'Caution, Hormones at Work!'

Hormones appear to rage as this aggressive young man appears to be

warmly greeted by his young female companion in Kyiv's Central Square

recently. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically or just wish to make an

observation, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

I wonder how you got that near? Something around 200mm?

In these situations lovers do not pay much attention on what is happening around, fortunately.

I have noticed one thing: digital photos are much more contrasted than the "ancient" film photos (to which I stick to).

Or did you increase contrast?

Be it the digital medium or digital post-manipulation, I think I would like this one a little bit less contrasted.

All in all I would include this one in your possible "John Crosley Street Photography Anthology".

Luca

A great street shot. Perhaps with a progressive blurring of the background to add a more limited depth of field to further isolate the couple from the rest of the group.

Luca,

Thanks for the very charming accolade.

I had some very good reception for previous photos of couples kissing (petzaloy in Russian) taken here and nearby.

Small flats (apartments) and a culture which encourages marriage at an early age, no age limit on early drinking, extremely attractive youth, unlimited abortions (inherited from the Soviet system) and the need of the Soviets to rebuild its population stocks (especially of males) after World War II (The Great Patriotic War), I think all have contributed to a loss in what was formerly seen as Sexless Communism, in which Victorianism was practised.

Even under Communism, rules we thought were originally in Hollywood, were also kept in the Soviet Union, such as when a couple were together, they didn't sleep in the same bed, or if they did, someone always had a foot on the floor lest we think they actually were having 'sex'. Horrors!!!!

But the loss of soldiers in World War II, and increasing licentiousness after the death of Stalin, advent of 'Rock 'n Roll culture' even to the Communist East (remember Ukraine was a stalwart Soviet State), contributed to a general increase in licentiousness, and public displays of affection became more commonplace, and more so since the fall of Communism, or so I understand (maybe not - maybe they are no more public now then 18 or so years ago, but I did not start coming East until about 1996-1998 so my first observations were then, and the women were surprisingly 'approachable' or more precisely 'the first to approach' and even 'forward' which I was happy to experience, being a little (or more than a little) shy about such things, then.

And the people are very attractive, too. They would never settle for bad looks, when their potential lover not only may have good brains, good everything else and stunning good looks (both male and female) as the Ukrainians are a very handsome people, like their cousins the Russians next door.

It's also a very homogeneous culture, so finding one's soul mate is not the same problem as in the US where sometimes one must wade through an ethnic quagmire to find someone from a culture of ancestry that may be compatible, or whose family may 'accept' you, as that is not such an an issue with Ukrainians (though the subject of 'money' may be more important).

The average Ukrainian woman, in my experience is less impressed by money (though to many it is very important), than whether there is 'love' or at least substantial physical attraction, than women in some other cultures.

And, they are more apt as they mature to try to 'look into a man's soul' to see if he has fidelity there, as many men are not faithful to their women, I think in part because with so many attractive young women and fewer available and desirable young men, the men have a choice and an opportunity to cheat, and often avail themselves at opportunities when perhaps they should not. A faithful man in Ukraine very often is very highly valued by his woman just for that quality.

Ukrainians also are pretty highly sexually active, as are next door neighbors, the Russians (as well as Americans and French), with not so many hangups as Americans . . . . .

(Regrettably, they also are not so apt to use condoms, which is why Elton John chose this VERY SPOT here to hold an anti-AIDS concert -- yes, this VERY SPOT where they are kissing, or within 20 or 30 yards).

This was an extremely wide angle shot, being no more than 18 mm on a APS-C sensor and perhaps less (I'll have to look at the EXIF into to see and also which lens I was using, but it was an APS-C sensor).

Thanks for the kind words about the anthology -- I hold that to my heart.

I currently am choosing that anthology to present to museums and galleries -- the TOP 40 of all time - and would be happy to take lists (with copied URLS for help rather than just captions -- titles) from any member who wants to go to the trouble and be heard. That means ANY MEMBER, and especially a member such as you, Luca, as your good judgment is well known to me.

My best wishes and thanks.

(more about the approach in subsequent answers).

john

John (Crosley)

It seems that somewhere along the way, I have developed a sub, sub, sub-specialty of kissing couples - they seem to do very well and seem to create good interest here on Photo.net.

I have taken heart from other photographers from other times who had multiple interests, including one combat photographer who became an erotic photographer, another photographer of things more masculine and worldly who also was very skilled at taking photographs of children for their parents, Elliott Erwitt who was a great street photographer and more than once head of the Magnum Agency, who took (among other things) world class photos of dogs, his own sub specialty, at which he excelled.

Maybe just one of mine will be 'the kiss' -- and frankly whenever I see a kissing couple, and it's a good kiss, I like to photograph it with an eye toward sharing the bliss I know the couple is sharing, not to intrude on them (they're always in public at the time) but just to 'share' and to cause mostly positive memories to stir in the viewers.

I value highly when you leave a comment as well as a rate, for then I know I've touched you personally.

Thanks, Ruud.

john

John (Crosley)

'Those were the days . . . . ?'

You need to get out there and indulge.

Turn to your partner, put down your cameras, both of you, (or recruit others to take photos), and have a few smooches. Really good ones, too, that cause you to perspire and forget who's around you except the other one . . . .and to not care if you're being

I do from time to time.

It can be VERY refreshing.

I'm an old guy, somewhat older than you, and I can assure you that nothing stirs the heart more.

I don't have to look into my memories either to 'imagine' or 'remember' what it as like.

For a capture like this I may have only to think of the day before, the night before or sometimes the same morning.

(or occasionally months before, when I've been 'out of touch' with a loved one, but then, I'm the rarest of guys when I'm in Ukraine - faithful . . . and therefore, valued).

(or at least I think so . . . and by all appearances it seems to be true).

My best to you, Vladimir.

(Hope i do not cause family discord - I was married for 17 years to a woman for whom such a smooch would have been scoffed at as 'unseemly' . . . . so I have a special appreciation for such things . . . . like a 'reformed smoker' or a shoplifter who now refuses to shoplift -- I've changed my ways.

john

John (Crosley)

Your comment and the comment of Luca A. Remotti, above, seem to fit together in a way.

In your comment, you suggest 'progressive blurring' such as would occur if this were a photo taken with limited depth of field.

But this photo was taken with a wide angle lens at or near its widest angle . . . so by nature since it was so wide, there was almost unlimited depth of field, and since (although it is very overcast), it is near midday and very bright, the aperture also was stopped down, adding to the depth of field.

I am not a great manipulator of photos. I enjoy it when others do it to theirs, and all the best of luck to them; but when people look at my photos because of my oft-repeated statements and expressions of (1) my limited photoshop abilities (increasing now) and (2) my own feelings about 'manipulations (I'll go take a second or third or 50,000th shot, if this one is not pleasing rather than spend my time at home using Photoshop, as manipulating my own photos suggest I have a 'dearth of material' which is polar opposite to the truth).

So, for those very two reasons which are quite completely true, I seldom indulge in any but the most bare photoshopping.

I am at odds with Luca, above, who feels that film gives 'less contrast', especially these days, as some of my most contrasty work from early days was printed on more contrasty paper and is not possible to match with digital work, in part because there is a winder range of Exposure Values with film than with Digital . . . . even accounting for 'raw' captures, if one takes into account that one can vary the developing times, the chemicals used, and later even use chemical cocktails like Farmers' Reducer to thin overly thick negatives . . . . . as the information is there, even if not stored in a completely accessible manner . . . .

whereas with digital, if the brightness information is missing, it's gone for good. 'Once blown, it's blown for good', (like with color transparency film, which had a much more limited range of Exposure Values and had to be nailed 'right on' as one could not manipulate a transparency once developed . . . . )

I think Luca is just wrong, but Henri Cartier-Bresson's statement that he was 'king of grays' would tend to back Luca up . . . as he did not care so much about contrast as he did about content, composition, and form.

I do care about contrast, and the 'contrast' on this was bumped up, as the strong diagonal of the couple, I think, adds to its shape, and I would do that again.

For anyone who thinks that's unnatural, I remind that any 'camera raw' or even JPEG capture from pixels is just an 'interpretation of digital information and nothing will match what the eye saw, and much less anything in Black and White for us non color-blind beings (dogs may be an exception, as they see only black and white, we are told, so I cannot speak for the dogs among us).

I like it as it is, and am proud of its rendition.

As to Luca's suggesting it was shot at 200 mm, he could not be more wrong, more like 20 mm on an APS-C sensor or less, because I was sitting right next to the couple and had to lean over AWAY from them to take this capture. Not once but maybe several times.

Each time, recovering, chimping my shot (reviewing) then reframing and recapturing until I got it right (if memory serves me).

(maybe it was just one capture -- it's been a while since I reviewed).

I think the slightly enhanced contrast also brings out the textures in the stone, the walk, and the fabrics, especially her combination plaid/check coat.

Also, not the horizon is tilted, giving it more spontaneity, but it seems inconsequential/ her hair still hangs to the back telling us that mostly the recline is with the couple and not with me rotating my camera, though I did so slightly to create the bisecting diagonal to enhance the composition.

There you have it, here and above, soup to nuts, so far as I can recall.

I'm sure there's more.

If I had taken this with a 200 mm, the blurring you add, would be there naturally, and because |I didn't, it isn't there at all. I won't add it because for me it isn't natural and I don't 'manipulate that much' but I do admire your treatment, and if I had seen your workup, I might have chosen it over mine.

My best and thanks for the large amount of work you went to to show me this.

John (Crosley)

I misread your comment about 200 mm and thought you suggested I was using a 200 mm lens, which I considered absurd, but wanted to respond to tactfully.

You meant, I now understand, that I was probably 200 mm from this couple and probably you were joking, but you actually were just about correct to the mm.

This couple was so close to me they almost were touching me.

I had noticed they were 'otherwise engaged' when I sat down, but not so passionately. They did, however, show signs of beginning to do some serious smooching, and by sitting there, doing nothing but focusing with one camera (with my telephoto lens) on a far-off wall with people on it) they failed to notice my other camera with my wide angle lens on it.

So, when the serious smooching began, and the young man became very aggressive (get a room, for God's sake, one might think), I simply rotated where I was sitting, moved my slightly overly generous rear end away a little bit, rotated my large body AWAY from them to put distance between them and me, then snapped this, and in an instant, then put down camera with wide angle lens, picked up other camera, pointed it to distant wall, and resumed my old mannerisms, and continued that way, for several more times, until I was sure I got the shot.

I do such things.

I take the shot, feign ignorance of my subject, and in fact, look right past them or let them walk by me as I keep staring into the distance, unaware they have had their photo taken, may 6 or 8 times on 'C' (continuous servo) drive, and just fixate on the distance. Generally, if suspicious, they have no real clue they've been photographed as opposed just to having a lens pointed at them for a moment, then moved away, (if they've even seen it pointed at them -- with a longer lens at a distance that's a hard call to make and up close it often appears like I'm shooting something very far away with a 200 mm zoom telephoto when I'm counting their eyelashes and the jagged edges of their chipped teeth as they smile (or frown).

It's little different than basketball or other sports, where the feint is part of the game; just watch a 'point guard' in basketball execute a 'pick' maneuver, watch his pursuer run into a stationary player whom the player with the ball runs past, then watch the player who has just been run into throws up his arms in seeming distress ('See, referee, this guy has fowled me'), as he falls back, often writhing and with a scolding look -- all practiced by almost every basketball player I've ever seen . . . . the science of the basketball 'feint' while 'drawing the foul' or hoping to.

I do something similar in photography, but in my case, in the confusion, I hope to obscure what it is I'm doing, at least until I get the capture, and then, if the coast is clear otherwise, and the capture is good and I have the time (time is important) and also if I speak the language, I might show a passerby subject his/her capture - (it all depends on the stars, the moon, the earth and the sun's alignment as well as my mood, the crowd's density, and other variables).

Every day, almost every different photo, sometimes multiple times for the same subject brings forth the grab bag of feints and street 'moves' which will vary, or it may simply be quite straightforward, depending on how concealed (or not) I need to be to get that shot.

Once I get 'that shot' concealment (unless it's for safety's sake or for the security of the 'next shot') is less important . . . . as I'm not really so shy about my work as I am personally . . . and now that my work has improved to a great extent, the two seem to be merging.

Happily so.

Now, I don't have to explain myself to anybody.

If anybody asks 'who are you?' I don't have to go into a song and dance.

I just (if I want) say' here' s my name, put it in google.com, hit 'enter' and you'll see photos and text, but leave lots of time if you are serious about the answer.

I didn't have that luxury most of my life.

Sometimes I'll see someone weeks or months later as I pass through a town, city, street, neighborhood, supermarket, restaurant, or even airport and their not so familiar face will stop me and say 'remember me'.

I'll stumble and probably truthfully say 'probably not, but give me a hint' and often that person will proceed to name certain (particular) photos that interested them from my portfolio.

They're quite often quite different ones, which keeps me committed to posting from different genres, despite some criticism about having such a huge and diverse portfolio.

Some people like one sort of photo.

Others like another.

Sometimes I'm astonished by what they like.

But here they get no beach sunsets, generally.

Saturated or over saturated.

Very few cliches.

Keeps it interesting, not least of all for me.

I hope for you too.

Tonight it was snow covered autos and a Greek Orthodox church framed by a foot and a half of fresh fallen snow under street lights with a snow-covered very old auto in the foreground that obviously had not been driven since whenever the snow started falling (weeks ago).

And a woman running by (at a tilted angle, from the hip on 'C drive) in a huge hypermarche, that would make Costco or Wal-Mart seem like the corner store because of its huge size (and crowded with thousands of people).

John (Crosley)

I actually thought you were shooting from a distance. Even if the high point of view should have suggested differently to me.

I did not notice wide-angle distortion.

Still, I believe it's a bit too contrasted ...

PS: I hope you don't feel flattered, because I don't flatter. Even if you reject most of my "negative" critiques! :-)

The word flattery is a tricky word, but it's really rather easy to use, even if you sound a bit confused in your posting.

When someone of stature (such as yourself -- and I do believe you have some stature as a critic here), writes something praiseworthy about a photo, that (for me) automatically flatters me.

It does not matter whether or not you 'intended' to flatter me, and it probably is a lot better that you didn't, because if you had some agenda to 'curry favor' with me, then whatever you write is suspect, and I am sure you know that and is the prime mover behind what you wrote.

It is not false or insincere to write flattering things, and one should not deny that what one writes can sometimes be flattering -- I do that all the time, and without a trace of insincerity, as lies and falseness are too hard to keep track of and lead to others viewing one as 'two-faced' -- a view I don't want others to have of me, especially on this site where I have gone to lengths to protect my image as being fair and pretty darn impartial - or at least on the side of truth and fairness.

To falsely deny that one has flattered someone when writing praise, is a form of self delusion, if one actually believes it, but I think that is not what you meant. Of course, as a photographer who you know respects your opinion highly, I am flattered by your praise above. Nor should you somehow feel embarrassed by it, as I am sure you wrote only the truth and not for any unpraiseworthy reason - only to tell me the God's Honest Truth, and no more or less, and certainly not to cause me to rate your photos highly or do anything else in your favor, as I don't really rate anybody's photos (except ever so occasionally with fewer than 400 photos rated total now in over five years on the site. You could hardly be seeking a rate or a 'high rate' from me, based on those statistics.

So, with little to gain, and no incentive to flatter to me, I can only expect (as I believe others do as well) that you will (as they most often do) write the truth as you see it (one reason I don't rate).

I see it as flattering, and possibly you should too, though unintentionally so, just a byproduct of honesty, and that is nothing dishonerable at all, and really rather praiseworthy in and of itself.

As to contrast in the above photo, it's posted elsewhere with contrast not boosted, but I have decided I like black and white more contrasty, despite Henri Cartier-Bresson's predelictions (king of grays), and your own opinion. I think my film work from early on still is usually more contrasty, though it may have been printed (only work that is printed) by one printer who favored contrasty black and white -- and it all was printed at once by one rather well known exhibition quality photofinisher in Seattle which is still in business and I think doing well (and charging still very high rates).

(they should wash their prints better as mine are starting to discolor somewhat, even in storage.)

And, as noted above, I think the strong black diagonal emphasises the diagonal in this photo. A bisecting diagonal splits the photo's rectangle into two iscosceles triangles, -- both very dynamic figures . . . so the change from more passive to 'active' in the photo's geometries is well emphasized by the emphasis on black (chernoye) in the photo, as I view it.

Reasonble minds may differ; that's why they make chocolate and vanilla (and sometimes strawberry) (in ice cream). (In your counry they probably make pistachio, cherry and a dozen other flavors as well, but you get the point,I'm sure.

Best to you, you unknowing flatterer, you.

John (Crosley)

I realize my wrong perception of the actual meaning of "flattering". Native speech is different than "acquired" speech.

I realise that sometimes my posts may have a funny flavour!

Cheers,

L.

Good title! Similar stories can be seen on the Maydan frequently! :-)

Svetlana

You are exactly correct, but this is the epitome . . . (meaning this is the most extreme I have seen, because of his aggressiveness and their posture,with their leaning over so far backward).

For those who do not know, the Maydan, is the country's name (Ukraine name) for what is also known worldwide as 'Independence Square' site of the 'Orange Revolution' and the gathering place for all of Ukraine . . . . . a park-like affair in Kyiv's center that is very, very large which one one side is atop a modern shopping center (not unlike a similar such center in Moscow near the Kremlin).

It is one of Ukraine's prettiest places, and is at one end of Khreschatyk Blvd., Ukraine's most park-like street, lined with fashionable shops and a destination for strollers and lovers on any decent day because of its park-like nature and its huge number of benches, a wonder of modern pedestrian-friendly architecture, and surprisingly created by the Soviets (probably to encourage population growth after World War II, -- aka the Great Patriotic War in Ukraine/Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union).

(let me know if there are any serious errors in the above, please . . . anyone.).

Thanks Svetlana,

John (Crosley)

Do you think that the benches placed for the population increase? :-)))))))))))

They just sit and rest from walking around the city :-)))

Svetlana.

The Nazis destroyed much of Kyiv in 'the Great Patriotic War' known to Westerners as World War II.

In that war, the Soviet Union lost more citizens than any other country, and the vast majority of them were men.

Much of the center of Kyiv was completely blown up.

Men were in short supply not only in Russia but also in Ukraine -- in reality there was little difference between Russians and Ukrainians except their 'ethnicity' which even then was mixed, and everybody mostly spoke Russian because it was mandated and all were Soviets, not Russians or Ukrainians (at least first).

Everybody had an ID that said CCCP, not Ukraine or Russia. (CCCP means USSR for non Russian speakers, and ironically Russia kept issuing passports from old Soviet stock until about the end of the 1990s, even though the Soviet Union was clearly 'dead' -- they just didn't get around to issuing new 'international' passports, and issued ones from stocks left over from the Soviets (times were hard, money, expensive paper and skilled labor were scarce for government purposes as private businesses was sucking things away from government and people were not paying taxes (taxes was a rather new concept for Russia, which formerly owned everything, and had given or 'distributed' much to its 'true owners' supposedly the citizenry, though in the process much got diverted to smart, foxy businessmen, often allied with former state security people and other powerful, skilled and devious people -- helping them become the new Oligarchs about whom so many have read.

That happened, some say, also in Ukraine . . . . or so it is alleged, but I have no personal knowledge, though I read of it in court decisions, Rada (parliament proceedings) and newspapers as well as what politicians say, but who knows who tells the truth, as a citizen of Ukraine told me tonight '*uck the truth, who knows? Everybody lies in this country.' (he is jaded though, and I do not think everybody is lying, as he is 'for' a politician many think is corrupt because as an illegal vendor, he sides with the criminals, and against a candidate he views as 'corrupt' but less corrupt, and therefore who will put him out of business (it's that way, according to him, (not me).

I look to international organizations and citizens to tell me, as I have NO direct knowledge of such things except for one evening trying to drive across Ukraine and being hit up for corruption twice by Ukrainian Militia despite driving 100% correctly (illegal speed trap, for one and illegally manipulated traffic signal in another, guaranteed to produce a 'violation' no matter what, at the whim of the officers.

(My 'girlfriend' by cell phone talked each militia's ear off for over an hour until they just said 'go', and I did, without paying corruption (bribe) as I had no money at all and would have gone to jail . . . . and stayed there, which she also told the, becoming a sticky mess for them dealing with the US consulate.)

Smart girl.

Now, Svetlana, Stalin had Moscow designed so its architecture glorified the 'Soviet State' by its 'greatness' and size' even with wide boulevards and huge buildings, but in the process it also denigrated the role of any one citizen.

The state glorified; the role of each citizen (except as an actor for the Soviet state) in the design of Moscow) was minimized.

Moscow became very impersonal.

Just take a trip down Tverskaya and see.

Or anywhere else downtown.

And remember then there were no autos in Moscow, despite those broad boulevards.

No traffic jams as now to clog those once empty expanses.

Moscow was designed to belittle the individual.

Stalin knew the value of architecture within the Soviet scheme.

Now, at the end of World War II, he sent his prize architects to rebuild Kyiv and one project (I understand) was to design and build (or rebuild) Khreschatyk Street, and in the process rebuilt it into a park-like affair.

It seems logical, since it was not built after the way Moscow was designed in the '30s, that its design ALSO HAD SOME LOGICAL purpose, and this time not to belittle the individual but to promote some perceived social good.

What better social good for a Soviet Union with a huge percentage of women compared to men then to promote to making of babies?

But with small flats, much of Kyiv destroyed, the mating process was interrupted greatly. Males and females had to 'make appointments' to find a part of a flat to make love in when they finally 'got together' and had to make acquaintance elsewhere.

As in the rest of the Soviet Union, flats were divided into sections and stately flats from olden days often handled a whole family in one room, maybe with a communal kitchen.

I presently am in such a flat, restored and modernized, but there is a leftover 'flat number' outside my bedroom (that nobody remembered to take down' - a bedroom as a whole flat. Ask around if you were not alive during those times and see if it's true. I think you will find it's so, and if not, write me here in the open about what you are told; I do not have the 'last word' on the truth, but also quote your sources.

Lots of benches, broad expanses, and a huge dearth of places for young couples go to to 'make out' before they were prepared to become betrothed, seems to have been something those architects foresaw and accommodated.

The Khreschatyk Avenue they rebuilt is lined by two rows of benches on one side and the rows are interlaced by connecting/intersecting rows of benches.

Even so, not enough for everybody, Spring through Fall on warm days and evenings, but a place where all Kyiv goes.

Tell me if it wasn't Stalin's plan that young couples weren't meant to go to Khreschatyk to gather, meet, kiss over some pivo (beer) or vodka, and begin the reproductive process AND it has become part of the national culture, long after the end rebuilding.

In fact, it is more licentious now, I am sure, as Soviet times were known for being much more Puritan (to borrow a term from young America).

But I think the benches were there not for the old people but for the young people, and have special significance for that.

Stalin, his architects having built Moscow for one purpose, after the war had a different purpose, and Kyiv was rebuilt to fulfill that purpose -- the benches on Khreschatyk are part of that (in my thesis). But it's only my thesis, and if you can point to a historical reference that is not part of 'official party line' but something modern, well written and well thought out, I'd love to read it (I can use a translation machine and have two Russian/Ukrainian speakers who can interpret for me).

(Khreschatyk Blvd., for Westerners is a short street, which together with Krasnoarmaeska (Red Army Street), forms the CENTER of Kyiv - a broad, boulevard, shut off on the weekends to become a mall, and on the southern side, lined with trees, two parallel, very wide walkways, separated by those trees4es, and intersecting rows of walkways, and each set of walkways lined by benches.

This photo was taken in Maidan - Freedom Square -- which is on Khreschatyk at one end, where the Orange Revolution had its roots, and which is being challenged by yesterday's election (and a foreseen runoff in February).

Svetlana, I knows this is very long, but I have a theory, my theory is not written about anywhere I have read, but I think it is correct, and not just an 'invention' so I am careful to try to document it . . . . and show my reasoning. I invite contrary or different opinions, together with the source authority,

I am always willing to be shown to be wrong, but don't trust the Soviets always to have said the true reason for doing things when they wrote their own 'histories' as they were champions at propaganda (lying to the public).

John (Crosley)

Acquired language spoken by a non-native indeed can be 'charming' so do NOT feel self-conscious.

And I tell it like it is -- I easily speak the truth, because if said correctly, it should offend no one, when spoken and/or written from a good heart and apparent in the telling.

I hope I am skilled at that.

Notice, I have very few disagreements here on PN . . . .because I assume 'good faith' on the part of everyone, until they show me otherwise. Often what appears as 'bad faith' or even is 'bad faith' starts out as someone's bad day and perhaps quirky personality showing itself with a poison pen, and that gets a 'poison pen' reply and then things go downhill.

I still know how to stand my ground though -- don't get me wrong - I am a very tenacious fighter if I have to do so, and I seldom lose an argument or fight to anybody, in part because I know how to pick the ones to make a contest over.

I hate to do that, however.

Assuming 'good faith' really works even when approached maladroitly; people often behave as you treat them; something that it took me a long time to discover for good and live as a 'life philosophy' having been an attorney where confrontation often was required (long ago -- decades now).

I always enjoy my colloquy with you, Luca.

John (Crosley)

This is great, because it looks so impromptu. The horizon even tilts with the weight of their bodies. I love the pavement seeming to revolve around them without anyone noticing their passion. Nice tones, too.

This is what makes photography so much fun.

Cheers, Leora

This photo is 'tilted' for two reasons:

1. The attempt was to create a diagonal with the bodies -- in effect they were so close to me with my fairly wide angle lens that in order to fit them into the frame, I had to frame them lengthwise as a diagonal

2. I would have done that anyway, no matter what the horizon, because that simply created the best photo -- and as you noted the 'tilted' horizon seems to add to the 'out of kilter' and 'in love' perspective of the loving young couple.

Tilting the camera/lens combo allowed me to frame the couple so it bisected the frame, thus creating two compositional triangles - a most dynamic and compelling composition.

Sometimes things just 'work right' and from time to time I'll tilt my camera/lens combo for 'effect' though rarely.

A good example can be seen in a photo of a topless man sunning himself in front of a wall on a hot day in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine much earlier in this folder, with two dogs lying along the wall in the distance.

That photo required me to tilt or rotate the camera with its very wide angle lens to make up for distortion that would make the upright wall behind the man (and the upright seated man) appear to 'fall back', and then if one continuously follows the wall into the distance the wall actually appears to be twisting, like some giant and long Italian noodle -- not a rotella, but something similar, designed to stick' to more pasta sauce.

The wall appears to be actually 'curving' toward the viewer due to curvilinear distortion in the camera; my angle of taking the man actually corrected for that as one viewed the man, leaving the distance somewhat intersting . . . and not something I think I'd try to 'cure' in image editing (Photoshop).

Tilting the camera is rare for me except small variations in normal shooting, but I don't let you see those mistakes, fixing those in image editing with small fixes in image 'rotation'.

;~))

Oh, Leora, photographing as you are well aware can be 'GREAT FUN', especially when you get great captures and find friends to show them to.

Welcome to critiquing my photos.

John (Crosley)

Just kidding, but nice catch John you definitely got the moment there and it shouts out bout the youth of the day.. Reminds of a photo Winogrand might take.

This photo ran as a member's featured photo at the top of the page August 31, 2012, I think the day you commented, and I had thought it had been overlooked.

It certainly has attracted a bit of attention.

I remember sitting next to this couple and even leaning backward with my very wide angle lens to get all of the pair in the frame and even so missing her left shoe, but who cares about that?

Often I'll show a couple so engrossed such a great capture, but in this case I deferred because they only had one thing on their mutual mind and it was NOT looking at photos of what they were doing but the actual tactile part -- feeling their hormones.  Frankly I remember very vividly what that was like and took an educated guess that they were happy and amused enough as was.

Often I'll show such couples their photos when they come up for air and pause a bit, but this couple did not pause.

On being compared to Winogrand, I note over time my work has been compared to a great number of pretty good photographers of great repute, and I only wish a little of their great repute would rub off onto me.

My father was of the opinion, in investing, that if he rubbed shoulders with those he saw as 'rich and famous for their business acumen' somehow their acumen and success would rub off on to him. 

Sadly, all that happened was that has wealth ended up in their pockets because that was the key to their success -- separating the wanna bes and the envious from their wealth as they rubbed shoulders with those who flaunted their achievements. 

I vowed not to be the same.  I share openly and freely.

I'm happy to be taking 'Crosley photographs', as some members have denoted them, but comparisons to Winogrand are quite welcome nevertheless, as the man was a genius, (though I am hardly enamored with the feelings his photos evoke in me . . . . )

He certainly was one of the most intellectually capable and articulate of photographers -- perhaps more so than Cartier-Bresson who was contemporary (and regarded as such) by the French literarati and cogniscenti, but who found himself cowed when confronted by this or that famous intellectual showing off  . . . . . when if he really knew his true intellectual capacity he could have shoved the underpinnings down from under some of the pompous asses he photographed (I am thinking of one artist in particular, Avigdor . . . . X . . . . last name not immediately available) who had Cartier-Bresson cowed by his philosophy and force of personality, which should never have happened.

That would not have happened with Winogrand . . . . he learned his photography at Columbia post-war.  I went to Columbia but never even knew they had a photography program (and maybe by then, the 60s, they didn't). 

In any casae, Winogrand was nowhere to be found or I might have run across him then.  However, it would have been hopeless trying to keep track of his output as he was so disorganized in keeping track of his output -- reviewing it days, weeks, months, years, and even more than a lifetime later.  (they're still going over it.)

I may fall into the same category. 

I relentlessly look over my earlier captures and sometimes find wonderful captures I just overlooked!!!!

Some of my best work I just passed over for years, and I'm still looking through downloads from eight years ago, and for that I take today, I'm looking again and again and again, often wondering 'why did I take that?' what was it I saw? 

Sometimes I see it, and occasionally I'm blown away (just a few times of course as 99% is junk).

After all it's 'street'.

Thank you Barry, for the fine compliment.

Keep in touch; you're a fine photographer, and it's rare to get a comment from you.

john

John (Crosley)

This remind you of Winogrand because I tilted the camera (purposely so, just as he did?)

Let me know, would you?  Had you noticed that 'fine point'?  See comment(s) above.

john

John (Crosley)

Even though I have close photographer buddies or buddetts who do not like tilted photographs, I have not been adverse.  Here the action is so front and center and the tilt sort of propels the eye into the action.  In short, doesn't bother me a bit and when looking at the photo, its not what I focus on.  I really do like this photo.  You know sometimes when you get someone in the middle of something intimate it looks a little creepy, but here, because of the age and the posture etc, just the moment you got, It speaks more of youth  and not just sneaking a picture of people kissing.  Know what i mean? Anyways, I was just cruising through my comments and came back to this.  Again a sweet street photo.

I seldom 'slant' to the horizon (or tilt) my photos, but where it's called for, why not?

The subject of obtrusiveness is always a delicate one.  Here I was sitting next to this couple, having sat there because of their oblivioousness and their actions.  

When the opportunity presented itself, as I surveyed the scene with my very wide angle lens, I just surveyed from left to right (clockwise) and pretended to be viewing the whole horizon circularly, but when I passed over this couple, they were the target, so I tripped the shutter.

No one was the wiser.

I was just a guy playing with his camera, and leaning over a little to be farther away to get them in the frame they were so close.

It's flattering that you have paid such attention to this photo, and it makes me realize that it's a more transcendent photo than I had initially figured on, so I'm elevating it to my top black and white 'street shots' ever.  I value your eye greatly.

john

John (Crosley)