rainbow, tumbleweed by tom

143 Responses to “rainbow, tumbleweed by tom”

---

• Paul Treacy

  March 18, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  London. June. Most excellent. I’m 40 in June so let’s have a few jars people.

  DAH, I’ll have a little gem of a project to show you then. I’ll be ready for your critique. Is the Magnum AGM in London this year?

  Now that spring has finally sprung here and it’s all so lovely and smelly with those most elegant of trees, the cherry blossoms, and the lengthening evenings, I plan to get out and mingle much more.

  Just started gathering some connections for a multimedia project on parkour in London. I’ve been tinkering on the subject quietly for a couple of years now. Perhaps I’ll have some material to submit here over the coming weeks.

  Finally, London gets a look in. Wondering about an outdoor projection somewhere. Shall we plan a gathering? I’ll make some noises.

  Paulyman.
• Haik

  March 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  “Haik, what are you talking about?” – eeeeexactly. Love you, Jim :)
• burn magazine

  March 18, 2009 at 12:38 pm

  bob…. somehow your IP address is blacklisted as spam….

  actually funny really, bob BLACKlisted :-)))))

  no seriously… if you are at your school, only your IT department can take measures to correct this… they should know what to do… because i cannot do anything from our side, it is an internet-wide thing, you won’t be able to comment on many places because of this.

  cheers, and good luck big bro!!!

  anton
• david alan harvey

  March 18, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  PAUL…

  yes, the Magnum meeting in London…and you are invited to our preliminary gathering of the tribe…details soonest..i await your project..

  cheers,david
• david alan harvey

  March 18, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  JOE…

  you are not “eating your shoe” at all…i had no intention of suggesting that to you….i was just simply saying that i am open to all kinds of photography….

  good that i will see you this summer….well, in London there is no summer, but good that i will see you!!
  looking forward to it….

  cheers, david
• Haik

  March 18, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  Bob Black,
  I just blackmailed you …. :-)
• panos skoulidas

  March 18, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  BURN,…
  Bob sent couple emails… i will post for him later…
  They changed their computers to their school… ( no java allowed or something… blah )
  and he so wants to comment… so i will be happy to “host” his comments through emails until we/he/they can figure out how to bring him back to “normal”…
  So Bob, im here.. whenever you are ready, hit me back with comments through emails…and i will post for u!…
  we missed u already malaka!
  :)))))))))))
• panos skoulidas

  March 18, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  … and since NOTHING IS FOR FREE…
  another panos shameless plug here:))))))))))))))

  http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/610452#store-price

  …please buy the above immediately…try the softcover version,
  try the hardcover, dust jacket, imagewrap… nowrap…anywrap…
  come on hurry… need to pay bills… recession here….
  Europe , euro owners , help the brotha out…:)
• mike berube

  March 18, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  hope to hear from bob soon. hopefully his machine gets fixed. as for the images still…. i cannot stop looking. they are so personal. i love it. and i think that they are photographs. we all use photoshop… i don’t think software should be at the heart of the conversation…. i am here to celebrate the images… weather photoshopped or not… that is not important to me….
• mike berube

  March 18, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  young tom…. do you have a website we can take a look at. i would love to see more of this project. i love it !
• mike berube

  March 18, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  i will purchase a copy panos.
• panos skoulidas

  March 18, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  ohhh oh..( thats the right link… i hope )

  http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/610452?utm_source=TellAFriend&utm_medium=email&utm_content=610452
• mike berube

  March 18, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  looks good panos. did you edit this? its looks nice. good layout.
• panos skoulidas

  March 18, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  Mike B…
  its the simplest form i could think of…
  Its an “experiment” of course….
  My idea is to use this as a starter.. so to meet the “real” publishers out there…
  On the other side all my euro friends and family are way richer than me so i wouldnt
  say no to couple extra euros…
  ( come on europe help sister america once… We helped you out & cleaned up after
  you , both world WARS…come on , time to give back…)
  :))))))))

  but Mike.. the fun part is the comments… I took the funniest comments from a
  variety of bloggers here in burn… so if you read close under every photo…
  you will recognize lots of people… from bobb to patricia… from joe to ben,
  from young tom to DAH…and so on….
  I had fun making it…Again nothing final..( thats why i called it COLLECTOR’s item… laughing…)
  Anyway… it was meant to be funny…
• panos skoulidas

  March 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  … love u mikeB ….
  ;-))))))))
• BOB BLACK

  March 18, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  Hello Everyone:

  Well, Panos has a new role: HE’S MY VOICE…Unfortunately, for 2 days, I have not been able to leave comments. I believe this has to do with the new computers installed in the school where I am an instructor. I think the problem has to do with Java Script…and I can’t download a fix, because of school constraints. Anyway…this will severly limit my opportunity to write, until i figure out a solution (i dont have time to write when home, because home is for family, photos and writing…so, at least for now, looks like i’ll be limited)…anyway, I left a bunch of comments this morning, so, i’ll try and re-type them here…THANKS BROTHER P for transmitting :))

  first: YOUNG TOM: :))

  first let me say that I am HAPPY that again Burn (dave harvey) is pushing the readership. I’ll be trying to push him even more soon!. About your 2 photographs (a variation on the diptychi):

  I LOVE the first photograph very much. It ABSOLUTELY reminds me of Malick’s Days of Heaven. If readers are not familiar with this gorgeous film: RENT IT!. Tom, your picture contains all the same soulful, urgent light and physical beauty as in the movie. but it also reminded me of the extraordinary novel, Blood Meridian. The picture contains all the poetry one needs to recogzine and reconcile land: of which we are made. Land, and light and wind and ache-filled hard bodies: this earth. At first i was like: ‘what the fuck is this, some Photoshop Spin/gaussian blur/thing, and then as i looked closer i realized that the photograph was NOT photoshopped but instead contained agility, movement: you’re chasing, panning over the ground and you slide past these weed devils: chasing ghosts, dreams and the land giving itself up. In the photograph (yes, it’s a fucking photograph already!), I love that the tumbling tumbleweed replicates the shape of the sky, the clouds: and THAT CANNOT BE PHOTOSHOPPED. A photograph is just that: CONSTRUCTED SEEING: patience and urgency. I love that the photo is not only formally beautiful (the light, the colors, the formal arrangement of the picture) but that the visual elements carry a lot of metaphoric weight. Notice how the foreground shadow mimics the ghostly house/barn in the distance, as if the barn is throwing its shadow forward, as if the tumbleweed has brought the life of the barn forward, as well as all those shadows dancing in the foreground. It’s a great shot and has lots of energy.. I say this NOT because it’s blurry, but because it has the same visceral qualities of light and texture that I respond to in any photograph or painting. the relationship (whirl wack) between the earth (tumbleweed) and sky (clouds), the shadows between the foreground and background, the physical sensations (we’re there, riding the tractor): all of these are qualities, photographic qualities that have NOTHING to do with film/digital, darkroom/Photoshop: they are the meat and bones of what create good images. As for the Rainbow/missle image, it too is a cool photograph: one of those serendipitous moments that define photography. although it doesnt ‘hit’ me with the same emotional power as the top photograph, it still is a great moment and it also still speaks to me of the power of land and our relationship to it: very cool shot.

  As for the writing, as you know as a poet, I celebrate the use of words to accompany photographs. I think words, often, are used as ‘addition’ or as descriptive elements in photobooks, something I have ALWAYS hated. I prefer when written language is an adjunct, a collision, a separate river that doesn’t explain or explicate the photographs/story but serve as a separate, though connected, story. I love how richards uses words, the way Sebalt uses photographs for his novels. I often hate those all-too-common (for me) photo books/anthologies that collect photographs with poems because all too often then ‘explain’ each other rather than oppose or collide or augment. Tom, i dig your writing, and i particularly like the second poem (the one with the rainbow) but they do not work for me together, either as side patches next to the photographs or as related to the pics. I mean, each poem feels as if written for the pics (which might be totally coincidental). Even if you shift the poems, they would be more resonant to me. also, i prefer single pages of photos follow by text (like this). that way both are alone and can shadow one another, can echo one another. here they seem too ‘close” both physically and narratively. I like separation and opposition. why not just give us 1 poem (or both) as text, so we can reflect without putting them together…but most importantly;

  I WANT THE PHOTOGRAPHS LARGE. I cant see them well enough here. I want to taste them, examine them, swallow them, knuckle them….i want that light and land big in my face…here, the pics compete with the script/font as well…i want pictures, pictures…let the poem swim in my head, in my chest as sound, as echo…but here, they become pictorial elements that take away: give me the poems below, as text, ok…but let me have BIGGER PHOTOGRAPHS!!!!!!….

  i hope all this makes sense Tom…really, the pics are terrific and the 1st one just fucking kills me, it kills me and i wish to god it were LARGER….

  hang tough daddy…let the land live large :))) terrific job amigo!
• mike berube

  March 18, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  i like it panos! i will buy a copy for sure. canada will help ya out!
• Gordon Lafleur

  March 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm

  panos
  where is young Toms’ blog you mentioned?
• BOB BLACK

  March 18, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  I have no idea where the discussion is now with regard to tom’s pictures as i am using beloved brother P as my pipeline (yes, ok, I HAVE OFFICIALLY MOVED TO CHINA ;))))))))))) )…and im typing this, so what i write may or may not have any meaning or relationship to what has gone one before, but i’ll add some thoughts…

  the ENTIRE DISCUSSION OF THESE IMAGES BEING P-SHOPPED is total bollocks and a complete cannard. I just am so tired of this absurd absurd reductive argument. A photograph IS anything that uses the property and construct of time and light to illuminate a story/person/moment/place/time. ALL PHOTOGRAPHS (sorry jim) are CONSTRUCTED. Again, has anyone read/looked at Sam Abell’s new book ‘The life of a Photograph’? I am guessing here that Jim LOVES Abell, as do I. Abell is a brilliant magician, one of the best photographers of the last 30 years, period, full stop. He writes about this idea that ALL photography is a construction. In fact, he as only 1 photograph that he considers taken (of a car that was hit by a train). The problem with Photoshop or darkroom technique is a simple one:

  does it intrude/bother the viewer. and guess what? Eacher viewer has a different reaction. I recently showed a student photographer some of my work and they said ‘what the hell, why are you doing that?”, meaning nearly destoying my images by overdeveloping the negs, which contribute to the excessive grain. He didnt dig it, like it, understand. totally cool: in this instance, the technique fucked his experience. I’ve seen darkroom shit that annoys me and photoshop stuff that annoys me. THE LEGIMITACY OF A PHOTOGRAPH is NOT contingent on the way the work is processed or manufactured. Good god, jesus. by this measure ALL OF MANN’S work is off and all newspaper journalism is off too, because it’s processed. the argument that these pics seemed manufactured (thus a lie) and therby devalue the work is total nonsense. I HAVE NO PROBLEM with Jim or anyone else saying “dont like it, too much PS, too fake” whatever. That’s cool. I find most of the clean, crisp, digital photographs inept too, but that’s me. Neither Jim nor I have claim (none of us) to the legitimacy or the definition of what IS a photograph, because of our person mindness, whether they be closed or open.

  all we have is whether or not we feel a photograph is of interest or works for us, period. Jim, i find, time and time again, your obnoxious attempt to define what constitutes a photographs as not only silly but dictatorial. Why not simply say:

  i hate it for reasons x, y and z instead of trying to define for us what is or is not a photograph. The irony is that as soon as we define something, we realize this most often contradicts our own defintion…zeno would know that ;))…

  I dont, as a photogarpher and a viewer, that the presentation of Tom’s photographs was the most effective way to showcase either the pics or the words, but I sure as shit would NEVER say: they aint photographs….

  ok, im outta here for 3 days…have a writing deadline (for burn) and a marriage anniversary to plan ;))))

  hugs
  b
• ben roberts

  March 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  anyone want to open a book on bob black making a comment on burn within the next 72hrs?
• Mike R

  March 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  Hey brother Panos; my collectors edition of Venice Beach is on order.

  O.k. everyone: remember Larry Clark and Tulsa? Remember how it became an underground classic and how you Soooo wanted a copy but to no avail? Well don’t make the same mistake again! Buy this book – you too Jim – think of it as an investment for your golden years.

  Brothers and Sisters at Burn; roll back the tide of recession! Buy this book!!!!

  Best,

  Mike.
• Harry

  March 18, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  I think photographs start to get interesting when you can smell them. Is there somewhere to see these bigger? That tumbleweed picture could be a smelly old boy but it’s too small to tell.
• ben roberts

  March 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  @panos

  “that book looks really ugly”

  you can quote that on the 2nd edition if you want.
• Sidney Atkins

  March 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  Tom,

  I think the Photoshop discussion is pretty irrelevant, but for somewhat different reasons than Bob’s (and incidently, Ben R., if you’re making the book, I have $5 that says yes, Bob will be back long before the 3 days are over). I honestly don’t know how these images were processed, so maybe they were put through Photoshop or at least Lightroom (I can’t imagine any serious photographer these days printing digital images straight out of the camera. And how else would you resize them for uploading on the Web?) but I don’t necessarily see the heavy hand of radical image manipulation here… having lived in places very similar to where these photos were shot, I have seen light just like this on many occasions. Did he really do much manipulation? I live here, and I’ve used Photoshop since version 2 in the early 90s, and honestly I can’t tell. I mean beyond a little contrast adjustment, which almost anyone would do. Tom??

  What I really want to ask you about is the choice of presentation… looks to my eye a bit like a layout for a ‘dummy’ or ‘blurb’ book… hence the wide white backgrounds and the positioning of the text. True? And if this is an idea for a book, what is the size and aspect ratio of the book you are imagining? Are we going to see these photos chopped by a gutter? Tell me it isn’t so….

  Cheers,
• Jim Powers

  March 18, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  So where do you draw the line between photography and illustration? Or, Bob, are you saying that anything is photography?
• kathleen fonseca

  March 18, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  I like the images. i liked the second poem which functioned as a kind of caption, poetically spoken. Informative and worded beautifully. The first poem replaced me in the photo with visions of Young Tom stomping across the plain chasing the tumbleweeds. Guess i´m just being petulant but i wanted to imagine me in that field instead of Tom. And no, i can´t really accomodate both of us because of its intensely personal close-up focus of the movement. A very intimate photograph. Nice. The small format, white borders, like teentsy personal pola´s, all fine with me.

  As far as photoshop..man, i agree with Jim. i think certain PS trends tend to date the look of a photograph and i prefer timeless. I had this thought with Subhrajit´s photo too which didn´t look altogether natural to me. Something about the contrast between sea and sky that didn´t ring true to me but the overall effect was quite pleasing, the same with these two examples from Young Tom. They´re nice, they´re evocative, they intrigue. Like a woman in a particularly fetching trendy couture style. She grabs the spotlight right then, that minute..five minutes later? i can´t say. Some photographic ¨looks¨ become timeless. And this issue did not start with PS, it goes back to the very beginnings of photography. The efforts of the earliest photographers to emulate painting then the inevitable protest against that and a trend toward ultra realistic and in between surrealism, Bauhaus photomontages, etc. etc. This is just the latest wrinkle. ¨Classic¨ is nice but innovation brings change. There´s movements to extremes than a trend to the middle but the shocking extreme is where minds and eyes open. But not every woman can pull off a wild couture dress and even fewer regular women can pull off the mainstream knock-offs either. Most of us are better off wearing the classics really, REALLY well than couture badly. No conclusions, just sayin´. At the end of the day, i personally am with Jim on this. Keep your composites, keep your HDR´s, keep your filters. I don´t have the unique avant garde creative mind to pull them off.

  Of the two, Young Tom, your ¨chasing tumbleweeds¨photo is a killer that i would put on my wall any day of the week. well done, PS and all!

  best
  kat-
• BOB BLACK

  March 18, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  ben,
  i didnt ask you to find it pretty..
  i just asked you to buy it…
  dont get confused…( and im sure that will not be the last “ugly” thing you are buying in this life…and definitely not the first )
  :-)… plus there is a comment from you included.. so there you have it… a little “plug” for you too…
  ( extra love 4U today )

  MIKE R…
  what can i say about the respect i have for u…? ( f*****g book aside/irrelevant..)
  I will never forget the laughs regarding the “devastating attractive personality of yours”( regarding the ladies )…..
• panos

  March 18, 2009 at 3:01 pm

  LAUGHING…
  I JUST posted with Bob’s name…
  Actually i like it more this way…more authoriative
• panos

  March 18, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  …oh… whatever happened to that little Benjamin-worm from yesterday?
  Did i stepped on him that hard??
  sorry! didnt mean to hurt him…
• Haik

  March 18, 2009 at 3:07 pm

  Correction: BOB BLACK = PANOS “BLACKED OUT” SKOULIDAS
• James Chance

  March 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  I do agree that over photoshopped images can often be pretty bad… but its not like high contrast and vignetting are exclusive to Photoshop. Photogs (or printers at least) have always messed with this since since way back. I still contest that Tom didn’t do as much to this image as many may think. Its more about the original exposure. Its yonks since I was in the darkroom, but I reckon I could get pretty close with the right neg… well back in the day maybe…

  Jim your comment “Heavily Photoshopped images are not photographs” is difficult for me to swallow. Composites are a different matter and I agree with you there. But just because an image has been toned doesn’t disqualify it as a photograph. Again, this has been around as long as photography itself. This all reminds me of the scene in War Photographer, when Nachtwey’s printer is working on those effing massive exhib. prints and Jimbo keeps sending him back and back tweaking tiny details. Always made me chuckle that… But damn it, it has to be right! Right!?

  Harry. Like it! I reckon its a smelly old boy too. Are you from my side of the pond?
• david b

  March 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm

  jim jimeny,

  when i think of heavily photoshopped to the point of destruction i think of over-the-top hdr.. sickly sweet and big on the ‘wow’.. cheap looking and tacky without any subtlty..
  that doesn’t really appeal to me at all, however as james says above – i really don’t see a great deal of post processing beyond whats possible in the darkroom here.

  as with others here – for me bigger is definitely better and perhaps then the photos will be revealed for exactly what they are – great photos.. so good you would think there was a little ‘swirl’ and blur going on post production.

  (please.. young man.. there was no ‘twirl’ was there?.. downloadable set of rainbow filters?:o)

  pea’s n chips.
  david
• gina martin

  March 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  YOUNG TOM – i really like the first image. would also like to know your process.

  PANOS – i am buying a book tomorrow.
• panos

  March 18, 2009 at 7:14 pm

  love u gina for the support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Mike Berube

  March 18, 2009 at 7:16 pm

  David b : I will second that amigo. Nicely said.
• kathleen fonseca

  March 18, 2009 at 7:20 pm

  David:

  i looked at your website, and have looked at it before. Can i detect post-processing? yes. But it has great integrity. Your processing is limited to curves, contrast, maybe color adjustment. The eye buys it. I look at your photos and think, yep, this is what he saw. I can relax and know i´m not being taken for a ride. Same with Garage Sale. Same with Love Hotel, Pieces of Us and others too numerous to mention. Now, there are other photos that my eye doesn´t really buy but i like them anyway. It´s not even that i give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, i just jump the credibility gap and accept the beauty as is. The photos here represent the latter category. i don´t think this is what Young Tom saw with his eyes but it is what he feels in his heart. And they are successful because i feel them in my heart too so i jump the credibility gap and accept them. I don´t have to see them large so that i can stand two inches in front of them and check out the authenticity of that swirl. If i had them large on my wall, i´d stand back and appreciate their magic, same way i appreciate them in a small format here. But my true preference is for photos like yours, more natural. You prefer your drama to come from the content. You do not have the need to amp up the romance.

  ALL

  I think i´m on a bit of a shit list here because of my blunt comments. I just want you all to know that you have all made me feel very welcome and free to express myself and it´s been a very valuable experience blogging here. i always tried to say from the bottom of my heart the wonderful things i saw in your photos and if there was something that kept me from loving your work i said that too. But aside from one photo, i have been pretty much enchanted with everything i have seen here. i think i expressed that as completely as i knew how.

  I have no doubt that if i submitted photos to DAH and if for one second one was good enough to be published that you would tell me the good, the bad and the ugly about my work also. And i would hope, jeez´, that you wouldn´t feel the need to tip-toe around my feelings and mask the bad news under a wrap of flowery praise. I would feel horribly patronized if you did. And if i thought that WOULD happen i would not submit any photos to Burn because i dread hypocracy more than difficult truth. I have learned a great deal in my short time here from all of you and to each and every one i am grateful. But i have also been neglecting my photography big time and that´s kind of counter-productive. So, i am departing Burn for now to invest my energies where they should be so that i can submit photos to Burn and can come back wiser and more accomplished. In fact, i can´t wait to get out there on the street and use some of the style tips i have picked up here, particularly from Panos. It´s going to make a big difference in my shooting i believe, so Panos, i owe you a debt of gratitude.

  Take care for now, Gracie..i´ll miss you when i´m scanning negs late at night. To all, I´ll miss your playfulness and serious dedication to your craft. And i´ll seriously miss DAH´s wisdom..

  be good all..keep shooting..i´ll be back next time with a Lightstalker´s gallery and some photo submissions that i can be proud of. See you then..

  best
  kathleen
• marcin luczkowski

  March 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm

  Panos,

  Fuck, you did it!!
  but why only 48 pages???!!!
  Your work is like river not a stream.
  Ok, next time it will be 448…
  ok??
  ok.

  I will buy your book.
  soon…
• James Chance

  March 18, 2009 at 8:42 pm

  So where the hell is Tom anyway!?…
• Gracie

  March 18, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  most everyone i have truly loved have left BURN for bigger things hopefully to come back recharged and surprising!

  i will miss you kat… hell, night shift will be double the work now for me… isnt that the biggest deal?

  but for now, my blonde curls shall rest and my legs are too weak to run after my mascara that has ran after bob black.
• young tom

  March 18, 2009 at 8:55 pm

  Tom just came in from the cold and a long day of swinging the hammer under rainbows to a nice surprise. That was literal, not poetic. And I consider these more creative cutlines than poetry. I’m actually quite literal. But I do try to stretch. Now settling in before the burn to warm my toes.

  BTW, what’s wrong with the swirl filter anyway? ;-))) No, absolutely I did not. It was a running pan, that’s my shadow on the right. Both of these are from Washington State, one from the wet west side where I see rainbows like this all the time (often double, sometimes triple) in the spring and fall, and the other photo is from the dry high plains east where the thunderstorms race across the prairie. Back soonest.
• Tim Ripley

  March 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  Tom

  Love the sky in the clear cut shot, like,… you coulda taken that one this afternoon!

  Cheers from across the water in Bow-Edison

  Tim
• Jim Powers

  March 18, 2009 at 9:42 pm

  tom, I don’t buy it. In photo two the ground appears motion blurred and the rainbow/clouds sharp.
• Tim Ripley

  March 18, 2009 at 9:50 pm

  You coulda taken that one yesterday!! – the Clear cut pic.

  From across the water on Bow-Edison

  Cheers,

  Tim
• young tom

  March 18, 2009 at 9:51 pm

  The majority of discussion seems to center on the technical, which is unfortunate in a way. So I guess I’ll just set that to rest, or back in motion.

  The first photo was shot at ISO 50, stopped way down and 1/20. I did in fact chase tumbleweeds across the high plains in Eastern Washington State, a place that would be desert if not for the Columbia River, irrigation and Roosevelt, where the tumbleweeds still roll up out of the barren coulees to bounce across tilled fields and the extirpated bones of salmon runs long gone. The photo is not heavily photoshopped and having once made commercial custom bw and color prints, I can say that any of this could have been easily done in the darkroom by a new intern. The shot was underexposed (by at least 2 stops) for the thunderstorm sky in the background and the sun was sliding under the clouds from behind me. I did use a polarizing filter on the lens. I did increase contrast of the raw file, burn in the sky a bit more, and desaturate the photo a little. No filters (blur or otherwise) were used post process. This is a running pan of a tumbleweed and I chased this bugger for hundreds of yards, sometimes sideways, before I got the background I wanted. Then I collapsed in the grass and watched the lightening play across the sky. In fact, I chased this thunderstorm for 40 miles on backcountry gravel roads in my pickup, getting thoroughly lost, running with the wind, sliding on the gravel, blasting Neil Young’s Harvest on the player, discovering some truly wonderful places, and having a great time.

  I hope the cutline, sorry caption, no journal entry, reflects this good day. And that’s all I was doing with this, experimenting, having some fun, lightening up, and essentially creating what amounts to a journal entry. I wasn’t thinking of a book, I was just trying to recreate here what this looks like pasted in a personal album with a handwritten entry.

  As for the second image of the rainbow, the technical is much the same. Underexposed, no filters, and absolutely, positively no composite. But whatever. Really. If the first photo is about freedom and joy, then the second I suppose has more to say. It was taken out the window of my pickup rolling down the road to my oasis. I did stop and take a “perfect” picture or two and they sucked. THIS is what I saw, really saw, on my way home, glancing at the window, suddenly struck by the horror of the juxtaposition. An ugly clearcut of burning slash under the most beautiful light you could imagine, indistinct, surreal, and awful. Yes, we get rainbows and weather and unbelievable lighting like this here all the time, especially in the spring and fall. And we have some of the most beautiful scenery in the world, and some of the most desperate, dark, blasted, sodden, raped land I’ve ever seen too. So if I was to sum up Western Washington state, I guess this would be it. Extremes. Culturally as well.

  Damn, these are the best tamales I have ever had … from our persecuted friends. Stuffing face. Back soonest.
• young tom

  March 18, 2009 at 9:55 pm

  Ah Jim, I like you. I really do. I was you. Jim, at a slow shutter speed objects in the “foreground” move “faster” than objects in the background. Look out the window driving. Get it?
• Jim Powers

  March 18, 2009 at 9:56 pm

  Uh, huh.
• young tom

  March 18, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  Hmmm, it’s very hard to come back from cynical. I was always skeptical, it was my job, but then I got cynical. Not a good thing. Holds you back like nothing else. Sometimes I still slip back in. I dream of dead children and burning bodies and friends drowning. I put things in perfect boxes, cages, neat little compartments, walls, those comfortable walls to hold things in and keep other things out. Order. Perfection. A mirage of reality to retain sanity. I push away or disparage what makes me uncomfortable or what I do not understand. But then, I unclench, and I go chase tumbleweeds for a day. I highly recommend it.
• Haik

  March 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  Young Tom – my admiration for you! I’d love to meet you next time I am in Seattle. You have the wisdom I could learn from :).
• James Chance

  March 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm

  I tried to tell ‘em, Tom… I guess I was at an advantage as I have spent time with your work in the past… and I too underexpose like hell. Hope all is well.
• Sidney Atkins

  March 18, 2009 at 10:47 pm

  Tom.

  I apologize for ever suspecting this might be a book layout!

  You made me hungry, talking about those great tamales…

  While we’re talking about the Columbia Basin, I have to add to what you’ve already said… that if someone drove back and forth across central and eastern Washington on the main through roads like I-90, they would never have a clue as to the unique riches that lie there… one must get onto the back roads and gravel tracks, drive into the coulees, back among the potholes, weave in and out of the scablands… to find places like Trinidad, Moses Coulee, the Leonora Caves, Alta Lake, the Dry Falls, the Potholes, Lower Crab Creek, Soap Lake, the Palouse River canyon, Washtucna, the Bridgeport marshes where the Okanagan runs into the Columbia, the Hanford Reach, and on and on… one of America’s most fascinating and least known landscapes. But the city kids would probably find it boring…