Donald Traxler's Poetry: December 2021

Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Nirvana Shatakam 6 by Adi Shankara

Nirvana Shatakam 5 by Adi Shankara

Nirvana Shatakam 4 by Adi Shankara

Monday, December 27, 2021

Nirvana Shatakam 3 by Adi Shankara

Nirvana Shatakam 2, by Adi Shankara

Nirvana Shatakam 1 by Adi Shankara

Saturday, December 25, 2021

140,000 Visits and Two Rolls of Film

Yesterday we passed the milestone of 140,000 visits to this poetry/writing/photography blog. This is partly (largely) due to pirate activity. My favorite pirate is currently in Japan, where she is perhaps visiting family. This has had a huge impact on the blog statistics, where Japan has risen to the top and the US has sunk to the bottom of the top ten countries. She has worked so hard on stealing my content for her own purposes that I think she should simply be allowed to publish the collection on which she is working. Indeed, I shall allow it in her case, but in no other.

There has been some activity on the photographic front in recent weeks. I acquired, on a trip to a local thrift store, about $500 worth of used Canon 35mm equipment. I know the current values, because I checked them online at KEH Camera (this is a free mention, I am not being reimbursed for it). Naturally, I am going to use this equipment.

Why, you may ask, would I want to shoot film rather than digital? A big reason is the light-response curve of film, as opposed to photocells. Film emulsion responds to light geometrically, as the human eye does. The photocells in digital cameras and cell phones respond only linearly, resulting in flatter images. In digital, black-and-white photography, I compensate by increasing the contrast, typically by about 23%. This helps, but it's still not the same as what the eye would see.

The photo below was shot on film, Ilford FP4 Plus, at its nominal EI of 100. The camera was a Mamiya C33 Professional TLR (which I still have). The 2-1/4"x2-1/4" (6x6cm) negative was scanned on a Canon TS6220 printer, at 600 dpi (a real film scanner would have given me at least three times the resolution of this image, thereby regaining the advantage of medium format):

And here is a digital photo, taken under similar lighting conditions, with compensatory editing:

And here is the same digital photo, without the compensatory editing:

Convinced yet?

If you want shadows that are deep, yet have subtle gradation of tones, without losing your highlights, film is the way to go. You can clean up and edit your negatives digitally in just a few minutes, and print (if you want to) from the digital file. No more laborious hours in the darkroom, seeking the perfect print. In fact, if you have a changing bag and light-tight developing tanks, you don't even need a darkroom.

I might add that handling a well-made, high-end film camera from the days before everything became plastic is truly a sensual experience.

The two rolls of film? They are 400TX, brand new, expiration 5/20/2023, made by Kodak in USA. About $13.95 each (for 36 exposures) at my local camera store, or about $10 per roll in other places.

Friday, December 24, 2021

Riddle / ꭰꮫꮫꮂꮝꭹ

ᎦᏙᎤᏍᏗ ᎠᎢᏒ ᏅᎩ ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂᏗ ᎾᎿ, ᏔᎵ ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂᏗ ᎾᎿ, ᎠᎴ' ᏦᎢ ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂᏗ ᎾᎿ?

ᎦᏬᎯᎵᏴᏛ: ᏴᏫ.

gadousdi aisv nvgi ganvsgenidi nahna, tali ganvsgenidi nahna, ale' tsoi ganvsgenidi nahna?

gawohiliyvdv: yvwi

When Cherokee and Udugi are written in the Roman alphabet, the letter "v" represents the sixth vowel, which sounds like "uh" in English.

The Sequoia Syllabary is only suitable for writing Cherokee and Udugi, because it only contains the phonology (sounds) of those languages. Since Udugi vocabulary is based on Cherokee, it uses the same sounds--it's just a matter of a simpler grammar. I estimate that a Cherokee speaker (they are getting rarer by the day) can figure out 80% of Udugi without previous study.

The riddle above can teach you the meanings of ten Udugi words. I published a complete Udugi dictionary (including a sketch of the grammar) in this blog on May 26, 2020. It is also the pinned post in my profile. You have everything you need to get started in this wonderful, expressive language.

Wednesday, December 22, 2021

If You Can Read This / ꭲᏻꮓ ꮒꭿ ᏸꮅꮖꮞ ꭺꮅᏹ ꭿꭰ

ᎦᏌᏆᎸ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎦᎸᏉᏗ. ᎾᏍᎩ ᎦᏛᎬᎠᏎ ᎣᏪᏅᏒ, ᎾᏍᎩ ᎦᏛᎬᎠᏎ ᏏᏓᏁᎸᎯ, ᎾᏍᎩ ᎦᏛᎬᎠᏎ ᎠᎵᏍᏕᎸᏙᏗ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᏧᎳᎠᎢᏒ ᎦᏌᏆᎸᏁ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᎾᎩᏍᏓᏎ ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗ ᎭᏫᎾ ᏅᏓ ᎥᎿᎢ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᎢᏒ ᎦᏌᏆᎸᏁ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏰᎸᎭ, ᎪᎯᏳᎯ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ ᎣᎬᏌ, ᏏᏴᏫ ᏐᎢ, ᎬᏩᎣ, ᎠᎴ' ᎡᏆ-ᎠᏓᏅᏙ ᏗᏜ. ᎦᏌᏆᎸ ᎭᏫᎾ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏍᎦᏯᏗ ᎠᎴ' ᎠᎨᏯᏗ, ᎠᏎᏃ Ꮭ ᎠᏲᏟᏗ (ᎢᎬᏂᏏᏍᎩ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎠᏲᎦᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᎦᏎᏍᏙᏗᏁ ᎠᎴ' ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎢᏰᎵᏍᏗᏁ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏲᎢ ᎾᏛᏁᎲᎢ ᎦᏌᏆᎸ ᎭᏫᎾ, Ꮎ ᏏᏴᏫ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏅᏍᏗ ᎠᎴ' Ꮭ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎥᎦᎷᏨ.

ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎦᎸᏉᏗ ᏎᏍᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏅᎩ, ᎠᎴ' ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏥᎸᏉᏓᏎ ᏅᎩ ᏫᏚᏳᎪᏛᏗᏁ: ᎧᎸᎬᎢ (ᏗᎧᏃᏗ ᎩᎦᎨ), ᎤᎦᎾᏭ (ᏗᎧᏃᏗ ᎤᏁᎬ), ᏭᏓᎵᎫ (ᏗᎧᏃᏗ ᎬᎾᎨ), ᎠᎴ' ᎤᏴᏢᎢ (ᏗᎧᏃᏗ ᏌᎪᏂᎨ).

ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᏚᏙᎥ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ "ᏃᏈᏏ-ᏧᏂᏴᏫ".

ᎢᏳᏃ ᏂᎯ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎪᎵᏱ ᎯᎠ ᎥᏓᏘᏃᎯᏎᏗᏁ, ᏂᎯ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎠᏂᎩᏍᏗ ᎣᏤᎵ ᎦᏌᏆᎸᏁ.

Monday, December 20, 2021

We Must Keep / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏍᏆᏂᎪᏗ

Sunday, December 19, 2021

Time and Space Are Illusions / ᎢᎪᎯᏓ ᎠᎴ' ᎤᏜᏅᏛ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᎪᏩᏛᏗ

Metamorphosis I / ꭱꮖ ꮷꮎꮝꮧ 1

Saturday, December 18, 2021

Opening to New Frequencies / ᎠᏍᏚᎢᏍᎬ ᎢᏤ ᎢᏳᏓᎴᏦᏗ ᏗᏜ

Ꮭ ᎤᏩᏌ ᎧᏅᏬᏙ ᎢᏧᎸ ᎥᎿᎢ, ᎠᏎᏃ ᎾᏍᏋ ᎧᏅᏬᏙ ᎡᎶᎯ ᎥᎿᎢ.

Not only healing of us, but also healing of the earth.

Friday, December 17, 2021

He Lives on the Border / ᎠᏨᏯᎢ ᎠᎴᏂᏙᎭᏎ ᎠᏟᎶᏛ-ᎬᎪᏛ ᎾᎿ

Thursday, December 16, 2021

He Welcomes the Years / ᎠᏨᏯᎢ ᏥᎷᎦᏎ ᏧᏕᏘᏴᏓ.

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Why Build a Monument / ᎦᏙᏃ ᎠᏁᏍᎬᏗ ᏅᏯᎨᏛᏍᏗᏁ

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Don't Expect Too Much / Ꮭ ᎤᏚᎩ-ᎬᏚ ᎤᏴᏍᏗ ᎤᎪᏗ

Monday, December 13, 2021

The Energy of the Universe / ᏄᎵᏂᎬᎬ ᏂᎦᏛᎣ ᎥᎿᎢ

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Is Film Dead? - II

I am in much better shape for 35mm photography than I am for medium-format. I actually do have a real film scanner for 35mm. What I have is a Wolverine F2D, Version 6.00. When it was made, the latest version of Windows was Windows 7, but it works great with my Windows 10. It's so compact that it would be tempting to think of it as a toy, but believe me, it isn't one. It's very well made, and has a resolution of 1800dpi.

The photo above was scanned this morning, using the Wolverine. The original shot was from October, 1975. It was shot in front of a mirror, using a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm, f1.4 lens. The film was Tri-x, shot at ASA 400 and undoubtedly developed in D-76 at normal strength. If I can get quality this good, even shooting into a mirror, there is absolutely no reason, except for grab shots and convenience, for me to shoot digital.

Here are a few more examples of film negatives scanned to digital:

So, I think you can see in which direction my thoughts are heading. If I have a decent scanner, photo editing software, and a computer, all I need to do analog photography in the 35mm format is film developing chemicals, a rubberized-cloth changing bag, some daylight developing tanks and reels, and a decent 35mm camera. I have to make a trip to my local camera store for the chemicals, but I have the changing bag, and tanks and reels (Paterson System 4, my favorite). Most of this is due to some judicious thrift-store shopping. But wait--I sold my 35mm cameras! Ah, read on!

I was recently in a thrift store (not unusual), and saw two camera bags in the glass case at the counter. Naturally, I asked the nice lady to let me see what was in them. It turned out that there were two Canon 35mm SLRs, an AE-1 Program and an EOS Rebel 2000. The AE-1 was in pristine condition, in an ever-ready ("never-ready") case that was not even scuffed, and included a Canon FD 28mm, f2.8 lens. The AE-1 was one of the first (and best) SLRs to have auto-exposure capability. It was also built like a tank, and they'll never make cameras that way again A true vintage classic.

The other camera, the EOS Rebel 2000, was a little more recent. You immediately notice that it weighs considerably less than the AE-1. It came with a Canon 28-80mm zoom lens. This camera is capable not only of auto-exposure, but also of autofocus. Both cameras have internal programs built in for various picture-taking scenarios.

They wanted $25 for each camera. In other words, what had been about $1000 worth of photo equipment back in the day, was now available to me for $50. Of course, I bought both of them.

I was more interested in the pristine AE-1, more the type of camera I was used to back in the '70s. (I had owned an auto-exposure Chinon that worked with my automatic screw-mount lenses.) The only problem was, I couldn't get the shutter of the AE-1 to work. At first I thought it was jammed, but it turned out that it just needed a fresh battery. Once I put one in (A544), everything worked perfectly.

There were no batteries in the EOS. Once I put in a couple of CR2s, everything worked just fine. The proof, of course, is in the picture-taking.

I am now ready to begin the adventure of getting back into film photography. I'll let you know how it goes.

(to be continued)

Friday, December 10, 2021

Is Film Dead? - I

Back in 1968 or '70, I got my first fully adjustable camera. I was a penniless hippie at the time, so it was a Voightländer folding camera, made in Braunschweig, Germany in the '20s or '30s. I paid $5 for it, including the original leather case. When used correctly, it made glorious, 3-1/2" x 5" negatives, on 116 film, 8 exposures per roll. That film was discontinued a few years later, one of the first to go. Somehow, I acquired an old, horizontal 4x5 enlarger. With that, I made prints up to 16x20 inches, including a gorgeous landscape of the cliffs at Torrey Pines Beach, which I was never able to duplicate with 35mm. All of this was very exciting.

Over the years, I had great luck with some of the larger medium-format cameras, including several 4x5 Speed Graphics and a wooden 5x7 studio camera with a split back and a convertible lens. That split back gave me two 3-1/2" x 5" negatives, so it was like coming full circle. The results were delicate and beautiful.

Over the years, I did plenty of 35mm work, too, but what I loved was medium-format. It's still what I love, although I no longer have a darkroom.

What you see in the photo above is my last darkroom. I had to dismantle it and sell/donate it in 2012, so that we could move to Uruguay.

Aye, there's the rub: the darkroom. Now, at age 79, you couldn't pay me to spend hours in the darkroom, trying to get the perfect print of a single shot. But there was a time when some people did.

Film still has to be developed, but it can be loaded into the can in a changing bag. Light-tight daylight developing tanks take the place of the darkroom, at least for most purposes. The developed negatives are dried and then scanned into digital files on the computer, where they can quickly be edited using modern methods.

So why do this, if you're going to end up with a digital image anyway? There is one very big reason: film and light-sensitive digital-camera cells have very different light-response curves. In film-based analog photography, the light-response curve is geometric, a steep parabola; digital-camera photocells, though, have a linear (straight-line) response to light. Our eyes respond to light geometrically, not linearly. If you think your digital photos look flat, especially in black and white, this is the reason. Many people (including me) jack up the contrast of black-and-white digital photos to compensate. I typically increase the contrast by 23% for this purpose. It helps, but it's still not a true geometric curve of response to the light.

How much does this really matter? For me, the answer depends on the kind of photography you're doing. If you're shooting hard-edged subjects, with lots of contrast, like this:

then it probably doesn't matter much.

But if you're shooting soft-edged subjects, with subtle gradations of shading, for example black-and-white nudes (which is mostly what I shoot),

or if you are going for moody, evocative lighting, then film has the advantage.

I should mention that I don't yet have a true film scanner for medium-format negatives. I scanned these negatives using an ordinary printer-with-scanner (Canon TS6220), which has a maximum resolution of 600 dpi. A real film scanner would give at least 1200 or 2400 dpi. All photos were shot with a Mamiya C33 Professional (which I still have) and 80mm Mamiya-Sekor lens.

Is film dead? I don't think so. Not in my book, anyway.

(to be continued)

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

139,000 Visits, and Things Left Behind

Today we are passing the milestone of 139,000 visits to this blog. I thank you all (in some 100 countries) for your continued interest and loyalty.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about things that have to be left behind when they no longer serve us. This can mean different things to different people: friendships, relationships, habits, beliefs, addictions, or even countries.

I've also been looking through a lot of old photos on my hard disk, some of which I hadn't seen or posted for years. The unabashed photo below is one example. It was taken in March of 2014, which is late summer in Uruguay. Because it was the end of summer, and because I had been doing pool maintenance in the buff for more than a year, you see me with maximum tan.

Uruguay is a great little country, and we liked it very much. Still, after six years there, we had to leave it behind. Legally, we could have stayed there for the rest of our lives (the original plan), but things change. A time came when we (especially Sandy) needed better access to healthcare. In that situation, Uruguay was no longer serving us, and we had to leave it behind.

Of course, we left a lot of other things behind, including friends, of which we had many in the expat community. I, in addition, left behind tools and hundreds of books. I basically only kept what could not be replaced.

What I want to suggest is that such a time may be coming, spiritually and psychically, for many of us. It's worth thinking about.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

We Must Leave Behind / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏅᏍᏗ ᎣᏂᏗᏢ

Saturday, December 4, 2021

If We Do Not Give Mercy / ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᏧᎳ Ꮭ ᎠᏓᏁᏓᏎ ᎠᏓᏙᎵᏍᏗᏁ

Friday, December 3, 2021

I Am Who I Am

In trying to restart my project of a new translation of the Psalms, I have found myself struggling with cultural norms of three thousand years ago. If you want to know exactly what I mean, look at my translation of Psalm 137, which I published in this blog on 10 December 2018. I left the last verse untranslated, in Latin, because it expressed a cruelty (to children) that I could not abide. It turns out that I am not tough enough for the Middle East of 900 BCE. Even in the context of war, such unfathomable cruelty offends me.

I am a seventy-nine-year-old poet who is also a naturist and a feminist. I happen to be able to translate some ancient languages that most people can't, because my education prepared me for a world that no longer exists. As a naturist, body-shame offends me. As a feminist, the subjugation of women offends me. As one who believes in mercy and truth, senseless cruelty offends me.

It has taken me seventy-nine years to become who I am, and I am still trying to live accordingly. I'll not give that up easily. It seems to me that we cannot enshrine and perpetuate the mistakes of the past, if we are to walk peacefully and joyfully into the future.

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

On Translating the Psalms - III

The best text of the Psalms is the Hebrew text underlying the Greek of the Septuagint. Unfortunately, we don't have it. The Septuagint itself contains the oldest Psalter in existence, approximately a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text. St. Jerome's Latin text, based on the Septuagint, is a very felicitous translation, and one that was at the heart of European religion and civilization for more than a thousand years. As a translation of some of the oldest poetry that we have, I don't think it has ever been surpassed. For all of these reasons, it is my starting point for my own translations of the Psalms. But I do not sit on a one-legged stool: I also consult the Greek and the Hebrew.

I translated Psalms 1-34/35 in the period 19 April 2017 - 1 July 2017. Later, I translated a few more, as follows (Masoretic numbering):

Psalm 121 5 Oct. 2018, 23-24 Nov. 2018, 25 Nov. 2018.

Psalm 61 29 Nov. 2018, 30 Nov. and 1 Dec. 2018.

Psalm 100 10 Dec. 2018

Psalm 137 10 Dec. 2018

Psalm 121 (in English and Udugi) 3 Feb. 2019 (also video)

Psalm 117 (in English and Udugi) 10 June 2021.

(Any of these blog entries can be read by clicking the arrows in the list to the right so that they point downward, opening year, month, and day.)

I have, thus, already translated 40 Psalms, out of the total of 150 canonical Psalms.

The work is not easy. I sometimes spend hours deciding on a single word. Typically, I have an array of half a dozen books open around me, to the displeasure of my wife, who accuses me of "spreading out" in our shared office.

I have 110 Psalms to go, and then I have to prepare the whole for publication. I am 79 years old. I may not be able to finish this project without help. If you, or someone you know, would like to collaborate, please let me know, explaining what you would bring to the table. I can be reached via email: exolinguist at gmail dot com. Thanks.