october moonlight

_DGO0321photo by Diego Orlando

739 Responses to “october moonlight”

  • How many power plants for all those lights?

  • Enterprise calls Earth.. Dr. Spock, we’re home..

    Very nice!

  • a civilian-mass audience

    They all look special…like the Chile miners!!!

    What not to love!!!

  • photo without text? without bla bla ble ble?
    and working?
    wait the minute… what a blog it is?


  • It is MR. Spock not DR.

    Mr Spock was a Vulcan on Star Trek, Dr. Spock was a pediatrician and a real person.

  • Ehm, Mr. Marovich, I beg pardon, but in the Italian version of Entreprise, or Star Trek, they call him Dottor Spock ;)

  • .. ok, probably should be ‘I beg your pardon’, sorry..

  • omg…stayed up too late with students..now almost late for class…running….shhhhhhhh

  • David, I assure you that over here nobody is first in line to open the gallery the day after an opening. We should have learnt a long time ago not to take our guests out for the night after closing down the party already quite late. The worst I can remember was with Jocelyn Bain Hogg until very late at night. What a hangover we all had.

  • And you wonder why the kibbutz caught on fire!…. ;-)

  • Sorry, I thought that was another “best caption” contest. Getting bag-greedy here! :-)

  • Love this: intimate, but backgrounded by ‘all the colours of elsewhere’. Bravo.

  • Always, at such moments, I am somewhere else. Which is okay. I don’t mind at all. But one brief day… one brief day in the future… present with you and your young emergents in New York City…

  • This photo is like a tattoo..

    “My physique is the biography in the way. It’s similar to what sailors used to do, where each permanent skin stain meant something, the specific time in your hold up when we have the symbol upon yourself, either we do it yourself with the blade or with the veteran permanent skin stain artist”.

  • Tattoos for me are like photographs … They represent a specific event, scar, time…
    For others is like paintings.. Something very artistic (that simply looks good in their living room), regardless if they understand it or not.. It simply looks good..
    Decoration ..
    But Not for me.. For me tats are simply scars.. And scars are not always that good looking…

  • Its all about the light….
    and David,
    rules are made to be broken… :)

  • Folks,

    Anton and I have done some work on the burn server – hopefully invisible.
    Please, if you find any irregularities, let us know.


  • Yay, thanks.. ehm.. can’t see the moonlight pic on the frontpage..

  • hey, that was quick.. Speedy Gonzales at work ;)

    hovering over the ABOUT and the SUPPORT links I get the html, the others look fine..

  • EVA

    That must make the show a bit confusing since the doctor on the ship is McCoy. Is this just an Italian translation of the American show, or a completely new Italian version?

  • Pete, argh. Now I have to rent the movie. Not talking about the TV series, never seen the episodes, but the 1979 movie.. and am not sure if he’s called signor Spock or dottor Spock…

    Anyway, it’s just the translation, not a different movie or show… more generally speaking a doctor in medicine over here is simply called ‘Dottore’, without the surname, if you talk with him.. so it could be that Dr. McCoy is called just that, Dottore, and no confusion is made, but as said, don’t really remember…

  • I think I mentioned awhile back that I bough Bruce Davidson’s life work opus “Outside Inside,” all 23 pounds and 834 photos of it. I just gotta say, it’s one of the best investments I’ve ever made. Not in the investment to make money sense, but an intellectual/aesthetic investment, a thing from which I can alternatively learn or simply sit back in wonder and appreciate its depth and formidable beauty. Just an incredible piece of work. Words cannot do it justice. It’s a multi-sensory thing. Not only must it be seen. It must be felt and smelt as well.

    I’m a horrible person when it comes to anniversaries. I forget my wedding anniversary pretty much every year and my father’s birthday as well. It’s not that I don’t love my wife and father, it’s just that I love them all the time and at heart simply do not recognize the need for special days. As I began contemplating this comment, I realized that the first anniversary of my discovery of burn magazine had recently passed and if anything ever deserved a little celebration, even if it’s just a nod and a wink and a glass of beer, well, burn has been very good for me and it merits a salute in some form. I learn so much from my experiences here. And beyond the obvious benefits we all get from David’s photo advice. I in no way mean to belittle it, but I came here with a very similar sensibility, both through education and personal experience, so I haven’t learned all that much in that respect, though I’ve certainly gained from a hefty amount of nuance that’s deepened and rounded out my previously held convictions, making me a better person as well as a better photographer. But mostly I’ve learned through observing and analyzing the photos presented here on burn and from the commentary, both my own and that of others. I spend a lot of time contemplating the essays and single photos and links people provide and individual websites linked to names I respect. Perhaps unfortunately, I am typically a critical sort, my attention drawn to that which is wrong before seeing that which is right, and know that a lot of people don’t appreciate the sharing of my thoughts. I try, try real hard, though with mixed results, granted, to be constructive, which is much less the case when I critique my own work. You can believe me on this, that I take a much harsher view when it’s directed at my own stuff. No sugar coating whatsoever. No looking for positives, nor cushioning the blow. That’s a long winded way of saying that I learn a lot by critiquing other’s work. Every insight I get about what’s wrong with someone else’s photographs. or more often how they could be better, I apply to my own. And thus, I learn. Hopefully. I certainly try. Without burn, I’d be way behind where I’m at now. No question.

    But while it’s great to acquire deeper knowledge about things I already know, it’s also not unusual in my experience here to learn about things I never contemplated. For example, before finding this place it never occurred to me that things such as photo books and actual prints were things deserving of any kind of reverence. So at this point, I want to thank John Gladdy. His incredibly well argued defense of the tactile aspect of photography has been a terrific influence. The intense nature of his feelings on the subject caused me to intellectually accept what he had to say, but it took some time before I realized the truth of it emotionally, not only from my own experience touching great photography, but from witnessing others feel the revelation. And about photo books, I have to thank David. When he realized I was talking about Salgado’s recent work with no knowledge of his history, he assigned me the task of understanding Salgado. I spent many hours at the New York Public Library going through all of his books and it was more than a revelation, it was many revelations. It was during those many hours that I got my first intimation of the tactile importance of great photography. Unfortunately, however, I can be a bit thick and didn’t appreciate it to the extent that I should. It was only when Bruce Davidson’s opus arrived in the mail that I really got it. I constantly find myself running my hands over the pages and taking deep breaths to fully comprehend the magic in those photos. Now I’m looking forward to revisiting Salgado with this newfound knowledge.

    A few of you are aware that I do some work with kids who can be accurately described as “disadvantaged” who are from some of New York City’s most violent and despondent neighborhoods. Yesterday I showed them Davidson’s opus and David Harvey’s “Living Proof” to some of them and they were simply floored. And apropos of my comments above, it went beyond the content of the photographs themselves. the kids compulsively ran their hands over the pages and I could see them deeply inhaling, appreciating the work on levels that have nothing to do with sight or intellect. Not that they didn’t get the sight or intellect thing. I wish I had a video of that experience. Anybody who fails to see the fantastic fucking accomplishment that is Davidson’s “East 100th Street” should have seen their reaction. The kids gathered excitedly around that section of the book and put names to the faces in just about every photo. Those photos taken 50 years ago accurately captured the lives they are living today. They know all those people, now long dead, but still alive in the same places. I think that was by far the most powerful photography experience I’ve ever had. You should have seen it. (or I should have photographed it, eh?)

    A couple of the kids were so impressed with David’s work in the Bronx and Davidson’s work that they breathlessly told me how bad they wanted to learn photography. I’ve often offered to teach them about anything whatsoever that I know, but that was the first time anyone showed any fervent interest. So I’m trying to put together a couple systems for a couple individuals. I have computers I can give them, and maybe a digital camera, but am short a couple monitors, keyboards, mice and a digital camera. If anyone in the New York area has any of those things the would like to donate to an interesting cause, let me know.

    Anyway, that’s my long winded way of saying thanks on/sometime after my first anniversary here. Here’s the shorter version: Thanks.

    And if that’s all a bit weird and uncalled for, well, I can’t deny being influenced by the October full moon, or Hunters’s moon, my favorite full moon of the year. Gotta howl something or other.

  • a civilian-mass audience


    Thank you…!!! keep the spirit …the BURNING one…!!!

  • Michael. Glad to hear that. Yes. the feel, The smell. a multi sensory experience.
    David Harvey….Thinking of a 50mm…….The very obvious question I suppose is why?? You being a confirmed 35er.after all….interested to know.

  • JOHN…

    i started out my photographic life with a 50…only went to a 35when i started shooting color…needed the extra depth of field because of low asa/iso…always working wide open with color…a 50 with tri-x is different than with Kodachrome for example…with tri-x, one can stop down to something other than wide open and focus fast and be assured that you might just “make it” even when zone focusing…that is not happening wide open with a 50….now with digi and higher iso , i can go back to the 50 where i started….my American Family and med format i use the 85 which is the same thing…i like not quite getting “everything” in …edges mysterious sometimes…and the whole family project is pretty much a type of portraiture…anyway, i like the 50 look…the 35 was just a substitute for almost the same look in color…i will still use the 35 of course for some things..maybe even the 28…but i also love the discipline it takes to use the 50…forces a deliberate thinking even when shooting fast…too wide breeds lazy imo…

    cheers, david

  • Social changes also lead to the need of a slightly longer lens. people are not so much worried about having their photo taken any more than 30-50 years ago , these days it is the possible consequences on the net that make people wary.

    Besides that I have found that in many situations I start with a 50 and once I have been there for a while it is easy to revert to 35 or 28 as your presence becomes acceptable. Then there is that great chance to use a portrait lens and take that extra physical step forward or revert back to a 50 in a more intimate way.

  • I’ve always loved the 50mm, most underated lens by far. :-)

  • David, ever used a zoom, and which was it, then?

    35, 50mm, and a little guts, you can own the world with these 2!

  • Ross

    Yes, true. In the 6os and 70s, those that thought they were hip avoided the 50 because it was called the “normal” lens.

    Lens choice is complicated. It can be argued that working with a single focal length is liberating and encourages creativity, or, on the other hand, that it is a limitation. Getting “into the zone” with a fixed focal length means adjusting our visual awareness to always fit our compositions into the fixed angle of view, and depth of field characteristics. I personally enjoy working this way, usually with moderate wide angle lenses. I have to admit however, that there are times when I wish I had a wider or longer lens mounted.

    On the other hand, Zooms can offer a completely different way of working, especially wide to moderate tele zooms. When working with a zoom, one can choose a point of view, then adjusts the angle of view to suit. Maybe it offers too many choices. I suspect that many of us, when using zooms, find ourselves at one end of the zoom range or other, seldom in between. Zooms are also typically huge clunky things compared to fixed lenses which impacts camera handling and ultimately picture making.

    In the end, it doesn’t really matter. Falling back to musical analogys, a few years ago I was at a musical workshop with Jean michel veillon, a wonderful wooden flute master from Brittany. Jean Michel loved to try out other peoples flutes. It didn’t matter which flute he picked up, even on humble “entry level” flutes, he sounded brilliant.
    A great photographer will make great photos with whatever camera and lens is at hand.

  • I seem to recall you were using a 20mm at some point DAH. In Santa Fe maybe.

  • LEE…

    to the best of my knowledge i have never used a 20 on a full frame camera…i think the widest lens i ever owned was a 24 and that was years ago, before i met you…so i am trying to imagine what you are remembering…or, maybe i was playing with someone’s camera??..

  • DAVID. Thanks. Never got the appeal of 35’s always thought they were a compromise lens, but what you say makes sense, and the added DOF over a 50 certainly helps wide open thats for sure. as you know I still do it old school and have a 50 on one body and a 24 on the other…all the lenses I ever need for film work.
    Digital(not that I shoot it much anymore..swimming against the tide :) ) I tend to use longer glass as well. The canon 85 and 135 particularly..something about digital super shallow DOF I quite like for some work. Anyways, always interesting to know WHY people settle on the kit they do.

    JOHN (off fishing for the weekend)

  • Ahh, the 50mm lens.. I bought my first reflex camera when I still was in school, the family budget didn’t allow for it, so I worked the only free afternoon a week at a marzipan factory, and two evenings a week cleaning toilets in an office.. don’t recall for how many months.. could afford only the body, no lens. Then, one of my brother’s friends got a different lens for his camera, luckily same brand as mine, and borrowed me the 50mm.. I still have both, and I still use both..

  • Well, I love my 16-35. But when I fell off that chair, shattered my shoulder and had to get a new one, I shattered that lens, too. So, finally, I bought another one. And then my grandson was in my office and he suddenly did something that I wanted to photograph, so I grabbed my camera that had that lens on it but I had forgotten that it was plugged into my computer. When the camera reached the end of the cable, it got yanked out of my hand, the camera fell to the floor and the lens sheared in half.

    That was in May. It will cost about $350 to get it put back together and in all this time I have not had $350 to spare. But Kivgiq (Eskimo dance celebration) is coming up in February and I must have it by then.

    I think a really nice, fast, 50 would be good, too. I did buy one a few years back, just to take to Kivgiq, but it always focuses well behind what I want it to focus on, so I never use it.

  • It’s funny that when I shoot 35 digi (not that often lately), I always stick to 35mm, however when shooting MF or LF I almost always use 80mm and 150mm respectively. I don’t know if it’s the aspect ratio or the slower pace of work which allows me to think more about what I leave in and take out, but there is something about larger formats (especially with my 4×5) that makes “normal” lenses just feel right. They somehow look wider….

  • Imants, sure, want some??

  • nah I can shoot 50 milimeters of crap with the best

  • well, I haven’t tried that many lenses, but I bet I can get crap out of whatever one.. :)

  • anyone shoot crap?

    Sure, most of the time, any lens! ;-)

    PS: I just watched a video where William Klein was featured, adding up that just about every “great” photographer will be remembered for less than a minute of photography (at 1/125th a shot, he said) in a lifetime. The rest might not be crap, but for all purposes, is as.

  • It’s trying to have fun between those 1/125s that is important.

  • Frostfrog

    Send your 50 in for adjustment, I’ve had two brand new Canon lenses back-focus, a 70-200L, and a 28. Both fine after adjustment. Also, many newer cameras have fine-focus adjustments in your custom functions which are specific to particular lenses.

  • Yeah, I’ve got an EF 100 f/2 that front focuses badly. Useless on my 5D Mk1, but was easy to dial in on the 1DMkIV. I believe any of the Canons starting with the 50D (other than the Rebels) will allow you to dial in focus on any lens.

  • This roof, what a place!

    She has been host to so much wonder and possibility and connection and growth and love and understanding.

  • Yeah, that roof brings loads of memories to a whole lotta photogs & artists for sure!!
    I know it does for me too!

  • LEE… David shot a 20mm on a DX camera (D200 if memory serves). That was the compromise because of the cropped sensor. (FOV was close to 28mm) But for a “normal” size sensor it’s the actual 28.. or 35 and 50.

  • I thought so Michael. Nice thing about Canon 5D series is there is none of that cropped thing going on. Not sure how it is explained but it was always what you see is what you get for me.

Leave a Reply

You must login to post a comment.