'Praying to the Kroger Corn Display at 2 for $1.00'

;~))

 

I knew I was missing something.

 

But yours was the 24th comment.

 

No one could pray for more than that,I think.

 

Especially a pair of comments from you.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

for the contrary viewpoint ....

If you're going to the trouble of posting a comment, don't post with post-it notes. This is a place for permanent postings only as though posting with a nail, not a place for afterthoughts and removals, except in the most life threatening of circumstances (we had one once, not so long ago, but it was my call.) to ask something be removed for protection of a subject.

 

Other than things so serious, please do not make posts here unless you are willing to back them up by keeping them here, making only small edits for spelling and punctuation. I especially dislike breaks in the spontaneity of the flow of these comments when people start rethinking their posts, rewriting them and or removing them or just parts of them. It irks me, and I will start asking anybody who does that not to post here any more.

 

Fair Warning! (for the umpteenth time to anyone concerned.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

He's beseeching the corn why it didn't understand a joke of his directed by him to the canned corn.

 

Perhaps it wasn't 'corny' enough and failed in translation?

 

Ah well, life's short and you gotta try.

 

John (Crosley)

I have just posted a new workup, a NEF (raw) workup, this time 'full frame' to replace the former JPEG version which was slightly cropped. This one has slightly increased contrast, as the other had slightly 'muddy' tones, and better isolates the subject, though it still is somewhat 'busy'.

 

In the old 'AP' days, at their NYC headquarters, the would have had an airbrush artist use 'gray paint' and an airbrush and put a patina of gray paint over much of the background, essentially de-emphasizing it.

 

It is easy for me, having seen thousands of photos altered by airbrushing, to recognize those that have been airbrushed -- at least the more 'gross' airbrush jobs.

 

It is possible to do the same work in Photoshop, but now the wire services and newspapers consider it cause for dismissal to 'change' anything in a capture -- other than certain basics that could be performed in a darkroom, and for good reason.

 

I NEVER allowed any 'artist' to work on any photo of mine, except, as Cartier-Bresson can be seen with his own personal printer - having the man 'touch up' spots where there was dust on the negative, which inevitably grew to much larger white spots on his prints and essentially would have ruined them had they not been 'touched up'. That is a perfectly acceptable use of 'touching up' as far as I'm concerned, and probably the same for the 'healing brush' for digital captures, for exactly the same reason (though newspapers may even ban that nowadays, although how long newspapers other than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal will survive is anybody's guess. The Boston Globe has been for sale, and it's roughly valued at $0 + the value of any real estate, by many, though it is a stalwart, owned by the NY Times.

 

The Internet and 'free access' to almost everything, including 'Craigs List' which takes away the bread and butter classified advertising of newspapers in major metropolitan areas, is predicted to be the death knell of most newspapers. It's just much cheaper to send everything by Internet than by ink and paper, and many are willing to do so for free, or almost for free.

 

Photographers, to satisfy their own vanity, too often are willing to 'give away' their photos, just to see their names in print -- and then wonder why there's no real market for their photographs when they progress to higher, more professional levels.

 

I sold my first photograph (to the New York Times) the day after Bobby Kennedy as assassinated, and it was on page 3 or 5, and received more for that photo then, than the Times pays for a photo from a freelance photographer now, four decades later. Is it any wonder, I remain an amateur.

 

Unless and until there is a demand for my work from galleries and museums, there really is 'no use' to try to break into the ranks of the pro photographers.

 

The only people who make a profit, generally, are the wedding photographers, a few advertising photographers, (very few editorial photographers) some portrait photographers and the very few who are famous, or have unique skills -- versus thousands who would try.

 

I ain't trying.

 

Some day, in the future, as I am able, I may put my work in front of galleries and museums (as I have been advised) and hope for the best.

 

But slugging it out in the trenches as a 'pro photographer' just ain't for me..

 

In 35 years, I've sold one photo, and that was a shot of backed up traffic on a freeeway, which I took to a newspaper, they published rather prominently, promised to pay me for it, and after one year of followups, finally paid me the grand sum of $25.00.. That's not a way to make a living, and I have understood that ever since, and NEVER from that time have walked into (or written) a publisher again, asking them to buy my work -- I did it that one time, and regretted it.

 

From then on, when I saw and photographed newsworthy things and events, I just kept the photos and never presented them to anybody. I filed them away, and have presented some of the better and/or more interesting or artistic ones to PN's (and another site's) members.'

 

For free.

 

If someday I do begin to show them around to galleries and museums, (I still have not made up my mind), it will only be if I have backing -- I have been told they are 'worthy' of great attention, but who knows in this time of great recession.

 

(and that's now that I'm better known, imagine my chances a year or so ago, when I was much less well known . . . . )

 

It's nothing to bet one's money on.

 

I take photos for myself, and maybe to claim a piece of immortality -- at enormous cost to myself -- with never really a practical thought of re-imbursement.

 

It if does come, so much the better. (Tant Meillure, in French.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I comment on a photo believing it to be one thing and then you tell me it is a joke, not what you first said it is, then of course I am going to delete my comment and lower my rating. It is anyone's right to do so. I believe my English in this case is clear to you.

Is this man a devout Muslim?

 

If so, he may have turned toward Mecca (I recall he's pointing generally to the East from California's LA area.

 

Islam requires Muslims bow toward Mecca to pray several times a day, though a traditional prayer 'rug' is required generally, but if the man is sufficiently devout, probably a 'rug' can be dispensed with.

 

This is the singular episode of such behavior I have seen in America outside an airport where Muslims were clearly identified and where often separate areas are set off for their prayer, especially in international airports, especially worldwide.

 

john (ruminating in 2013 on this puzzle)

 

John (Crosley)