[AGL] Mike Attack

[Bill Irwin]

Gerry, I am surprised at your astuteness in analyzing photography as being
the study of light.  Most photographers would agree with you and many say
that the main subject of photography is light.  The light in NM is something
special and I think the character of the light in NM has caused many artists
to migrate there.  Of course the mid-day light is flat and uninteresting
prompting some photographers to never take photos between the hours of about
10 AM to 4 PM.  If you notice almost all eco-porn photos are done late in
the day.

I think it is a little early to declare painting dead, certainly painters
wouldn't agree.  I would also agree with you that all the arts kind of merge
at the edges.  Musicians speak of texture and form, graphic artists speak of
rhythm in their works.  Anyway, whichever route you take to creativeness we
all end up in the same room.
Aloha,
Ewie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerry" <mesmo at gilanet.com>
To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"
<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack



>

> <<Certainly if you live in the midst of

> nature and see few people you will be likely to photograph bushes and

> flowers. <<

>

> Actually Jon, more of the focus is on light. Most of the year our light is

> pretty much the same, dictated by high clouds (when there are some). Then

> when the rainy season comes we get incredible variations in light. On my

> recent visit to NorCal I was again struck by the light and the way the

> various clouds and fog create atmospheres, the incredible brightness of

the

> ocean, the mysterious darkness of the redwood forests, the golden hills,

> etc. such a beautiful place. The old photos I have of the area when I was

a

> resident are all about light.

>

> I have grown a little weary of art being equated to painting. With all the

> new techniques available today it seems to me that painting is on the

wane.

> Yes, back in the past it was the way to go and the technical aspects of

> mixing oil and turpentine (or whatever) led to lasting images that are

quite

> powerful. Then the abstract impressionists developed new ways applying

oils

> to canvas and this was also quite awesome. But today there are lots of way

> to make pictures, especially with the mixing of photography and digital

> techniques, that rival the ancient traditions. Artists like Jeff Wall seem

> to have taken it to a new realm. The brush is now replaced by the printer

> which follows the patterns created with a mouse in hand. For "permanent"

> pictures it is the limitations of the printer which dictate what one can

or

> cannot do. And, of course, lots of pictures are viewed today on electronic

> screens, never intended to be put onto paper or canvas, but viewed and

> collected for the same kinds of pleasure. Some of the most amazing

pictures

> I see are in the advertising realm, graphic arts taking the digital

approach

> to new limits. Or, you can go the other way. At any rate, the eye of the

> artist has new pastures in which to graze.

>

> The other day I was in Mexico (on the border) and watched Tarahumara

women,

> seated on the street, sewing. Their clothes were an incredible canvas of

> stitched patterns, exquisitely applied, masterful technique. Yes, those

> "primitives" who never heard of art school can do things that we

"civilized"

> tribes no longer have to patience to even attempt. Oils? They would

probably

> laugh at the suggestion that our techniques are legitimate.

>

> The Mimbrenos, whose talent for design within a circle, has kept me

excited

> for 15 years now, used the pointed tip of an aguave plant dipped in a

black

> dye (which they made), applied to a fresh white bowl (which they made).

The

> power of their work rivals most any visual experience before or since.

When

> you add an additional color (yellow or adobe red most commonly) the

> possibilities become nearly limitless, but when you add the pigment you

also

> open up a Pandora's box which is easily violated.

>

> When I see gaudy applications of color for the sake of shock value or

> whatever, I am turned off. Color is always brightest when there is

contrast

> (not that bright color is necessarily always pretty). Discipline with

color

> is hard to acquire, easy to overdo. I like Madelon's compositions, using

the

> circle instead of rectangles and squares to frame the picture. Not easy to

> do successfully, no corners. Yes, the Capricorn eye, love it, no excess,

> just the required elements.

>

> Hard to corner in NM,

> G

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster at hotmail.com>

> To: <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:36 PM

> Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>

>

> > Gerry-- to each his or her own subject matter.  I like some of Ewie's

> > photography, and in fact he often shoots pictures of people and

landscapes

> > stamped with the human presence. Certainly if you live in the midst of

> > nature and see few people you will be likely to photograph bushes and

> > flowers. There's nothing wrong with nature photography. Ironically,

> though,

> > the best of it seems often to personify natural objects. Edward Weston,

> for

> > instance-- his nudes and his gnarley drftwood and twisted bell peppers--

> > it's all the same vision.

> >

> > Jon

> >

> >

> > >From: "Gerry" <mesmo at gilanet.com>

> > >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > >60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > >60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:50:03 -0700

> > >

> > >Mike and John,

> > >Yeah, you city cats who live in high rises in the middle of large

> colonies

> > >beneath the dark brown cloud, seeing so many faces every day, idolizing

a

> > >photographer of, well, geeks...It figures, shoot what you see. Not that

I

> > >don't appreciate the late Ms. Arbus, but a little goes a long way.

> > >

> > >While I'm not into landscape art (bluebonnets in Texas, desert scapes

in

> > >NM,

> > >etc), photos of non-human natural subjects are my preference. I once

> > >watched

> > >a UT grad and onetime fellow student named Jim Bones photograph plants

> for

> > >inclusion in the Seeds of Change catalogue, not easy but beautiful when

> > >done

> > >well. BTW, that catalogue has superb photography. If you want to study

> > >photos of people I recommend the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition,

> > >currently available on the web with Brazilian models included...

> > >

> > >Ewie, a friend for 50 years and a genuine Renaissance man, shoots

> > >everything, with a 4X5, and does a dammed good job of it. He probably

> > >prints

> > >more in a week (when he isn't globetrotting) than you guys do in a

year.

> > >Check out his website. Not to say that he is all knowing and perfect

(he

> > >doesn't spell well) but he does spend lots of time outdoors where the

> faces

> > >are few and the subjects and the light change with the seasons.

> > >G

> > >

> > >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> > >From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster at hotmail.com>

> > >To: <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:17 AM

> > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > >

> > >

> > > > <IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a

> > > > year.

> > > >

> > > > my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.>

> > > >

> > > > Mike-- I couldn't agree more.

> > > >

> > > > Jon

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele at ando.pair.com>

> > > > >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > > > >60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > > > >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > > > >60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > > > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > > > >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:01:59 -0600

> > > > >

> > > > >i hadnt seen the bottom part of Ewie's supercilious email.

> > > > >

> > > > >Ewie, you do nature photography, right?

> > > > >

> > > > >IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a

> > > > >year.

> > > > >

> > > > >my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.

> > > > >

> > > > >like Hans Otto a professional photographer on our list, having

> > > > >learnt how photography is/has been done starting with t-shirts

> > > > >ruined by doing chemical processing, i dont need your introductory

> > > > >instruction on color casts and what it doesnt say on the little

> yellow

> > > > >boxes. and your advice to get my monitor adjusted because i seem

> > > > >to be a self-admitted computer something. this from a guy who cant

> > > > >do multiplication by threes.

> > > > >

> > > > >weren't you the guy with the self-nullifying philosophy mantra a

> > > > >few threads back on this list?

> > > > >

> > > > >i met you briefly at a Dave Moriaty party. you didnt want to talk

> > > > >about your heroic sailboat adventure that landed you in Hawaii

> > > > >in one piece. you are married to a chinese woman and we have

> > > > >met your ex-wife who does artistry hereabouts involving birdcages.

> > > > >

> > > > >well howdy there pardner. Dave Martinez told me he used to

> > > > >room with you in Austin

> > > > >

> > > > >on a not unrelated subject, when is the next reunion? where

> > > > >everyone, even me, is invited to.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >----- Original Message -----

> > > > >From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>

> > > > >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"

> > > > ><austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:31 PM

> > > > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Mike, maybe you don't understand this resolution thing, it is

> > >confusing.

> > > > > > The D5 does not produce a 39meg file, if it did they would be

> > > > >advertising

> > > > > > the fact all over the place.

> > > > > > Here is a quote from the Cannon site:

> > > > > > File size:

> > > > > > (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.6MB (4,368 x 2,912) (2) Large/Normal

> 2.3MB

> > > > > > (4,368

> > > > > > x 2,912) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.7MB (3,168 x 2,112) (4)

> > > > >Medium/Normal:

> > > > > > Approx. 1.4MB (3,168 x 2,112) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 2.0MB

(2,496

> x

> > > > > > 1,664)

> > > > > > (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 1.0MB (2,496 x 1,664) (7) RAW: Approx.

> > >12.9MB

> > > > > > (4,368 x 2,912)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If it could produce a 39meg file they would certainly say so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I didn't see Polidori's photos but if they all look a little

blue

> to

> > >you

> > > > > > that may be a sign that you monitor is not color corrected.

Since

> > >you

> > > > > > seem

> > > > > > to be a computer buff I guess you know that monitors do not

always

> > > > >display

> > > > > > the correct colors and for critical work they need to be

> calibrated

> > >so

> > > > > > things have the correct color.   I have been doing this stuff

for

> a

> > >few

> > > > > > years and it is true if a scene is illuminated just by sky light

> > >only

> > > > >such

> > > > > > as in the shade,  can have a bit of a blue cast.  But if you

have

> a

> > >blue

> > > > > > sky

> > > > > > that means you have the sun out and scenes in sunlight never

have

> > >this

> > > > > > blue

> > > > > > cast - the engineers at Kodak have figured this out and make

their

> > >film

> > > > >to

> > > > > > show pretty damn good colors.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Better get your monitor calibrated if you want to peruse a

career

> as

> > > > >photo

> > > > > > critic.

> > > > > > Aloha

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > > > > From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >> Ewie,

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size

> > > > > >> as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its

> > > > > >> maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that

> > > > > >> and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary

> > > > > >> colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as

> > > > > >> the 40Megs you mention.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of

> > > > > >> film and chemical darkrooms.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in

> > > > > >> burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time

> > > > > >> if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> $2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.

> > > > > >> It will take some years before a used one will come

> > > > > >> close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.

> > > > > >> Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,

> > > > > >> process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them

> > > > > >> for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,

> > > > > >> and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined

> > > > > >> interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook

> > > > > >> the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting

> > > > > >> without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the

> > > > > >> shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by

> > > > > >> the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct

> > > > > >> light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree

when

> > > > > >> she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They

> > > > > >> don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might

> > > > > >> reduce sales.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Mike

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> > Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like

> > >somebody

> > > > >to

> > > > > >> > give

> > > > > >> > me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and

> scanner

> > > > >combo.

> > > > > >> > Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem

of

> > >them

> > > > > >> > getting

> > > > > >> > stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500

loss,

> > >can't

> > > > > >> > afford

> > > > > >> > the $3000 loss.  A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to

> about

> > >40

> > > > > >> > meg,

> > > > > >> > the

> > > > > >> > Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg.  I don't know if the Cannon has this

> > >problem

> > > > > > but

> > > > > >> > many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing

the

> > > > >shutter

> > > > > >> > and

> > > > > >> > the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing

> fast

> > > > > > action.

> > > > > >> > Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for

> only

> > > > > >> > $31,995

> > > > > >> > but

> > > > > >> > sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide.

> > >But

> > >if

> > > > > > you

> > > > > >> > are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only

way

> > >to

> > > > >go!!

> > > > > >> > You

> > > > > >> > can buy them on Ebay for around $500.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you

can

> do

> > >it

> > > > > >> > yourself or send it out.  Doing it yourself and sending it

out

> > >cost

> > > > > > about

> > > > > >> > the same price.  Only problem is not instant gratification.

> Some

> > >art

> > > > > >> > forms

> > > > > >> > require a little work.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > > Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save

at

> > >MSN®

> > > > Shopping.

> > > >

> >

>

>http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN

> 2

> > >0A0701

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a

> month.

> > Intro*Terms

> >

>

https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search

> =mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117

> >

> >

>

>

>