"'Leaving Las Vegas' - Three Viewpoints" (B&W edit.)

'Leaving Las Vegas -- Three Viewpoints, B&W Ed.,' I think says enough

about this 'street' photo. Your ratings and critiques are invited

and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; Please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

This is a desaturation of color photo, previously posted in my single photo, color folder.

 

John (Crosley)

 

This Photo is Copyright 2007, All rights Reserved, John Crosley

I think this is a very good street photo because it has a bit more of a story to tell than most. The slight blur doesn't bother me; if anything, it suggests viewing a scene after having one too many at the bar in an attempt to drown my sorrows after getting taken to the cleaners. The interplay among generations works very well. I imagine: young lovers, oblivious to everything; a middle-aged divorced guy, lazily watching them with a jaded eye; and the older man, who thinks that sleep is a lot better than sex :-). The setting of an airport works very well with these characters, since it leads the viewer to speculate on their destinations, and metaphorically, their futures. I can easily imagine the photo as a view through time, with the young man returning twice more, each time older, though perhaps not wiser, to the same spot. This is a picture that gets better and better the more you study it. Excellent!

 

I just took a look at the color version as well, and actually like that one more, since it shows a bit more separation in the subjects, and since the red/blue/black/white goes very well together. The B&W has a bit more of a gritty feel, which is appropriate for suggesting one aspect of Vegas, but I think on balance, the color wins out.

 

And not just because it's favorable, but because it's thorough and well thought out.

 

I had long wondered whether to post this one in color (as I did previously) or in black and white.

 

Some color photos I have desaturated have jumped in ratings after being posted, and maybe this one will be the exception (or maybe not -- it's too soon to tell).

 

I post two of the same things very seldom -- less than eight times, I think, in 900 photos, so that should tell you what I think about it.

 

I like your use of the photo as a metaphor -- which is precisely what one can with a photo that 'contrasts' various subjects, as this one does. And 'contrasts' of subjects versus others/backgrounds, forms a large part of my better photography. You get a gold star for an excellent critique.

 

And I am enlightened by your analysis of this versus the color version, for which I thank you greatly.

 

I did think, no matter what, that this belongs in my 'Black and White - From Then to Now' folder because of its strong composition, even if the color may (or may not) be better.

 

Thanks for taking the time and for energizing your brain cells on behalf of analyzing this photo (and its color companion).

 

John (Crosley)

The original photo from which this was made had more detail in the 'blacks' area than shows here. If that is a point which is important to you, you may want to download the original color version and look at in Photoshop or other image editing program, then lighten it somewhat. As that is an 'original capture' and has 'original information' in it, it will show much more detail in areas which here are shown as 'clipped' or 'blocked up' in the blacks.

 

The decision to downplay detail in the 'blacks' was an artistic decision -- made so that the 'focus' of the photograph or the emphasis would be on the faces and not be obscured by any examination of the detail, say, in the man's trousers, foreground.

 

And the photo generally is a 'noir' photo -- nighttime in Las Vegas -- 'Sin City' and not a particularly flattering one, so the use of blacks here seemed called for, instead of the original metering, which resulted in a lighter (and less aesthetically appealing) photograph.

 

Just some thoughts for those who are interested in such things.

 

Nikon 'Matrix Metering' is 'swell', but sometimes it must be overridden, even in 'street' photos -- a fact the company itself recognizes by building into their digital cameras a metering override sometimes called 'Easy Exposure' [adjustment], which allows the photographer to lighten or darken exposures, just as one could do with the old match needle cameras in which lightening or darkening a photo there was just looking to see where the needle 'matched' and then moving the needle above or below the 'match' place.

 

There was one camera -- a legendary one of which I two - a Nikon with a particular type of metering which used LEDs (light emitting diodes) to show whether a photo was properly exposed. But like a digital clock, it only showed when the precise exposure was obtained and not how to 'work around' that exposure, so it was cumbersome to take a photo that did not meet Nikon's exposure system (then it was center-weighted, I recall).

 

There are plenty of good reasons for NOT using 'Matrix Metering' in certain circumstances, and they are plenty. Great for many everyday photos, Matrix Metering was NOT made for all photos, and this is one.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(Otherwise quite a Nikon fan, but if you own Canons, they make wonderful cameras too.)

Thank you for your meta-crique, John. As an exercise to improve my own photography, I've been going through the critique forum occasionally and looking for something that catches my eye. If I find something interesting, I spend 15 minutes analyzing it. At the end, I write a little summary. Hopefully the people find it more useful than the usual "nice shot" sorts of remarks.

That's exactly the kind of thing I used to do together with a group put together a while ago to do just that sort of thing, but in that case, the group's primary function was to find 'hidden' images' of value that were unrecognized by raters, then, after a member proposed the photo (without further analysis or any critique other than the member attached to the photo), other members could, at their discretion, swoop in on a photo.

 

The results were pretty good. Some photos jumped in their ratings, and the critiques were some of the most literate on Photo.net.

 

Membership was by invitation only, and so far as I know (since I was a member of the group) it has been disbanded (or else I was barred and didn't know it).

 

It was started by an undisclosed 'grant', I understand, to a prominent member who didn't post for critique, and the membership was officially 'secret' -- the members had little, or next to no -- contact with each other. Just a nomination process by e-mail copying in a URL or other locator, write your own critique and then stand back and see if it interested other members.

 

I can think of no one who was critiqued that way who objected or didn't have understanding of their photo improved by the process -- and of the photographic process and critique process in the same way.

 

You are doing something like that, only with images that are not dependent so much on low ratings and doing that by yourself. Bravo!

 

Such critiques are very much appreciated by members; even if occasionally one will 'growl' at you when you note a deficiency (remember 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' is not uniformly appreciated on Photo.net, but be undeterred.)

 

Even those whose photography is judged harshly generally benefit in the long run, and when I critique rather harshly (but in as friendly a manner as I can), I very often get fans, rather than the expected detractors.

 

It's a strange thing; leaving a critique, even one that is harsh, on the photograph needn't be harsh on the photographer if it suggests ways to improve, (or, just says, well, I tried as a critique to find something meritorious but came up 'craps' but here's the reason . . . .)

 

Acclaim will not be universal for your critiques, but such things are in short supply on Photo.net.

 

I probably have given far more critiques than I have ratings; ratings don't mean much -- unless I find a photo very meritorious and want to have it in my 'highest rated' folder, which at one time was itself quite an attraction -- it even ended up in Google.com under my name, third or fourth in the list of things with my name they rated -- and a Google.com search under my name shows it as first, second, and third. When my 'highest rated' folder showed up in a Google.com search, I understood that it was getting lots and lots of traffic -- it even was recommended in one very prominent member's bio page in place of his own photos (mine was not the only one recommended, of course).

 

Good critiques are the best way, I think, to gain recognition on Photo.net as a member as opposed to just a photographer.

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

I went back and compared this with the color version. I think the b&w conversion is more effective for several reasons. For one, it more poignantly evokes the mood implied in the title. The phrase"Leaving Las Vegas" has many associations including "tapped out'' and worn out, and you've captured many of those nuances by eliminating insignificant detail and focusing on the faces and thus the human drama. In addition, the slight blur combined with the darker tones makes the picture less intrusive and, at the same time, more telling. To top it off, it's one helluva shot.

Stunning work. It seems simple but it's well thought-out and nicely composed. Great title too.

 

Best regards,

Frank

I appreciate your analysis, for it seems that it agrees with the raters, only slightly. The raters seem to favor the B&W version as well as you.

 

Your critique is solidly based in my view -- the grittiness, darkness, emphasis on faces, and lack of intrusive detail all are hallmarks of this version of this photo compared to the color version.

 

I seldom post two versions of the same photo and then only when it's been a tossup or I thought I might 'see' whether I could do better with one or the other -- color or B&W. Usually, I take a color photo that was somewhat or very successful and try a B&W conversion.

 

I've been finding new and increased strength in my B&W folder, and so have viewers, with a great number all along having commented on my B&W captures, but for a long time it was rather small compared to my color captures, in part because I was just not desaturating some color captures that would have made great B&W photos.

 

Now some are just great color photos and color really helps them, and they shouldn't be desaturated just for desaturation's sake, but as remarked long ago, many (not all, but many) of my color works are simply B&W with color. In simpler terms, they have all the design and composition elements of B&W captures, but they have color as well.

 

In addition, I've been desaturating more and more; and my newer motto is 'if color is essential or adds greatly to a photo, keep it in; but if color doesn't do those things, desaturate.' So, I'm desaturating more and more.

 

This can be 'death' to posts on Photo.net, as posters want to see color instead of B&W, but B&W is undergoing a renaissance. What was 'out' is now 'in' in the wider world of 'fine art' in photography, and justifiably so.

 

Color has its merits and some of my best work is color, and it's not going to be desaturated (and some wouldn't make sense desaturated, as the 'story' depends on color), but more and more, I've relearned how to take the 'overall' photo that 'tells a story' of a 'scene' and then post it in B&W.

 

I had to do that as a young man because of a limited choice of lenses and usually just one camera. And that camera usually had a 'normal' 50 mm lens on it, so telephoto captures were out of the question unless I had time to switch lenses, and my telephoto lenses, though sharp enough, were pretty rudimentary affairs.

 

By the way, this is a telephoto capture, and I started the series of which this is one of the last by just taking a photo of the kissing couple from what would be the left of this scene, gradually moving to include the sleeping man, to their left (my right) and finally at the end, including the chauffeur (see his walkie-talkie) in the nearer ground.

 

This is a photo that could evolve because everybody was 'otherwise engaged' and because I was 'standing off with a telephoto' no one was aware I was photographing. The telephoto: a Nikkor f 2.8 70~200 at nearly full extension.

 

I had plenty of time to think the capture though, and I'm glad I did.

 

******

 

A word about raters: I've experienced double posting a few times, or posting 'close relative' photos and it seems that raters usually end up within a few percentage points of their original rates, even months apart on nearly identical photos. For that alone, ratings are not to be sneered at; they come from a place of honesty generally and are a genuine look at how the general masses view a photo. From time to time I'll post a more 'arty' or 'daring' photo which will get terrible ratings and the ratings will be denigrated by lots and lots of critiques decrying the raters sophistication, but those critiques are written by those in a particular audience of those who are drawn to that particular photo or my work in general. The lesson: don't be too quick to decry the rating system -- however many its faults, it works, to a degree (even though I have my complaints which I write about also).

 

******

 

Joseph, your analysis is (again) 'right on' and I'm thankful to you for it.

 

John (Crosley)

I described above, how what appears so simple was not so apparent to this photographer, and how I had to 'move around' these subjects and to include, for the kissing couple, then the sleeping guy, then the chauffeur.

 

I had the luxury of time and being unobtrusive with a telephoto.

 

A word about the caption, mentioned above, -- I would have liked the caption 'Leaving Las Vegas' for the movie but fear the caption is copyrighted, so I had to change it somewhat, and hope my change did it justice. (I enjoyed -- if that is a word that applies to viewing that train wreck of a subject in that movie -- the movie 'Leaving Las Vegas' and didn't want to denigrate that movie in any way or pick a fight with producers if this photo later were to enter the market with its PN caption.

 

I'm glad this photo appealed to you; it seems that the 'saturated sunset' crowd may indeed like their saturated sunsets, but there is a certain element on Photo.net that likes something with a little more meat and a little more 'noir' (black). I'm happy for that, of course. I also can make saturated sunsets, and have one for upload on a light day -- a pretty good one, but no one else is producing photos like this, and this is something I can do well.

 

Frank, thanks for weighing in; I'm glad you did.

 

John (Crosley)

My knowledge of the english language is not the deepest, so I will not go into a detailed critique here. I just want to express my compliments for this as well as for some other pictures in your portfolio.

Here is something I think you will find easy to understand.

 

Thank you very much.

 

I am very much obliged.

 

John (Crosley)

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5537419

 

I didn't comment on it in COLOR.

 

It didn't intrigue me in color.

 

Something about the gold tones threw the kiss off for me.

 

I will say much more about the leg turned so slightly (something my husband says is a BIG BIG BIG turn on when a woman kisses). Hmmmm, oh I said it already) I am on the way out looking for a camera (new one since mine broke).

 

I have only time to tell you that this picture is fantastic with the kiss not ON the lips. The MAN and his arm just on the chair NOT on her back HIS legs planted firmly o the ground and NOT faces hers. AND obviously it being very late at night...

 

Oh so much more I could say.

 

Funny isn't it how a picture put in B&W is so much more appealing to me.

 

~ micki

Funny, isn't it, when a photo 'strikes one' in one mode or another. I found this equally attractive in color and black and white, but quite different. It was six of one/half a dozen of another to me, and I re-posted it in B&W to find out how it struck raters/viewers.

 

The 'gold' color was a result of working from a non-color-corrected JPEG and I might have had a NEF (raw) version to color correct from, but didn't then have available software, plus I liked the effect of the goldness/yellowness/redness of the other photo.

 

I suppose you're talking about the woman's leg turned in 'ever so slightly' and by that I mean her left leg (as she views it -- on our right side).

 

I didn't know it was a turn-on to have a leg turned 'just so' but some people are turned on by high heels, big breasts/small breasts, tall/short women, lingerie, and so on. Some things just are 'turn -ons' for some people.

 

(For me, I like 'strappy sandal high heels, which currently are the rage here -- don't ask me why . . . but I just do. I didn't so much ever like high heeled pumps; but nothing substitutes for the woman in the shoes (I'm no shoe fetishist).

 

And I like it when the woman is turned toward me, and it hardly matters what way her leg is turned just so long as she's as aggressive as this woman (I like my lovers to be aggressive -- if I like them a lot . . . . but if not, then it's a sure turnoff.)

 

Much can be read into this guy's posture . . . he's tired, he's 'receptive' . . . he's 'excited' and he needs 'breathing room' for his maleness to avoid getting 'cramped' in his male quarters, and he is somehow (as Tom Wolfe coined the term) a 'Captain of the Universe'.

 

Perhaps he's won at gambling, or even lost, but he's got it made, and he knows it. He's kicked back and he's getting rewarded for whatever has happened to him/her/them and or whatever has happened in Las Vegas. Perhaps they never left their room or got married (and never left their room).

 

(I took this photo shortly after a brief talk at the airport counter with a famous Hollywood female star --name noted in comments on the other posting -- and many wound have been tempted to ask her for her photo or just take it.

 

(Instead, I offered her advice on how to catch an earlier plane, even though the plane had officially 'taken off' since it was stuck for hours on the ground . . . which the airline clerk she was directing her question to would not give her a common sense answer to her (company policy).

 

(She was polite, intelligent, insistent, and not throwing her weight around. (I was turned off once when I saw Carole Burnett in a United Airlines Red Carpet Club and overheard her say to her bodyguards, entourage, 'it's as if they hadn't heard who CAROLE BURNETT was!!!!' as though that were some sort of insult and also an impossibility . . . after all who doesn't know who that comedy queen is . . . and how 'important' she is at least 'in her own mind'.

 

(The same happened one time in the Russian Consulate in San Francisco with Faye Dunaway, who was quick to point out how awful it was that she, FAYE DUNAWAY, had to wait in line with the rest of the plebes and be subject to 'rules' from the Russians as though she were not some sort of Hollywood royalty.

 

(But this particular female Hollywood star I spoke briefly to, who once starred as a girl playing a boy, and a female boxer, was cool about the whole thing, and it impressed me. And you may recall from earlier comments, I once lived a short distance from Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, and they frequently were sighted on the beach.

 

(All I had to do was walk the beach with my cameras to celebrity spot, and take intrusive photos of them with their 'adoptive' kid(s). I never did, of course.

 

I make stars of everyday people, rather then take photos of stars.

 

(That's my philosophy regarding stars in so many words.)

 

This photo is a good example.

 

In time, these people, with luck, may be as well remembered as Carole Burnett or Faye Dunaway (very much luck on my part, of course, but I'm hopeful.)

 

Same with my 'Balloon Man' who I hope will be my 'icon' or my porn man beneath the lesbian lovers on high definition television at the porn convention in Las Vegas this January. The dour porn guy is the star of that photo, and nobody I know knows who he is.

 

I did take a few photos of Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy and some more attractive people, but didn't post them, and frankly couldn't have cared less about those photos. I wanted to make my own photos, not trade on someone else's name/likeness. (however, contrariwise, I do take advantage of public posters/murals . . . so there you go).

 

Well, of course, that's a little beside the point.

 

The point is that you have seen more in this photo than I, once again.

 

And I've been looking at it since January. The turn of her leg. The kiss NOT on the lips (when I kiss, I kiss everywhere, both softly and hard, all depending . . . . but this isn't about me or my turn ons -- or my lover's -- if indeed I have one -- but I am heterosexual, in case that was ever in question -- which given my photos I doubt.)

 

I also like that she's embracing him/her hand is behind his neck holding his neck in place and pulling him to her. Her legs are twisted with a foot twisted around a leg, indicating she's really torqued up (twisted up) for power in her aggressiveness -- she REALLY likes him and she's really unleashed her sexuality on this guy, and he REALLY likes it, but judging from his 'stance' (to misuse a term), he's already tasted of the fruit, and he's enjoying his power and masculinity -- he's not anxious for anything, but enjoying seconds or thirds or . . . you get the point.

 

(That's what I see in his 'attitude')

 

You see, I can see things in photos too, but I can hardly hold a candle to you; and did you say you could neither confirm nor deny that you are or have been a CIA photo analyst?

 

I'd hire you if I were running the Company, any day.

 

I always enjoy the pleasure of trading words, stories and ideas with you, my cyberfriend.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(what kind of camera broke, a SLR or a point and shoot? There are some wonderful cameras on the market now for increasingly (is that a correct term?) small prices, and the main thing may be the choice of available lenses, or the type of vibration reduction system you wish -- in the camera body or in the lens.)

 

JC

I have to say I remember sitting in a similar seat waiting to leave Vegas.

I must have been the guy passed out in the back. Shows what Vegas can do to/for you.

 

Really great photo. Love B/W.

 

Joe

You don't really mean that you actually ARE the guy sleeping in the rear, probably saving on a hotel room to catch that very early flight (why pay -- then $300 a night -- for a few hours of sleep), Now you can get the same room for $50 or $70 through a 'service' with the same amenities, since Las Vegas is hurting and has lots of rooms as low as $30.00.

 

In the sense you mean, I think we ALL have been the guy in the back, sleeping and waiting for morning while some lucky couple next to us was almost coupling (that's why they call them 'couples').

 

Good choice of photos to comment on; a favorite of mine.

 

I had just talked to a world famous Hollywood actress (and not taken her photo), at a United Airlines Ticket Counter, I am sure to her surprise, since I had two cameras with huge lenses, and instead gave her advice the ticket agent wouldn't that saved her hours and from being stranded on her plane from Vegas to LAX.

 

I won't name her.

 

I don't need to trade on celebrity or drop names.

 

Then I went and immortalized these four.

 

I'm kind of like that.

 

A little perverse in what I do.

 

And proud of it.

 

John (Crosley)

Actually when I was sitting in the airport I watched on in disbelief as someone won $250,000 jackpot on a row of slot machiens in the middle of the waiting area.....I think he missed his flight...

 

I love photos like this that say so many things. We've all been in one of these positions as you say.

 

I continue to look through your photos in awe.

 

Sincerely,

 

Joe

Bless You,

 

Those are only your fellow men you are looking at (and women and children) caught being themselves).

 

You are just admiring humanity.

 

That's what I take photos of mainly.

 

John (Crosley)

I see you two have met.

 

Joe beeing a very good friend, one of my first advice when asked for help in his first steps in photography was to study your work. I'm glad to see this little advice was a good one.

 

And I'm especially glad for the fact that for some strange reason, I missed this photo until today eventhough I'm browsing your portfolio almost daily.

 

Take care

 

laurent

See me smile with proudness.

 

No sin in my book -- pride.

 

With my very, very best wishes and thank you for the kind referral.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)