014
April 27, 2014
April 15, 2014
March 26, 2014
February 5, 2014
January 19, 2014
Under the influence.
Heraclitus said that you can't step into the same river twice, but sometimes I wondered whether I was photographing the same dog twice, thrice, and more.
I like to photograph Bucky. Sometimes, though, I found that I would take a photograph of him, and it would look very familiar:
![]() |
| (July) |
![]() |
| (October) |
![]() |
| (November) |
(Click any image for full-screen.)
Old dog, new photo. If you photograph the same dog, repeatedly, how different can any new photo be...?
After visiting the exhibition, I took these two photos (click any image for full-screen), indoors, by available window-light; I think they are different from all my earlier photos of Bucky:
And thank you, Bucky.
January 7, 2014
January 5, 2014
Such ugliness should be an opt-in, not a secret vice. (An open letter.) [Puzzling color corruption in uploaded images turns out to be Google "auto-enhancement."]
Dear Google, please consider making the "auto-enhancement" of uploaded images an opt-in choice, rather than a hidden default.
I like your picasaweb cloud-based photo-hosting service, which I've been using for years. Recently, though, I discovered that I had a problem: newly uploaded photos had corrupt colors. Ugh. I tried deleting and repeating; same problem. What could the issue be? Was this a color management problem for which I was somehow responsible? Actually, no. Turns out, it was something that you, Google, see as a feature.
A few months ago, I found that it was necessary to upgrade my Google account to a "Google plus membership," in order to attend a meeting via a "Google plus video hangout." So, I did. Turns out that you processed all my image uploads thereafter using a feature that you, Google, call "image auto-enhance." Those bad colors were your idea of "enhancement:"
![]() |
| "ENHANCED" |
![]() |
| "REVERTED TO ORIGINAL" |
(Idiots.)
I've now cancelled the "enhancement" of those photos (individually, as you gave me no way to do so en masse; I was relieved that I did not have to re-upload everything). And I've also turned off the "auto-enhancement" of newly uploaded photos, going forwards.
In general, I do not alter my photographs. Light goes through a lens, and hits a sensor, and electrons get happy, and a file is written; that is what I want to see. How dare you, Google, presume that you should "auto-enhance" any image that I entrust to you for storage? And how dare you, Google, presume to do so without even telling me?
In closing: Dear Google, without mentioning that you would modify the images I uploaded, you made them ugly. I've fixed this issue with respect to my own image uploads. I respectfully suggest that in order to spare other people similar ugliness, confusion, and delay, that you please make image "auto-enhance" an opt-in choice, rather than a hidden default.
Respectfully,
Jim Pekar
Kensington, Maryland, USA
December 31, 2013
December 25, 2013
November 23, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





















