Ingredients:
2/3 rds Cup Water
3 splashes of Vinegar
1/2 a bag of frozen chopped bell pepper
1/2 a bag of frozen chopped onion
4 Jalapeno Peppers, Chopped
3 Cans Beans, Your Choice [Pinto, Black, Red, White, Kidney] rinsed/drained
2 Large Cans Diced Tomatoes, Drained
3 heaping tsp of Minced Garlic (from a jar or fresh)
2.5lbs of Lean Ground Turkey (93/7)
4 Tablespoons Cup Ground Cumin
4 Tablespoons Chili Powder
6 Tablespoons Brown Sugar
1 Tablespoon Salt
1 Tablespoon Hot Madras Curry Powder
1 Tablespoon Paprika
1 Tablespoon Oregano
1 Tablespoon Black Pepper
3 Bay Leaves

Put a 6qt Dutch oven on medium high-ish heat. Add the water, vinegar, onion, garlic, and bell pepper. Grab your jalapenos and chop one up and taste it. I find jalapenos vary greatly in heat; if it's really hot I only add 1-1.5, medium 2, mild all 4. Add your chopped jalapenos and cover. Meanwhile, take your ground turkey and a wire colander and under cold water rinse a pound at a time. It should turn amorphous but you don't want it to be complete mush, you're just rinsing a good deal of the collagen off. Drain as much of the water off as you can in the colander then put the ground turkey in a large, nonstick, frying pan and brown it. Draining the excess water helps speed the browning process. Add the browned meat to the dutch oven along with one can of diced tomatoes, and two of the cans of beans. Add spices stirring every two table spoons. Add the last can of tomatoes and beans, stir, bring to a light boil, cover and simmer on low heat for an hour (longer if you like). If desired, 1/2 a bag frozen, or 1 can of corn can be added during last 30min. If chili is too thin before serving, mix a couple tablespoons of four or cornstarch with cold water, stir the mixture in the chili and cook until desired thickness. Serve with shedded cheese, sour cream, and tortilla chips.

world's best chili

The nerves came today when I got the bug to print my shot of Edgar Allen Poe's original resting place this coming Wednesday. I started off close, digging through old Holga shots I took when I lived near Baltimore. My hopes were dashed when that pack of photos wasn't in with the rest. In totally I looked through 3 large boxes, my darkroom, my old darkroom closet, and on my camera shelf only to find the necessary packet buried on my desk about 1.5 feet from where I'm typing this.

Before 2003-ish most all photography was film. 2003 saw the introduction of the Digital Rebel, a 6.3mp dSLR that was the first real digital camera an enthusiast could afford and want to use. So when I go negative searching in the pre-2006 tangle I see a lot more everyday shots. Shots of old friends and co-workers I rarely get to see. Weddings I attended, places I vacationed at, and lots and lots of crappy shots of just stuff I took when I was learning photography.

Two things really hit me this time as I sifted through memories and attempts at meaningful photography. The first is that I had no idea "we were just kids" in our 20's. You feel all grown up at the time, but looking back from the second half of 30 I can't help but think "Geebus, you were just a kid." Maybe I'm just getting old.

The second epiphany is how downright shitty of a photographer I used to be. I'm not saying I'm a genius now, but I used to be gawd awful. Heck I had to use a Holga to make even interesting stuff look interesting. A lot of today's search had me scratching my head wonder WTF I was thinking, if I was thinking, when I took that *ROLL*. Whole rolls of mindless drivel, shots of whatever happened to be around me and every once in a while a gem of something I'd actually consider printing today. I started out, probably like most people, a really, really, crappy photographer.

Nested in this second realization was a gratefulness. I am so grateful that my life led me to Michigan. I love shooting urbex and have been more this year than previous this year. It's a real calling for me. Not only do I find the images compelling to look at, but these abandoned, often historical structures are quickly being demolished. Documenting their very existence as well as this period of transition in history feels very important to me.

Because I have a ton of paper slowly aging in my cool dry basement I feel pressed to use it. I try to print at least weekly. I usually try to print for at least 4hrs and generally produce 3-4 copies of 2-3 prints/hr. I think this has somewhat fueled my collecting of vintage pinup and girlie negatives. Basically I always have something to print and I feel the need to print constantly. This in turn creates internal pressure to shoot more, which then makes me wonder if I'll have enough paper.

Art 4 All lives up to its name at the Saginaw Art Museum

I much rather prefer shooting from a seated, seated on the floor, or even laying down position. The low camera angle in a somewhat literal sense puts the woman on a pedestal. It gives her authority, strengthens her role in the image, and makes her "larger than life". I first got this idea from a retro-by-today's-standards video on glamour photography. It was the NYIP's "The Art of Glamour Photography" feat Earl Miller.

In this guide Earl Miller goes over how he shot the image on the box cover from a low angle with a wide lens (24mm lens on a 35mm camera) to exaggerate the length of her legs. This is what got the ball rolling for me. A lot of pinup is from a similar angle. I think the slightly domme-y feel helps offset what could feel some what objectifying. It gives the viewer the sense that the subject is in control of the shoot, the situation, and her own attractiveness.

The camera angle wasn't as low and the lens wasn't as wide, but this shot should give you an idea of how I've incorporated this technique into my style:

Another such paradox is booking shoots. On the one hand I've worked with a few great models recently and local interest in my work is increasing in my town's talent pool. Yay! That is really awesome and I'm looking forward to being rather busy on that front. On the down side I usually attend DEAC shoots. Despite being a rather established photographer with a decent portfolio and some good shoot ideas, booking time slots to work with models has been like pulling teeth with far more rejection than success. I guess I just have to put my nose to the grindstone and keep at it.

Speaking of noses to grid stones and their always being a new hill to climb, a while back I was organizing my work, looked at a *pile* of framed prints and thought I was pretty awesome. That was until I saw this blog post and thought "Damn!!!! I want to be there someday!" Then I started looking through Ed Templeton's blog and though it was so awesome it deserves a link of its own:
http://toymachine.com/ed/

There's some fantastic work there (film work at that!). Lately I've noticed that my admiration of other artists has shifted from "Wow, I wish I made that!" to "Wow, I'd like to accomplish that!"

I often find myself torn between quality and quantity. These days, especially since digital, there seems to be the expectation that photographers should turn out *tons* of work every year. This is harder to accomplish shooting film than in the digital world. Right now my darkroom workflow is geared towards quantity, but after screaming through 500 sheets of Kodak Polycontrast IV 8x10 glossy paper, I still feel like I have accomplished anything awesome. I guess that's what the next 500 sheets are for.

First off, in full disclosure, I'm a Ruin "Pornographer". I love shooting abandoned buildings and do so whenever I get the chance. Lately the term "Ruin Porn" is picking up steam and that bothers me. For a second, I'd like to acknowledge the people who are offended in some sense by this work. I get it, I understand you. I know it must be hard to look at places in varying states of decay where you used to shop, visit an ailing grandparent, had a birthday party, even got married. That's not how *you* want to remember them. But then again you're not the intended audience, you're too close to the issue. To work within the metaphor I'm displeased with: you wouldn't go to a strip club where your sister worked.

Also it's very much worth stating that there is a LOT going on in all of the communities where modern ruins exist. Detroit, Gary, Flint, and to a certain extent Saginaw (we're pretty small potatoes as far as ruins go), all have positive things going on, they're all trying. Modern ruins shouldn't be the sole defining emblem of any community; they're just buildings.

One of the reasons I very much enjoy Urbex photography is precisely because I'm not from here. I grew up in Pennsylvania, in an area in transition between rural and suburban that was and still is growing. Abandoned structures of any kind were extremely rare. A couple of years ago I did some searches for abandoned structures in my home town in preparation for a visit. I found two, one had been torn down and the other was already in the final stages of restoration.

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way lets dig into some of the meat. Why do we still have a problem with porn? Why is it still a negative? A scientific study on the effects of porn had to be scuttled because they couldn't find a control group of men that *didn't* use porn. So right off the bat half the population already "likes" porn. Other's studies point to porn providing a social good. Namely that increased access to porn reduces sexual violence.

Obviously, the term "Ruin Porn" tries to tie the idea of exploitation from porn to the photography of abandoned buildings. This is a false analogy. I think much of the "exploitation" in porn is a hold over from the past. It's one of the few (only?) industries where the women are paid more than double their male counter parts. Not to mention the latest trend of "cam girls" puts ALL the control in the hands of the performer herself. Add in that Wikipediea's exploitation page doesn't mention porn (or Urban Decay photography). Regardless of how much exploitation is in porn if any at all, it's a major mental stretch to tie that to photographing modern ruins. What's being exploited? No people are generally depicted. Is it the community? I've heard it mentioned that it discourages potential employers from locating there. I can't confirm or deny it, but it seems quite a stretch. If a potential employer does their due diligence "ruin porn" won't be what sways their opinion. Conversely Detroit's gaining the reputation of being the city of possibility where you can start anything.

A more subtle part of why I feel the term "Ruin Porn" is pejorative is the generalization that all the talent in porn is in front of the camera and no talent is required on the part of the photographer. This is just as true in porn as in any photography. It's easy to find homemade snapshot porn, but for decades mainstream porn has required some serious talent behind the camera. Arny Freytag has ben known to use more than 20 lights calibrated to 1/3rd of a stop to shoot one Playboy Centerfold with an 8x10 large format camera on slide film! That being said, I've seen people run around an abandoned structure with a point-and-shot just snapping away. I've also seen someone setup a 4x5 view camera on a tripod, precisely measure the light in different areas, adjust the rise, swings, etc, and take a photograph.

Ok, enough about the porn, let's get to the ruins. One of the reasons why Ruin Porn is so popular is because of the ruins being depicted. Most, if not all of the popular images are of large scale, pre-WWII, public or manufacturing spaces. The places Urbex photographers want to shoot are train stations, schools, hospitals, city halls, prisons, churches, theaters. They're not really interested in you're normal, run of the mill, single family house. Pre-WWII buildings tend to have spectacular craftsmanship and materials. It's buildings like these that have a beauty that shines through "nature's wrecking ball", graffiti, and vandalism.

Detroit specifically is special in that it has a LOT of these types of buildings. Detroit had a big boom with the auto industry prior to WWII and because of it's resources, MI had a lot of manufacturing in general. Go to New York City, Baltimore, Orlando, LA, Denver, Chicago, any other US city and you'll be lucky to find a handful of derelict buildings that meet this criteria that Detroit has by the scores. Detroit is the Mecca of the Urbex world. This beauty might be hard for the inhabitants to see. It's like when you live on the beach, ocean/lake sunsets aren't very special. No place in the world has modern ruins of the size, scale, and beauty that Detroit does.

While on the topic of aesthetics, there is something beautiful about way in which the confluence of time, natural forces, and vandals dismantle a building. Marble crumbles revealing the rusting rebar beneath. Holes poke in the ceiling allowing water in that turns books into compost from which saplings spring. Paint peels, metal rusts, floors boards warp, it's a surreal infusion of texture that changes a structure. There is something *worth* photographing there.

Abstractly, modern ruins represent the impermanence of mankind's creations and of our own mortality. Ancient ruins just don't back the same psychological punch that modern ruins do. Modern ruins are more recognizable as something "of us". It's startling to see just how quickly nature's wrecking ball can work. It's not how we like to see ourselves. I think it might hit Americans a little harder because we're a newer country, we believe we're "exceptional" and yet nature reclaims our creations faster than it did many of Europe's. I also heard it said that "American happiness is based on denying death." Which, if that's the case, there's something very countercultural to depicting these structures.

Urbex photography is also a race against time. Eventually, in most cases, time or people pull a building down. Just documenting a magnificent building's existence becomes important to the photographer. Here's a sampling of building's I've had the privilege to shoot that are no longer with us:

Linked to the need to provide a record of these buildings is a need to record this time period for future generation. Make no mistake, for these communities it's been a rough half century. The decline has been slow and wrought with pain. But does that mean we pretend it doesn't exist? Do we ignore it? It's not my intention to profit from pouring salt on a wound, though it may seem so to some. Rather I'm trying, with varying degrees of success to provoke thought about a society that allows this to happen to treasured structures, about entropy, about man's relation to nature, and about a culture so greedy it allows cities to crumble and communities to evaporate (and that knife cuts both ways). I'd like to briefly mention that one of the unseen forces condemning these structures are national, state, and local regulations. Every old building will have lead paint, asbestos, and probably mold. The regulations for restoring these structures lump on huge expenses that favor demo and rebuilding over preservation.

Finally, there's an element of adventure in all this. "Ruin Porn" was born out of Urban Exploration (Urbex for short). Urban exploration is the quasi-illegal activity of seeing what's you should be looking at. It's going in abandoned buildings, factories, and the like just to see what's there. "Ruin Porn" is just a natural extension of that. There is a (manageable) amount of risk. Photographers have been held up for their equipment or arrested for trespass. For a mid-thirties, happily married, father of two it's a welcome change of pace.

In closing, I hope I've provoked some thought about the term "ruin porn" as being sensationalist and misleading because there is historical, aesthetic, artistic, and experiential value in the imagery.

It should have been iconic, a tribute to long over due equality being extended to new generations of soldiers and to all the gay service men and women that so bravely sacrificed for our country. Instead, the image that Brian J. Clark/AP delivered is a classic example of what not to do:

If having a great subject is 95% of the battle, the other 5% was lost here. For starters, it breaks the "rule" of not putting heads in the "Bull's Eye" of the frame. Eyes should be in the top third of the image. Nothing about the framing is good. A lower angel would move that yellow crap away from the subject's heads, while also adding a larger-than-life feel plus getting less pavement and more boat in the image. Also why is this framed in landscape, was it a video frame capture? That makes no sense. The frame is noticeably tilted and limbs are oddly cropped off. All of these "rules" can be broken for effect, but this combination of infractions just makes it seem like an amateur snapshot. This isn't an echo of history, it's a muddled reverberation. My apologies to Brian Clark, maybe this was just an off frame, day, or perhaps conditions were more difficult than they seem or something. But the quality of the image doesn't match the weight of the moment. I somewhat blame technology. It's the best explanation for the sort-of-video framing (video/still camera in one). Using the center AF point and not focusing then recomposing explains the "bull's eye". But more over is the idea that a good camera takes good pictures. It just didn't happen here. I wish the subject matter was better captured. Over half a century later, and having multiple processors assisting, about the only things better now is color rendition and turn around time. It's that a worthwhile tradeoff?