black and white: then to now Rock Bottom, But Not the End of the Descent

Luca, I think you see why the crop, then.

Sometimes cropping is called for; other times not.

What does NOT work for me in the full-frame photo is the leftmost guy's two shoes are both on the same step.

Perhaps he was stopped so I could photograph?

That is something I don't need in any photograph being exposited.

Thanks for the feedback; it reinforces my thinking.

John

Fascinating how much comment, interpretation and arguments a photo can trigger - it really speaks for your talent!

I agree about taking away the guy on the left, he looks static. And b&w somehow makes it a picture rather than just a snapshot. My preferred version is the cropped one without the white shoe. In my opinion, whether you delete part of a picture by cropping or by other means doesn't make a hell of a difference, but I'm not a purist in these matters. The result is what matters!

Just for argument's sake: does it reduce the beauty of a painting by, say, da Vinci, if X-rays reveal that it has been amended several times? Many artists make sketches outdoors and finish them at home, so why not photographers?

Or, in a different art: if a poem is beautiful, does it matter whether it has been handwritten (with overwritings), typed on a Remington (with tipp-ex corrections) or on a PC (with cut and paste)?

In my view, documentary photos capture significant moments for the record and/or for publication. They should not be manipulated or they lose their objective value. Art photos don't have the same requirement.

Your photo is more art than documentary, so why not make a good photo great? It deserves it, and you deserve it!

YEP ~ like it LOTS ~ YEP

I know not complete sentences but I have been busy and it is 12am and off to sleep but I saw it and it was so small and I really liked it. Even the color one was really nice with the contrast.

You are right about the pixel changing on the documentary photo's. You have to change them pixel by pixel and it is an art. I learned how to do that way before I learned how to paint in PS ad how to take pictures. Fixing a photo is much easier to me than painting it.

I don't consider fixing a photo PSing it I consider it enhansing it like sharping a picture. When making a pictures quality acceptable to be printed in newspaper print or copier print you first have to bring up saturation. Many tricks to many quality prints in publishing too. You learn by doing.

I can tell you were sleepy by your post, but the important things came through.

I met a man once in San Francisco, a pro photographer who was photographing the 'world's windiest street' -- Lombard Street, from Coit Tower or the hill on which Coit Tower is located -- the absolute best vantage point for getting a distance view of Lombard Street.

We had a discussion about 'true color' and 'manipulation' etc., and he said these important words to me: No one has any true idea of what another person actually perceives in an image, since we cannot 'see' what they see by getting inside their brain -- only what they report. And as to 'true' colors, etc., the eye constantly is changing as it scans a scene, so the iris is opening and closing and the brain is doing 'color balance'.

No photograph, at least one that is in natural format, can do such things, and so photographs must fail as 'true' depictions of scenes as visualized by the human eye; all that is left is two-dimensional approximations.

So, within those approximations, he said he felt quite comfortable adjusting brightness, tonalities, saturation, etc., as he liked, since as he said 'there is no true depiction of a scene' -- only your and my approximation of it, and mine might be quite different than yours.

It may have been self-justification, but then again, there is more than a grain of truth.

A prominent member, when I first joined, told me that boosting saturation was important for web posting, based on his years of darkroom experience, and he was right, although I don't do that. I do have saturation set for 'highest' in my cameras, though, generally, so is there a lot of difference?

It has long been clear to me you were not another 'bumpkin' who just fell off the back of the turnip truck when it comes to art and fine art, and I pay attention to your words with great care.

John (Crosley)

You will laugh beccause before I print ANYTHING I have to rework anything I have done for the computer posts here. All the stuff I do in paint (like the stuff I have done of my dog in oil) I have to rework and make lighter to print.

All the sunsets in paint I have to also make lighter. But a TRUE picture that is not touched by PS is fine when I print it. It is fine just as it is.

It is funny how that is to me.

I think that in all your years of photography you have already learned how to "saturate" by your skills on the camera so you do not have to do it on the computer.

Again, your skills a far superior than most. ~ why I watch your work and study it! ~ micki

I wish I could take credit for all the tones, etc., in this photo, but for some of it, I have to credit Nikon Matrix Metering -- it's full of algorithms (mathematical formulae) derived from an analysis of lighting/color/saturation, etc., in tens of thousands of photos (I think they just made it even more photos).

I am of the old school with 'match needle metering' which was considered avante-gard, by the old Nikon 'F' Shooters and the Leica and Nikon SP shooters, because my Nikkormat FTn and my Nikon 'F' series cameras all had meters . . . so I am spoiled.

At the same time, I shot with a non metered Leica and my exposures were 'right on'. That little paper insert with the old Kodak film packages, giving exposure instructions, wasn't far from wrong.

With Tri-X, I used to figure 1/1000th at f 11 for bright sunshine and 1/500th at f 8 for shadows and made extrapolations for anything in between. Tri-X was (and remains) a 400 ASA (now ISO) film, although it has recently been reformulated somewhat - -who knows how much really, and how much Kodak just needed a 'product' with the name 'new' on it -- any product.

I think I read they just got out of making digital cameras; what else is there for them to do?

Might as well just shoot themselves in the head. I'd hate to have a Kodak pension or medical plan for retirees right now (and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., only guarantees a small portion of pensions, and it's greatly overextended even now).

So, credit Nikon Matrix Metering, but if I didn't have it to fall back on; I could relearn my in-eye exposure techniques.

I still analyze scenes as I come across them to determine if Nikon Matrix Metering will be adequate or I want to deviate from their scheme -- 17 per cent gray scale is 'neutral' and what they aim to achieve overall for the photo's 'correct' exposure.

Member tiffany araluce whose photos you may NOT have seem, has eschewed matrix metering, I think in favor of her own artistic vision, which results in some rather dark photos, but she chooses them that way (or did), because that is her style.

Now with Matrix Metering, since it aims for an even print, if you want lighter or darker, it pays to go into Nikon's Easy Exposure adjustment and just lighten or darken the exposure (keeping an eye on your review screen for 'blowouts' etc.)

Matrix Metering goes only so far, then 'artistic vision' has to set in. I find it tends to 'blow out' in early evening darkness, when the sun has just gone down. You find a lot of 'blowouts' in scenes it records as 'just on', so I darken those scenes, especially after I see one 'blowout'. A 'blowout' for a digital sensor is as bad as one for a 'transparency' -- there's NO information in it to 'rescue' an otherwise properly framed and taken photo, unlike film which was the reverse. In that way, sensors behave more like 'slide' film of the past, as well as also having a more limited 'dynamic range' -- or range of Exposure Values that a sensor can capture, but one expects that soon will go by the bye, as new sensors are developed and soon we will have HDR (High Dynamic Range) sensors. I hear things about a D3X or something of that ilk (if I got the number right) and I can only wonder what 'wonders' Nikon might pack into such a thing.

In the meantime, ALL web posting requires different saturation than reflective light viewing; that's axiomatic, so it's not just your pickiness. If it looks right in a print, it might be all wrong for a web exposition -- same with contrast -- for the web, often you must boost contrast -- taught to me by ex-darkroom worker Dennis Jones, also a member.

(almost the first thing on this service).

So, don't feel bad, picked on, or inadequate -- it's the web, silly, not you.

'-)

John (Crosley)

a down and out contortionist... good shot John...

And what curious parallels...

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7301102

Lying on stairs is something that drunks and down-and-outers do.

What makes my guy the contortionist is that he also is maximizing his cooling by exposing the major part of his body to the cooler steps on a superhot day, as well at the same time, while mostly passed out, keeping his Styrofoam begging cup exposed to the public so he doesnt miss a kopeck donation.

I'm glad you showed me your work. Your guy looks 'over the hill' and mine is already the same way but he's a little more clever, I think, and industrious 'in his cups', don't you think?

Best to you, and thanks.

John (Crosley)

HA

AND it is one of my favorite pictures of yours

HA HA

Thought you would love to know that.

It has your texture, motion and emotion all in one.

Oh happy day! ~ micki

When you leave your name and comments somewhere, anywhere, you never know who's watching . . . especially the big brother of the Internet nodes which claims it shall 'do no evil'.

I think it knows before you do what you're gonna click on.

In actuality, it has so many resources, and so many ways of checking on Internet traffic, I do not think it just 'spiders' sites such as Photo.net, but it actually runs checks on Internet nodes to measure traffic that is passing through -- and if they are not doing that, I bet that they're working night and day to find a way to ensure that they can in the nearest future.

If the Internet is the largest 'computer' on earth, then is the Department of Defense or Google.com the second largest? Or does Google.com get the aid of incorporating the Internet along with itself, and becoming an aggregate.

At least you picked a good photo to comment on (in my view, and apparently yours). I looked today at a bunch of 'Google.com' choices under my name.and they are pretty crappy -- ones at the top of my list were uniformly pretty awful by comparison to my best stuff. Ah well,there are so many people who have ripped on some of my better stuff for their web sites, if anybody clicks on my name they'll probably see at least some good stuff, even from the copyright thieves. (At least they usually spell my name right, although sometimes they try to copyright my material in their own name . . . . the gall!!!!).

By the way, Micki (not an aside either, but I know you'll read this), your work truly has shown depth, grace and maturity that I knew I could expect from you; you've been both shooting up a storm and stretching yourself, and that's all good. That's why you will grow beyond all reason. Of course, all those years of Photoshopping left you with some clear ideas of how a good photo should look, I am sure.

Best wishes.

John (Crosley)

Always make sure you put names and such on things and make sure you don't say something you will totally regret later on.

Thank you so much for the nice compliment. Did you go on the web page? (mvisionphotgraphy.com)

It seems like I haven't slowed down a bit since January but you are right I look at the stuff I was doing just a year ago and I wonder how I have grown so quickly myself.

It seems like my mind has finally convinced my hands to convince the camera to do what I want it to do. YEAH!

:)~ micki

Scientists including medical doctors who do PET (positron emission tomography) scans on patients who are engaged in certain activities, have found enlargement and hyperactivity in the brains of certain people who are especially good at certain activities.

It seems probable that repetition of certain activities causes the brain not only to 'learn' certain functions, but also to 'enlarge' the area devoted to certain functions -- such as, here, the function of photography.

There is a certain 'art' to manipulating the camera controls and 'knowing' in one's mind from 'experience' what affect those manipulations might or will have on the final outcome, so that one can pre-visualize the outcome and make appropriate adjustments without constant useless experimentation.

Note the use of the word 'useless', for I don't rule out 'experimentation' which is something I engage in constantly. I am constantly shooting after dark and in marginal situations in part because that is when I sometimes am free to photograph, and sometimes when I am 'on a roll' I can 'see' things even when the light wanes or almost disappears. Of course, at those times it's much harder to make good captures or even usable captures, but occasionally one gets a real winner, and when gets a nighttime winnner, sometimes with blurs, they're often something no one else can ever replicate - and they become completely and distinctively 'you'.

I'd like to compare a PET scan of my brain from four and a half years ago, compared to now, when I have a camera in my hand and 'see' a photograph possibility AND also have a familiar camera/lens combination in my hands.

I'll bet the scan would just light up!

I'll bet yours now would also.

Here's to greatly lighted PET scans for the both of us!

John (Crosley)

PET scan and all!

I do know one thing. I can't write by hand still. My brain doesn't let me do it. I try to write words and I get confused. Seems my neurological ability to do so doesn't let me do it very well. I type so fast that I can type fast enough to keep up with my brain but when I write everything is jumbled.

I think when I take pictures if I over think it is the same thing. I just take pictures and don't worry to much about anything except what I am doing. I make sure settings are right and then I go for it.

YEP!

I just feel it like it is an art brush.

Weird isn't it.

That is partly why I like doing things without flash.

I am,however, getting better with flash.

We are a weird bunch! ~ ha!

The Republican View: You're lazy and should pull yourself up by the bootstraps. Inability to read and/or handwrite is a sign that you aren't trying hard enough, but if you fall behind, another person will pull ahead of you and you'll just naturally fall behind. Too bad.

The Libertarian View: Similar to the Republican View, but with the idea that indeed, the State has no place in helping you at all -- it is overburdened with tasks and has no place in your life -- that is the place of either your family or private charity. Hands Off. (Regrettably religionists never seem to take up the slack, and when they do, only help their own, and only for those who accept the view of the religionists, which is not in mainstream Libertarian thinking at all, as they are opposed to such 'control' -- a major failure of Libertarian thinking. Small government means people with debilities get left out in the cold, and if you get left behind, so what?

The Democratic View: You should be given every opportunity to excel within your abilities, even if with a debility, to perform meaningful work within your limitations, to be retrained to perform such work, and not to be ridiculed for having a debility. This is in the interest of the state and in the interest of other citizens, and worthy of the state's fostering for the good of society.

Pardon the political primer: I know you are a military spouse and cannot express political opinions, so please do not respond.

I just thought I'd try to distill some basic politics here, and use your case in point as a fulcrum.

It may be actually that you experience a variety of all responses intermixed on as much as a daily basis, and Lord knows, it is clear you have a helpful and loving spouse, so you may see things a little differently than the single person with a debility and no family at all.

And, of course, as you can clearly articulate and demonstrate by your work, a debility in one area is not a total disability. There are workarounds for many debilities and disabilities for those with average and above-average intelligence (which may lead to generalizations about those with lower funds of knowledge, intelligence and or 'get-up-and-go' which may not be true).

I urge you to read Steinbeck's treatise about labor camps in California written before he wrote 'The Grapes of Wrath'. He writes about them more horrifically and searingly than he ever wrote about them in his Pulitzer Prize winning novel -- he writes about how people with debilities of income and/or disease sink from one level to another until they just give up and often died during the followup to the dust bowl and the great migration west.

There's a link under 'Steinbeck, John' in Wikipedia.org, I think but I don't have it handy. He writes with the skill of a surgeon and a skilled social commentator, as well as an award winning writer with some substantial detachment about the dulling effects of debility and poverty.

(I used to spend a substantial part of my work time helping gain legal benefits (pensions) for those who were disabled, and write with some knowledge.)

You may not be the exception,but having good or excellent medical care and superior family support has certainly been important from what I understand at this end.

And the results speak for themselves.

The beginnings of excellence, no matter what your debility of how you have overcome it.

(and yes, I also have debility, but I never write of it.)

John (Crosley)

Because I had not formed fully the idea.

Look at the woman's feet.

Black shoes, with whitish feet . . . feet more light than dark at least.

Look at his feet.

White bottom shoes with dark tops. 

An inverse, both 'stepping' on the same step, separated by some physical distance, otherwise 'worlds apart'.

Two feet apiece,one pair active and one pair passive.

Wonderful side lighting (in this case from the back).

This was a crop -- the girl was with a boy/man and that was another set of feet/legs not on the same steps and out of sync.  That was NOT the photo.

Although I dislike cropping, I had to rush to take this and this is the photo I would have framed if I had the time to get there instead of just a little farther away when she stepped on that step.

This has been a very well received photo; thank you viewers for stopping by to have a look.

john

John (Crosley)

The bannister (rail) on the right forms a downward diagonal line with a break.

This line downward with its break is repeated or mirrored in this man's posture, I think.

I think that may be one part of this photo's strong appeal with viewers.  (It is one of my highest-viewed photos since Photo.net switched to counting clicked views only, despite its somewhat morose subject matter.)

john

John (Crosley)