by Robert Ward (Bear_Music)
May 5 2005

Where do you live?

I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

In the fog, the city looks like a fortress of glass and steel built to defend all that which she feeds and infringes upon. On a bright day, she shows her true afflictions. Everybody who can afford to, will flee and pretend all is well.

I enjoy living here for the verdant temperate climate, the access to mountains and sea and the relatively tolerant ways of my people. If I could move further West without getting my feet wet, I would.

Tell us about your family/friends? Have you met anyone from DPC?

I'm very fortunate to be surrounded by five women. Women, it seems to me, are lighter spirits than men with less abrasive life-styles. Ellamay is my consort, friend and confidante. My own daughter is sixteen and more conservative than I will ever be. The other three are still hobbits, who sleep with their stuffed animals and dream of princes and ice cream.

What is your occupation?

You tell me. As I was born without one, the idea of not having a profession naturally appealed to me. I have held more jobs than I own shirts (I have more shirts than you). The single sustained interest I have held over the years, however, was in the pursuit of the usefulness of the useless.

I'm a poet. If I weren't, I'd be a horse or a tree.

How long have you been involved in photography?

'Involved' is the right word. It certainly feels like an 'affair'.

I took a few photos in the sixties and seventies, mostly slow exposures with black and white film with ghostly motion blurs. I also remember spending a lot of time around abandoned buildings and overgrown RR grounds trying to photograph my longing for a life I had not yet lived.

Two of my best friends were fine art photographers then. Their pictures were better than mine, because they were forever in love or otherwise afflicted and didn't mind a prolonged confinement to our improvised darkrooms as much as I did.

Have you won any photographic competitions outside of DPC?

I've never entered one. As I compete mainly with myself, I don't think there is sufficient public interest to launch a one-man competition.

What's your favourite movie?

Just about any of Werner Herzog's films for the grand cinematography, drama and the superb history lessons which can be had here.

What music do you listen to? Do you listen to music while post processing?

Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Etta James and Taj Mahal are my favourite vocalists. My favourite instrument is the piano. When writing, I like to listen to Beethoven sonatas, Thelonius Monk, or to the wind and birds. On Sunday mornings it's Flamenco, opera with picnics, blue jazz for conversation and trance/techno during post-processing.

What is your favourite food?

East Indian, hands down: Palak Paneer and a Tuborg. Other than that, I live on rye bread, aged cheese, olives, tomatoes, lettuce and fruit.

Do you have a main source of caffeine? If so, is it Tea, Coffee. Chocolate or Other?

Coffee, dark roasts or Colombian, straight up.

Where does your nickname on DPC derive from?

Who says, it's a nick?

Do you have your own website, if so can I list it here?

Yes. It is homepage.mac.com/macwerks (see the link in my DPC port).

Take us through a history of your camera purchases, both film and digital.

My first camera was a German-made Agfa, which I received as a gift for my tenth birthday. I took it everywhere and it opened my eyes to photography. I have used several wonderful brass-bodied 35 mm Nikon F film cameras (you know, the kind with that lovely full shutter sound you could still bang around and come away with little more than a scratch and a dent).

I had two Canon AE's as well, both of which I never warmed up to and which eventually developed shutter issues. Oh yes, there was a Ricoh-something, another fine camera with some slow 500 mm lens I ended up trading off for a dressage saddle.

My first digital camera was a Sony S85, followed by an F 717. The F717 was the most versatile piece of equipment I've ever had the pleasure of using. The Canon EOS10D I currently own is big, heavy and much blacker by contrast.

What camera do you currently use and are you happy with it?

The 10D.

I'm happy with the way the camera sits in hand, which is not a trivial concern, since I have to lug, heave and point the thing all the time. It's heavy enough (with battery grip and lens) to sit squarely in my hands, and it's as sturdy as any good DSLR. It has never let me down either, which, in my book, is its most impressive feature.

I regret that the 10D does not offer a spot meter. I am interested in creative exposures. The 9% partial meter is a crude tool indeed.

I would also welcome a rubber eye cup on the viewfinder for more intimate viewing and to lock out stray light. Speed? 5 frames/sec serve me fine, most of the time. My timing is getting better, and I don't end up with full GB cards as quickly as Ellamay with her Mark II.

You own a DSLR. It would be great if you would list the lenses you own, what you think of each lens, and how often each one gets used.

Lenses

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8
Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM
Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 1.4x II Extender


The focal length of the 50mm and the 17-40mm most closely resemble the way I like to look at the world, with the former being the fastest and sharpest and the latter being the most versatile.

The 70-200mm has become my stock glass. None of the shorter lenses provide sufficient reach to photograph wildlife or to pluck a grape from somebody else's vineyard. My subjects vary every day. Birds keep flying through my candids. Fish jump out of lakes. Portraits look better with a bokeh than with a parking lot full of tin chariots in the background. The 1.4 extender has proven a godsend when renting a crane or a boat was not practical. If you're a generalist like me and only have one body with one lens mounted, you're going to miss shots.

As to lens quality and value, I highly recommend each of the lenses listed here. All are, IMO, amazingly good and immensely useful, no exceptions.

Are you considering another camera purchase in the near future? If so, what?

As I said above, I would like a second body, and I would really want it to sport a spot meter. As I already have invested in system of lenses, the 1D MarkII would address these needs nicely. The price, I'm afraid, would spoil all the fun.

The 20D, although offering more than what I need in some respects, lacks what I consider essential.

Do you still own/use any compact digicams for their ease of use and less weight?

No. I sold my F717, which I might replace with a Leica Digilux sometime before I die.

What size memory cards do you have?

I have four ScanDisk Ultra II 512MB and one 256MB flash cards, and I've ordered another 1GB Ultra II.

Do you shoot in JPG or RAW mode?

In RAW with JPG embedded.

Have you ever lost any images on memory cards?

I sure have. Thus the preference for smaller capacity cards.

If you have a home studio setup, please describe it.

I'm not much of a studio photographer, and will, likely, never set up a studio.

Do you use any software for organizing your digital pictures?

Apple's iPhoto

Do you use Photoshop or any other image editing program? If so what program and version?

iPhoto (5.0.1) -for archiving and preliminary edits like cropping and straightening JPGs
Photoshop CS -for everything else
Photoshop Elements (2)
Graphic Converter (4.4 bundled)
PixelNHance (1.5.11)
ArcSoft PhotoStudio (4)

What Photoshop skills do you consider to be essential to digital photography?

There are, I am sure, many photographers on DPC more qualified than I to answer this question. The most essential skill, IMHO, is to know or to bother to find out what, specifically, will help your shot(s) and what will not.

I'd consider Levels and Curves the most indispensable tool, followed by the Fade feature.

"Excessive Ambiguity"

Out of your own challenge entries on DPC, which had the most digital editing?

It depends on whether you mean extensive editing, as in 'tuning' an image or 'heavy-handed' editing, as in drastically altering an original.

'Excessive ambiguity' (Breaking New Ground) had plenty of both, no doubt. My annotation of the image lists each step.

Do you use any other software in relation to digital photos? If so, what?

No.

On the whole, you seem to prefer a minimalist approach to post-processing. By "minimalist" I mean that you seem to strive for simplicity in the finished image more often than not. However, it's possible that the visual simplicity of your images belies a sophisticated level of post-processing. Comment on this, please?

I am so new to Photoshop, nothing I can do here can possibly be sophisticated. It's true that I strive for simplicity, but I think most of us do so in our own ways. I may be more desperate than some in wanting it at all costs, and that cost can consist of sacrificing one or several elements of a picture for something I may deem critical, which I may then choose to isolate. Several of my low-key images as well as some of my recent bird shots have undergone this kind of surgery.

There are, once in a while, shots that quite naturally require little processing. Others are so nearly 'there', it can drive you crazy to actually 'get' them edited to satisfaction. After a day or two of squinting, making changes and fading every change in and out and back in again, I have, more than once, come pretty close to loosing every sense of what I'd like the image to look like. I struggle with this to no end and have no sinecure.

Speaking of your participation in the DPC site, you have a certain "reputation" or "identity" as a sort of philosopher/poet/photographer-manqué. Many of our members probably know you mostly (or only) by your posts, which are always well-thought-out and frequently border on the mystical. Yet DPC is about as "practical" a photography site as you can find, basically focusing on the craft and techniques of photography more than the vision of it. Your images are completely consistent with this public persona. So let me ask you: why is a "mystic" (for want of a better word) hanging on at DPC, bucking the trend all the way?

Hey, I resent the 'manqué' attribute.

No, really, nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I am passionate about a few things. Yes, I don't buy into 'trends' easily and do not, readily, identify with popular tastes and opinions. But to think of photography as part of life would, by my view of things, include a great deal more than talk about mere 'craft and technique'. To consider 'vision' as part of photography is infinitely more essential and practical than to neglect it.

There's nothing 'mystical' about my views either. Hell, life is mystery. What good does it do to address only that which can be nailed down by anyone with a hammer? How interesting is it to examine what has already been examined, when we can explore lesser charted areas? A great photo, to me, is magic. What interests me is how that magic is made, where its sources lie and how it completes its cycle. I have no patience at all for conjecture or some arcane mysticism.

Western culture is obsessed with cliché and generalizations. We have grown fat with habitual complacency. Our language, unfortunately, reflects this. When we try to steer clear of cluttered perception by employing words more precisely and specifically than is the custom, the clarity we intend is, more often than not, misunderstood for poetic license.

The 'poet' however goes about his business of examining the nature of the human spirit and soul in more or less the same way as a scientist does when he studies physical manifestations and processes. I feel the two of them belong into the same laboratory, and that neither of them should be confined to a remote planet populated only by romantic sentimentalists.

"Progression" is your highest scoring image on DPC. Can you take us through the initial conception of this image, and describe any techniques that you used to achieve your vision?

It was completely ad hoc: a wonderful foggy morning, quiet, still, with the sun standing behind cloud and city. All I did was press the shutter button. My only concern was to have the fog 'showing' in the image. To help achieve this, I removed the UV filter from the lens.

Compositionally, I had a choice: to crop within the rule of thirds or to 'mirror' the middle and background with a more central crop. I found the second approach more satisfying.

One of my favourites of your images is ‘Or de Feuille'. The complexity of "scale" here is fascinating. I also love the toning and colourisation that you (apparently) applied to the image. How was this done? How close is this image to the "reality" the camera saw? How much of it is acquired in post-processing?

This is an image of one of those giant rhubarbs (not actual rhubarbs) you find planted everywhere in the local parks. A single leaf would be roughly the size of an oblong bicycle wheel. I photographed it from the ground upward against the midday sun (what else is there to shoot at this hour?).

As there was a light breeze shaking it, I held it to the ground with the finger of one hand while operating the camera with the other. This is easier than it sounds with a swivel body F 717.

The original had many of the characteristics of the final version, but, yes, it took some fiddling to get the gold golden. I also applied an excessive amount of sharpening to balance the colour 'punch' with sufficiently contrasted detail and to add relief and proliferation.

'Boat House', on the other hand, is much more characteristic of your body of work. It is dark and moody, stark and simple (not the same thing), but it speaks of levels that seem to me to reach deep into the psyche. Can you comment to how you have come to evolve this style, and as to whether you have a specific "goal" in mind in creating works like this?

I have never, consciously, attempted to take a picture in a particular style. Style, I believe, evolves as a result of looking at things closely, intently and with interest. Since there is no one else there to look at the same thing with the same eyes, heart and mind, everything is unique.

The fewer ideas we impose on what we see, the more we get interested in what is there. When we become absorbed with a subject, we no longer care about style or time of day. We care about getting it 'right'. But let me tell you about the 'Boathouse':

It's not a boathouse. It's a copy of a historic boathouse, the last of its kind. It's not made of wood, but of steel or some other metal. Even the drunken pylons that support it are steel. At the time of exposure, workmen were under it moving construction equipment, laying stones.

It was a gray overcast day, typical for this coast and, probably, as good a day for fishing as ever. Across the bay: two or three cargoes waiting to load or unload; above, hewn into the evergreen mountain: a hive of luxury apartments.

Considering all this and adding the fact that I had the wrong lens for this kind of shot (a 70-200 mm f/2.8 zoom instead of, say, a 50 mm f/1.8), what choices did I have but to take it the way I did? -The processing just accommodated the givens of the shot.

I got rid of whatever was redundant, and left the light -the kind of light any good man or woman would like on his boathouse- where it was 'needed', i.e. on the house itself, on the roof (and what a fine tin roof it was!) and, accurately, from the sky onto the black mountains. Repeated dodging of shadows and adding a Soft Omni to vignette the image made the image what it is now.

A very good example of the "minimalism" mentioned above would be the image '11'. What's intriguing here is that this is basically an image of light, and yet it still maintains a certain dark, moody character in keeping with your overall body of work. Can you comment on this image, what you were after?

Another 'found' object or, more accurately, 'revisited' object. It was there before, but I didn't 'see' it the way the camera did, this time. The water was calm. It was cold and quiet. I had barely taken any shots that morning and felt I needed to adjust my attitude to get something worthwhile.

When I saw the branch forming a reflection on the water, I was reminded of a primitive symbolism, cave paintings and what have you. I bracketed several shots of it and went home.

When I look at it now, I see a fish and a bird drawn on water where there were none.

Some of your more striking work is with macro captures. Can you describe what it is in a subject that draws you "in closer" like this? What are aspects of macro photography that beginners should be aware of? How can one make the transition from "seeing" to "focusing in" on a thing?

I think you should ask Jacko this question. I don't have a clue.

I ascribe any credit (although I doubt that much credit is due) to my old Sony F 717. It took wonderful macros, while making it extremely easy to get them.

Lately you seem to be photographing a hell of a lot of birds. I find it interesting that your dark, minimalist approach carries over even into this subject area, which more typically would be rendered in bright, detailed fashion. A good example is 'Bald Eagle III'. Can you expound upon this a bit? Why birds? Why in such an unusual manner?

They just keep flying into my shots.

Ellamay is such an irresistible wildlife enthusiast. She keeps luring me away from more contemplative pursuits, and she does this with such charm and enthusiasm, I can't resist.

The manner and treatment of 'Bald Eagle III' is, at least in part, an effort to conceal the aesthetic 'imperfection' of a perfectly blue sky. I also removed all contrast from the sky (selection) in order to shed the artifacts produced by a Soft Omni lighting effect.

Nevertheless, one of your more compelling bird images is 'A Fading Music', a beautifully-rendered, ethereal image of a swan. There are some obvious post-processing steps taken here to realize your vision; can you walk us through them?

I'd say this was a difficult exposure: an all-white subject bathed in reflected light. I spot-metered on the light reflected from the water, not anywhere on the figure of the swan itself. The idea was to get a slightly underexposed result to contain the, predictably, extreme highlights.

On the other hand though, I needed enough light to effectively 'flood' the image, to approximate the event as I perceived it. The single effect I applied to carry this 'flooding' into the picture of it was Diffuse Glow. Diffuse Glow appears to respond to the size and distribution of bright areas in the image. Not enough light or an unfortunate distribution: no discernible benefit.

Still on birds, pulling a 180 back to the "dark & moody" genre, look back at the rather stunning 'Daedalus'. What can you tell us about this? It's about as anti-bird as a bird picture can be, it's heavy and intense and disturbing. Why? What are you after here?

Again, it was the event that inspired the photo. The angle of the bird is authentic, not the result of rotation. I was very fortunate to happen to be where I was at that precise moment, so I could witness what, likely, represented a mating ritual between two amorous herons, completely out of season at that. The only thing I was after, I swear, was getting the shot.

The post-processing, I admit, is a little heavy-handed. The lighting effect I applied to isolate the bird and to relate the mythos it invoked left its mark in the form of some discernible artifacts. The title, I think, articulates that what I saw I had only heard of before.

When you do landscapes, you lean heavily towards the minimalist; two examples that come to mind are ' La Spiaggia Dal Chiaro Di Luna' and 'Water Shed'. One thing these cause me to reflect upon, in the overall context of your work, is just how much you eschew colour in your images. I'd hesitate to say you do mostly B/W photography, because it seems to me many of these images are in fact colour, but of an extremely limited palette. Either way, you definitely buck the more popular trend of bright, palpable colours. Can you tell us why?

This is a very interesting question, and I'm not so sure, if I can do it justice.

I think, I am less reserved about colour per se than I am about contributing more of the same to an already over-saturated palette. Wherever we go, there are signs and billboards, goods and trivia teeming with bright colours. I feel inundated by it, which makes it very difficult to use colour effectively, especially if my aim is to sensitize.

I speculate that my preference for a more subdued palette or for creating a darker ambience than the one so familiar to us from commercialized imagery stems from the need to disassociate, to demonstratively separate the various motivations for depicting the world in one way or another.

I have argued before for a connection between aesthetics and ethics. If I'm right, then we could speak of affections instead of subjective preferences. The whole exercise of aesthetics would gain in some degree of purpose, and that purpose would be to articulate an ethical stance intuitively, relying on information we derive from sensory stimuli instead of from the genre of a photograph or via a context external to the image itself.

A photo stripped of colour prohibits us from the sort of indulgence we have become so accustomed to. Our transport -if the photo is any good- is direct, and all its critical elements are there, unadulterated by the sweetness of sunsets and the hue of scented oranges. Its story, instead, is told in the colour of print and in the light of history.

There are photographers, even here on DPC, who are magicians of colour photography. I admire their works, but the complexity of their specialty intimidates me to no end.

What has been the hardest image to photograph, out of all of your entries on DPC? Why?

The hardest photo to take, of course, is the one that continues to elude us, still. But this, I think, is a good thing. It is, after all, what motivates us to take pictures at all.

'The Thirteenth Moon' developed into quite a project. I don't think there is another place on earth I have taken more shots at. I could, in fact, soon call it 'The Thirteenth Season'. If you read my annotation of the photo, you will, I think, get a sense of my involvement no only with this particular locale but of my interest in place as topos altogether.

My aim with this image was clear. I wanted to communicate the sense of sanctity I derived from my encounter with it. To make a scenic picture of it would have been easier. To give in to the various candid opportunities this location offered was another way to avoid tackling the unrest this subject stirred.

The photo, in the end, was made via a process of elimination. I can say that I tried every conceivable perspective at varying hours of the day and year. I can say that I have measured every step anyone could take on and around the hill you see in the image. I have stood here imagining what it was like a hundred, a thousand years ago. I have listened to the music and noise of this place. I have observed and absorbed whatever I could, and, eventually, took my picture, at the end of it all, when I felt I knew something about it.

It is not a perfect picture. It is not as sharp as it could be. There's noise in the sky. The highlights could be more contained, the tonalities are so bad, Ansel would turn in his grave... None of these things matter though, because I know there is no better picture of it, to date. And the story it tells is true and well researched.

If you would like to explain any more of your images in more depth, please feel free.

Well, there are a number of images which never fit into a challenge. They don't appear to suit any popular sense or interest. 'Untitled' (41386), really, represents a specialized interest, only Ed (e301) could, possibly, relate to. 'Bound Feet' was a thrill to make, but its humour is easily avoidable and its aesthetics may lack occidental appeal. I also photo-shopped it ad absurdum, god forbid and forgive. 'Facciamo la Magia' was slammed by voters and commenters alike for reasons I could not extract, and 'Promontory' is, probably, too quiet and expansive in temperament to appeal to more than a handful of people.

I would like to talk about 'Exposure' though.

Like so many of us, I often walk the streets looking for something to photograph, when I came upon another man doing the same. I took a few shots from a short distance away, while he was setting up in a flitter of broken light on the stairs leading up to a bronze sculpture of the Phoenix.

He was obviously struggling to come to terms with both the challenges of terrain and the changing light that surrounded him. I took his photograph the very instant he noticed my presence, looking up from within the confusion of light which surrounded him.

When I opened the image for the first time, it appeared to me a sheer mess of colour, shadow and light. While the verdigris of the sculpture had come out beautifully, the tones and hues of the morning light were not at all complemented by the excess of highlights. Needless to say, I archived the image and forgot about it.

When I stumbled across it weeks later, I realized that the seductive quality of colour and hue were not the essence of the shot, the presence of light was, particularly in an image, which had a photographer at work as its subject. All of a sudden I knew what to do with it, and to a degree, how to go about post-processing it.

If I were asked today to produce a portfolio with no more than a single photo in it, I'd choose this one. It is easy to miss a good thing, when we are too steeped in the linear processes we engage in.

Are there any types of photographic styles/techniques that you don't like?

I don't like exploitations of any kind, overly sentimental shots, and the sort of trivial pursuit that gives us nothing but a dilution of experience.

What is your preferred style of photo? (i.e. macro, landscape, etc)

I'm still busy trying to evolve a style. As to genres and my present appetite for them, I would really like to do something in the way of combining nude, portrait and photographing isolated objects within a landscape.

I remain, however, more open to the paradoxical ways of life and photography than I am determined to hammer out a plan you can call me on in a few years.

Name 5 photos on DPC that inspire you, in order of preference.

"Megalomania" by Remie Ammeraal "Wheat" by Jean-Jacques Béguin "human landscape" by Julia Bailey "Pixies Anesidorae" by Jeff Niekamp "Ooops... wrong victim!" by Daniel Jacoby

What are the 5 favorite shots that you have taken, and why?

"Exposure"	For the successful concealment of extensive post-processing.
"Promontory"	The photo reminds me of German Art Nouveau erasures of the twenties, particularly the work of Franz v. Stuck.
"Boathouse"	'Boathouse' because someone just had to take this picture, and I happened to be there.
"Bound Feet"	For the tremendous transformation of two sand barges into a delicate pair of feet.
"Points of View"	Effect filters can be used appropriately.

What do you consider to be important aspects of photography?

Rhythm. Good photography, I am convinced involves a man or woman with a camera who manages, for a brief moment, to achieve synchronicity between an outer and an inner reality.

Are you planning any photo trips in the future? If so, where?

Haida Gwai (the Queen Charlotte Islands, BC) would be one place I'd like to photograph and explore, Havana, Cuba another. The islands are awkward to reach, Cuba involves crossing the continent... It seems more likely I'll end up in more usual stomping grounds: Pacific Rim National Park or on some range of the coastal mountains, where the air is good and the water tastes like stone.

Who is your favourite photographer on DPC?

I try to follow the work of more photographers here than I can, credibly, list as my favourites. Some portfolios are a veritable variety show of styles, experiments and eclectic affections, it could make your head spin. Others are extremely sparse collections consisting one or two photographs I cannot appreciate and another which so good, I could, easily, loose sleep over it, but there is no way I could ever sort them into any kind order by preference.

There are, however, two photographers which immediately come to mind: Jean-Jacques Béguin and Julia Bailey (just to provide a little contrast).

JJ's cultured humanism, the delectable eloquence and finery of his craft, his impeccable precision and timing, the 'care' he affords his individual photographs, all these are attributes of an excellence which, to me, remain unequalled in the context they appear.

His, no doubt, is a cultured vision, which, nevertheless, stays completely unaloof, earthy and quietly compassionate. I value his contribution as much as his presence and appreciative capacity here immensely.

Julia Bailey's (grigrigirl) portfolio is alive with uninhibited charms and appetites that appear to be inexhaustible and impossible to quench. Her black and white candids have an irrepressible freshness, which, IMO, is exemplary.

I also enjoy reading her forum posts, which are often equally stimulating and, at times, a due catharsis.

I'm also considering as my favourite people:

Ed Clarke (e301) for the exchange of thoughts and the discovery of shared interests; JPR for his taste, his kindness and the ability to occupy several places in the same space-time; Peter Marlin (Pedro) for reading my quirky posts and returning their irony with humour; John Setzler (jmsetzler) for his sincerity, thorough diligence, craft and dedication to all things photography Leslie Goodman (goodman) for her remarkable art and temperament; Aznym Adam (xion) for his youthful maturity and the promise of great pictures; Gordon McGregor (Gordon) for his intelligence and the lucidity of his posts; Fritz Byle (kirbic) for his helpfulness, his technical expertise and the ability to simplify complexities; Robert Ward (bear_music) for his articulate astuteness and the task of having to code this mess

-and to all others who I will remember when it is too late: my apology.

Do you have any photographic projects outside of DPC?

Yes and no. I have little ambition to make money with photography at this time or impress a handful of Sunday penguins (you know, the 'whine and cheese' crowd), but I'm forever dreaming and plotting. It seems I only realize anything when I need to.

And how exactly do you go about taking a portrait of Castro before he dies or transport a bus full of naked people to the top of Whistler mountain?

Some critics still don't think photography is a form of art. What is your response to this?

Let them review restaurants.

What do you feel is your most underrated shot?

There are a few: 'Facciamo la Magia', 'Photosynthesis', 'Hoplite', 'Tableau'...
-Well, 'Tableau' really represents a private experience. It's not a picture I should have submitted to be 'rated'.

I don't take scores too seriously, and it's the only form of gambling I engage in.

If you could change one thing about DPChallenge, what would it be?

Too much consideration, IMO, is given to voters and commenters to rate entries by topicality, and this stance is stressed in the rules. While I am all for challenges in the general spirit we conduct them, I feel that by encouraging voters to sit in judgment of matters they cannot, reasonably, be expected to fathom and, thus, appreciate, we encourage conflict and tedious discussion largely external to photography and art.

The energy wasted and lost here, IMO, could better be invested, if it were understood that an emphasis on topicality existed for the creative benefit of the entrants and not for the righteous glee of the uninitiated.

You've been a member since April 7th, 2003. How did you find out about DPC?

I googled.

What was your motivation for joining DPC back then? Is your motivation for continuing to participate any different today?

Well, I had just bought my first digital camera, taken a card full of images and didn't have much of a clue as to what this was going to be about. DPC offered resources. Another thing that appealed to me was the clear and functional layout of the site: no ads blinked at me, and no one tried to sell me any stocks or a penis enlargement.

The forums and the manner of monitoring them impressed me as well, considering the context of the net.

The site, as have I, has evolved or just changed since then. There are so many participants now, I can longer tell who is who. Yet, some of the old wood is still here, more quietly and less active in the challenges, but present. Some members have helped me tremendously, either by simply taking an interest or via their own art and commitment to their craft and their beliefs or convictions. Others are just a storehouse of specs and technical knowledge of equipment and processes, always there to fill in the gaps and ready to point a way.

Besides, I enjoy contributing a holistic voice to a field with, occasionally, frighteningly insular characteristics. Every time my interest in DPC wanes a little, some image pops up in the middle or at the tail end of some challenge which moves me to go to bat for it. I just can't leave well enough alone.

If you could offer some advice to somebody who is new to DPC and submitting to DPC challenges, what would it be?

Move me, educate me, shake things up a little. If you must imitate, conceal the imitation well or acknowledge it outright. For god's sake, no candy.

If you ribbon, ask yourself what you could have done differently. If you end up in last place, look for the one thing that might have attracted the most opposition to the image. It's likely a utility.

If you consistently end up in the middle of the pack, take a vacation, divorce your wife or rob a bank. Anything, to arrive at a new perspective.

Since challenge entries are pretty much a part of your "permanent record", in retrospect, are there any pictures you wish you hadn't submitted to a challenge?

There are too many to list I would pull, if I could. These are images I am at peace with: 'The Candidate', 'Showdown', 'Hoplite', 'Mercy', 'Emergence', 'Canada-US Relations', A Tale of Trade and Timber', 'Photosynthesis', 'Antithesis', 'The Thirteenth Moon', 'In the Suavity of a Wave', 'Facciamo la Magia', 'La Spiaggia Dal Chiaro Di Luna' 'Progression', 'Pastiche' and, possibly "Poised'. The rest, as far as I'm concerned, is dross.

How do you decide which challenges you are going to enter and which?ones you'll skip?

I'd like to think I enter an image for it to be seen, because, after all, that's what pictures are for. In truth, I often enter because I happen to have a picture at all that fits a challenge.

Interpreting a topic is tenuous at best, and I am more inclined to questioning the most obvious interpretation by entering something less obviously so.

Do you regularly seek assistance outside of the DPC community in trying to determine which of your photos you should submit?

No. To each his own.

If you could personally ask Drew & Langdon for one new site feature or enhancement, what would it be?

There are, for my needs and liking, more features and enhancements in place than I could ever care for. I do not know of another site of its kind better run and managed than DPC. I would consider it useful to continue to clarify the rules with the aim to simplify the language rather than adding further complexities.

I would promote Terry Auspitz (ClubJuggle) or, at least, buy him a brand new set of juggling balls for monitoring the forums as if it was an art and doing such an admirably decent job.

Why do you enjoy photography?

I want to refer to my DPC bio (either in part or completely):

"I take pictures because I see them. I take pictures because others have taken pictures before me which instilled in me a sense of marvel and wonder I could not shake. I take pictures because I cannot help it. I take pictures because life is short and everything else is long.

I could just hide in the shadows watching the smoke of my cigarette curl and go up in air, while the girls sway by and the men with their big cigars and long lenses chase them. I could write you a letter telling you how it is and how it could be, if only you would read slowly enough to hear the wind and the waves and the silence which bleeds from the emptiness of the margins. If only historians left blanks in their writings for the things they do not know, I would have less to say and do.

I could paint you a picture of an empty room. I could hew wood, chisel stone. I could, if I applied myself and if the muse were so kind, immortalize your thigh or erect your slumped existence. I could compose an ode in the grand style to all the lofty ideals we so habitually and thoughtlessly shit on, for a little balance.

I take pictures because I know you. I know how little time you have in your busy, busy life. I know of your affections, the instants of interest, the little things that attract you to a curb or a window, the glitter and flitter of so much and too little to hold in a heart. I know because I am so much like you underneath that smile you wear, my magic hat.

I take pictures of nothings, sweet and bitter. I take pictures of tables, chairs, oranges. I take pictures of people, frogs, telephones, roosters and clocks and of the passing of time. I took pictures in parks, at sea, of the suavity of a wave, of cuts and striations, fields - of worship and holy groves, of the smoothness of boulders, of the light by a stream. I took pictures in France and in Florida and in the piazzi with pigeons and hats and in the alleys of aging cities. I looked down from a mountain through fog and a cloud, across the sea toward Nippon, Cathay. I came eye to eye with beasts in their beauty. When I take pictures, I fly.

I want to take pictures of ordinary objects, of the gritty and coarse. I want to photograph obsolete things as if they were sacred relics. I want to make a portrait of a cow, a horse or a very ugly dog in the tarnished splendour of a bourgeois spread. I want to make a picture of Psyche herself. I want to make a portrait that is true. I want to see the shimmer of light in a sphere, in an ounce. I want to hear that shutter click just at the right moment again. I want to remember every forgettable thing, if only I could make it cohere.

Now I want the streets cleanly swept, then crowded. I want to take nudes of real people with real faces and stories. I want to make pictures that move you, to show you what you and I missed today, what it is that exites us so.

I take pictures because I see no other way to turn your attention to the texture of the sky, the tragedy of waste and neglect, the sweetness of strawberries, the drama of life.

I am desperate, alone, human. There are so many of us. I feel crowded, rushed, threatened by sales, foreclosures, purchases. I need to take pictures that are not for sale. I need to make pictures that have no market value. I need to give my pictures a seriousness that discourages the trivialisation of everything.

I need to express, not myself, but that which is and of which, I too, am an infintissimally small part. I need to make pictures as real as wood and stone. I want hard and dry pictures, too, certainly nothing wet, dripping with sentiment. I want a dignified work, not a 'grave opus'.

I want to cut me a real live apple."