Quirkiness — STREET SILHOUETTES

A while ago, before the pandemic blanketed the world, someone I knew commented on how I seldom, if ever, used pronouns on the blog. Was I just innately politically correct, I was asked. In some way, I guess I am. But, it is not as if I'm trying to be politically correct. If anything, my intent isn’t political correctness. In that case, what is my intent to avoid pronouns? Simply, I find pronouns and possessive adjectives in the third person singular to be inaccurate. For that reason, I avoid pronouns so that what I write addresses my readers more accurately.

So, I am being politically correct because I am trying to be inclusive? Well no. That’s incidental. Actually, I am just trying to address my readers in the most suitable way. If by default I write for the third person singular, using masculine pronouns, my writing wouldn’t be addressing all my readers correctly at the same time. And, that is very important. I want to address all my readers correctly all the time. But at the same time, I don’t want to resort to that kind of verbal acrobatics that is used by those who consider themselves as politically correct.

Proper use of language is important to me. In addition, I want to be as accurate as possible all the time when I address my readers. To reach that objective, I end up resorting to a kind of grammatical acrobatics, in which I phrase my sentences from the third person plural in a grammatically correct way. It isn’t always possible. But, I try my best to phrase my sentences in the most grammatically correct way without the appearance of political correctness as my intent. Fact is, I’ve been doing this even before that use of pronouns was widely accepted.

North West Portland, Oregon - Leica M11 + Leica APO 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH-M

This just happens to be one of the quirks of this dog and pony show. Another quirk of this blog is the format. It has five groups of three paragraphs separated by five groups of six photographs. Each paragraph has roughly five hundred characters. And I have a caption for each photo, even if it is just a placeholder of the location and the camera and lens combination I used. Of course, the question is why the quirks? Well, part of the reason is because it evolved that way. Part of it is because I like the look. But, the big reason is because I am inflexible.

As for the format of the photo groupings, all of the photos are *mostly in chronological order. Also within each of the five groups of six photos, if there is a series of photos taken from the same photo opportunity or general location, that series would not overflow onto the next group. Moreover, of each group of six photos, one photo must be a faceless detailed shot. In addition to that, of the remaining five photos per group of six, the distance of photo capture, the pose of my subject, and the direction of my subject’s face must all be varied - *mostly.

As for the title photo, if the photoset was from a photowalk with a subject, I have to make sure that the pose of the selected photo hasn’t been repeated too much with regards to its neighboring title photos also posted on the root page of its section. And if I happen to like more than thirty photos from any particular photowalk - that is if I cannot decided on just thirty photos plus a title photo - I would add an addendum of one to three photos and a few sentences after the parting words and acknowledgements I tack onto the end of the fifth group.

What of the photos itself? Are there quirks too? Well, obviously there are. What I photograph is not a bonafide representation of the location I selected. I mean, the objects, structures, and greenery are real. However, what isn’t representational of the location is the absence of people in the background. Over the years, I have grown increasingly obsessed with eliminating the presence of passersby photobombing my photo. So, The only way I would ever include background people is if they are compositionally a relevant part of the photo narrative.

Unfortunately, I am only human. And at times, I get photobombed. When it happens to an otherwise perfectly taken photo with that extra one percent I seek, I resort to digital trickery to remove the offending presence. No point in wasting such an almost perfect photo - especially one with my subject’s facial expression and bodily gesture captured at just the right moment. Trust me, I would rather go ‘round perdition’s flame in saving such a photo of promise than select a consolation photo from the same photo opportunity shy of that one percent.

Also worth noting is the way I take photos. I *always take photos with the film or sensor plane perpendicular to the ground when I’m on the same elevation as my subject or line of sight. You see, I detest distortion that isn’t intended in the composition. Hence, if my photos have the telltale signs of distortion from an off angle camera shot, I will certainly resort to some more digital trickery by transforming the vertical and horizontal axis until all the lines on the photo runs parallel to the x or y axis. That said, if the distortion is intended, that’s another story.

I also have certain quirky proclivities with how my subject poses. I insist on symmetry as much as I can. This is especially evident with arm positions. I also try to position my subject’s appendages, as much as possible, on the same focal plane. I also like to shorten my subject’s face in documentation too. If there is enough ambient or external light, the subject’s face is dipped down, in an effort to form the classic sweetheart shape. If there is not enough light or if there is a harsh shadow under the subject’s brow, the subject’s face will be turned up.

With regards to the attitude of my subject’s pose, I normally pursue one of three options. First, is the standard pose, where the weight of my subject’s stance is planted. Second, is the natural pose, where the weight of my subject’s stance is relaxed. Third, is the ingenue pose, where the position of my subject’s stance is noticeably exaggerated in an awkward way. In itself, I don’t think that any of these poses sound quirky. But, when seen as a pattern of my visual bias, it is rather quirky that I am this insistent and inflexible with my type of poses.

As for poses to avoid, I don’t like the standing position in which the the trailing leg (meaning the leg that is not bearing any weight) is directly behind the lead leg (meaning the leg bearing the weight). It looks unbalanced, since the shin of the trailing leg, being on a different focal plane, looks too small relative to the shin of the lead leg. On top of that, I don’t like the standing cross leg position, in which the trailing leg is in front of the lead leg, so that the heel of trailing foot is off the ground. This stance is asymmetrical and looks unbalanced.

Of course there are other poses I photograph, like seated, horizontal, supported, and backward facing poses. However, all those poses still follow the same strict standards of symmetry, stance, and balance. Additionally, there is also the issue of outfit, which is a whole other blog post waiting to be tackled. But suffice to say, I try to arrange for as much variance in outfits between different photowalks - regarding tops, bottoms, footwear, and accessories (like belts and bags) - insofar as color palette, pattern, texture, cut, and silhouette are concerned.

Recently, one of my newest quirk is the addition of a beverage in my composition (which is not shown on this photoset). Part of the reason why I started to include that was out of necessity. But over time, I reasoned that this was part of the photo narrative, since my subject required a jolt of caffeine for our morning photowalk. I’m a morning person, in case you have all forgotten. In addition including a beverage in my composition, I always try to capture at least one photo of my subject having a sip. I might as well, given the addition of the prop.

I know, all this sounds so complicated and unnecessary. And, it is. It is not like you’d find this kind of quirkiness on other blogs. So, why do it? In my opinion, there’s a benefit to it. You see, quirkiness brings structure when it is repeated in practice. As such, quirkiness actually helps one find focus by reducing compositional variables when taking photos - despite how arbitrary it seems. Think about it. Being quirky is essentially creating a set of rules to follow. For this reason, I find great virtue in quirkiness. With it, I know what and how to photograph.

We generally think that being quirky is a holistic behavior, given that quirkiness needs open-mindedness. But when you think about it, being quirky is actually a very reductionist behavior. Kind of makes you think doesn’t it? I’ll just put this thought out there and leave it at that.

Stray passersby have been edited out from the title image. Last, I know my grammar isn’t perfect. Blame it on an education system that never taught grammar as a second language - which is to say - never taught at all in the technical subject-predicate blah-blah-blah sense. I mean, what was the point of teaching native speakers proper grammar when we’ve already picked it up by ear - presumably.

Special thanks to Grace for joining me on this photowalk.

Disclaimer

Jul 13 Quirkiness

Disclaimer

Jul 13 Quirkiness

Jul 18 Muse

Jul 8 New Subject