black and white: then to now Restaurant Scene (Look Closely at the Background!)

My assistant stopped me in Moscow a year ago, on Russian Christmas in Red Square, after five years of training as an international journalist in university, and we corresponded as she graduated and I actually asked her to meet and work with only having met her personally once, and actually forgot what she really looked like, thinking her somewhat of a frump, having been covered by some sort of furry coat/hood arrangement and not the best of clothes the overnight we sat talking.

 

In fact, she's nicer looking than that in a way no camera can capture, however.

 

When I met her I was unsure whether I liked her; that still remains as she is a complicated person given to moods.

 

She somehow 'grew on me' at times.

 

John (Crosley)

As to the photo, you pointed out something (a juxtaposition -- better, a mirroring) I missed.

 

The young girl (she certainly is young, too, maybe 11 or 12, but very beautiful and acting 'very grownup' if one looks at her amorous adventure here, has on a hat with a bill.

 

If one looks at the poster, background, almost directly above her, it has a face pointing in the opposite direction, of a young woman, also wearing a cap with a bill -- a reverse mirroring, giving this photo yet another, minor and additional dimension.

 

Thanks for causing me to look once again at this photo.

 

And, on relooking at my downloads, I can only say I posted the photo before the photo I intended to post.

 

I actually intended to post the next photo in the series where they were liplocked.

 

There isn't much difference, really.

 

If called to exhibit, I might switch images, but for now, this will stay here, but I doubt anyone would ever know the difference if I switched images one day . . . . as it's a split second in the framing and an inch or less in distance between their lips (just a bit more perfect, in my opinion).

 

Thanks Tammy V.

 

John (Crosley)

This just works on so many levels. Only a candid shot could achieve this - if it were staged it would definitely lack something. I'm listening to the Doors "LA Woman" as I view/type this and the music seems to fit the image perfectly. There's so much going on - I count at least 4 levels in this image. Great work.

'LA Woman' is the right kind of music.

 

And four levels is about right; I count the window poster as one).

 

I bless the blonde girl, foreground, for having looked away, perhaps she was actually looking at them; there's a giant, full-length, tilted-down, wall mirror on the wall to her right that would have given her a great look at them, and I had told her they were about to kiss.

 

In fact, she's gone since yesterday, so I can't ask her presently, but I'm exactly sure that's what she's doing.

 

Make that five levels.

 

Your comment made me think of that.

 

I'll check it out with her, but I'm sure it's right.

 

Thanks ever so much for a most helpful comment.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I missed the window poster. I saw Anya, the kissers, the woman on the far left and the woman at the rear on the right, sitting at the table. I guess if I include the poster, and the interaction between you and Anya (or the scene in general) that'd be 6 levels. Phenomenal.

I returned to this restaurant for a peruzhok (cheery) (cherry pie, old McDonald's style, with the crispy crust, not baked), and saw the arrangement.

 

It is now clear to me that the mirror that is on the wall to the right of the blonde girl, foreground, is fairly high and cannot easily be seen by a seated person unless one raises one's head, but sitting at that particular seat, if one raises one's head (as the blonde girl has done), one can look in the mirror, and see behind one's self, as the blonde girl appears to be doing here. She's out of touch temporarily, but unless I change this thread to add a disclaimer, it is clear she's having a look see to see what the young osculating couple were up to after I told her what was taking my attention.

 

You've got it right -- six levels.

 

Now how about a look at one of my finer photos which really has gone somewhat unsung: a girl, with a leg bent at the knee, leaning on a wall, beneath a poster of a 'football' (soccer) player in a shop window with the girl standing on a sidewalk with her dog and trying to figure that one out. For me, it's equally or more complex than this one, although not on so many 'levels' or 'planes' but strikingly complex and harmonious at the same time. I think it's posted in both black and white and color, so it should be in this same folder. Here a line seems to stretch 'through' the shop window from the football field through the girl's body . . . ' a stunning coincidence.

 

Only if you are in a 'searching' mode.

 

And, on the same lines, how about my image of a laughing guy in Bangkok's Chinatown, beneath an advertisement for a complementary lighted guy, all drawn together by various lines (posted in black and white and color -- black and white being stronger. That is my most viewed image, if one considers black and white and color to be 'one image' for counting purposes, surpassing even 'Balloon man' which is iconic, and the iconic photo of National Guard trooper with fixed Bayonet at Berkley (Univ. of California) with a gas mask on before a very peaceful crowd, essentially losing a public relations battle in an anti-war protest and clash of cultures.

 

Every once in a whole (decades?) I take a good image.

 

Thanks for taking the time to analyze and comment.

 

John (Crosley)

In another thread in which I groused about poor ratings (apparently there a result of silent racism), a commentator noted that maybe I shouldn't really care about rates and care about my photography instead (paraphrased for brevity and clarity).

 

Well, that's exactly what I do.

 

The rates on this very fine photo have been mediocre, yet it has been a major topic of discussion on Photo.net.

 

Because there are minimum ratings limits on posting 'highest commented' photos on the year and PN life highest, it doesn't seem this photo ever will be eligible, despite an otherwise eligible number of comments--a big shame.

 

(not without good reason, however -- Photo.net is, after all, a popular site and deals in popularity and street photography is a nearly forgotten stepchild of photography, often lost among the aesthetically 'pure' or 'beautiful' cliches, that even can be taken with digicams.

 

As could this, with the remarkable digicams of today.

 

I'm very happy just that this photo (highly rated or not) got such recognition, and for those who denigrate my calling attention to the background because they're sure they would have seen it anyway, a little raspberry, (well meaning of course), because I am certain others would not have seen it, and the low ratings would have piled on and some comments would have never made it here.

 

(One gets a certain instinct after having posted enough photos to get over 6,000 ratings.)

 

Ratings here are always taken with respect, be they low or high, and even when grousing, it is seen that many raters are amateurs and a photo like this with six levels is beyond the photographic understanding or comprehension of many new raters as well as even some long-term members (as well as outside their interest, also).

 

And ratings (based on posting two almost identical photos months apart which scored almost equally) do tend to fall into a narrow range generally, so I do respect their overall honesty, especially now that Photo.net has erected various 'traps' to snare the mate-raters, the 'bots' and so on who would hijack the rating system.

 

And as much to the point, I've only rated less than 400 photos, so maybe I'm not doing my part; I only rate when I see a photo I want in my highest-rated gallery, so I may look like an easy rater (I'm not at all -- I'm very picky -- have a look, as I'm proud of my highest-rated gallery. It once was a member's focus along with those of a few other members and it was hot-linked by that prominent member, for a point of pride for me.)

 

Ratings are what they are.

 

This photograph is what it is.

 

They are generally on two different levels, and any 'artistic' truth to the ratings is primarily a function of coincidence (and more experienced artists rating).

 

John (Crosley)

If one draws a line from the top of the blonde girl's head to the woman observer, background, then back along the counter top to the blonde girl's it roughly defines a triangle.

 

It doesn't matter much that the oblique angle of the triangle is not within the frame -- it is implied to the viewer and the viewer's eye (mind) completes the figure, I am supposing.

That is a major part of this composition which confines all three major figures in this little moment's drama captured here.

 

I think not too much importance can be placed on the function of that triangle -- not too well-defined, but there nonetheless -- in holding this composition together.

 

What do you think?

 

John (Crosley)

And I don't mean the wall mirror the blonde girl, foreground, is trying to look into (and she has to crane her head to get a view, accounting for her unusual look).

 

If one looks at the blonde girl's face, foreground, then looks at the upset woman's face background, they are almost mirrors of each other -- a photographic device that I call, appropriately, mirroring (I don't know what the pros call it because (1) I'm not a pro and (2) I don't ever read any books on composition -- they might confuse me.

 

So, this is just another element, or level, making six or seven, in this photo, in addition to the ones already commented on (of course it was 'obvious to the viewer' but not so 'obvious' anyone could articulate it as a photographic device or element or composition.

 

In a way, the blonde girl, foreground, and the protesting and/or upset woman, background, are the head and rear of a series, and the kissing couple break that chain (another way of looking at it) for a break in a 'series'.

 

John (Crosley)