pretty darn new 'Fun Fluff for Friday Night'

This young man offers his girl a piece of 'cotton candy' (a sugary

confection) and does so with obvious delight. Your ratings, critiques

and remarks are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very

critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to

help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

This photo was taken well after dark with available light with a f3.5~5.6 lens.

No flash was used.

john

John (Crosley)

Oh, this "cotton candy"! :-)

It's all sugar - nothing else but heat and some spinning by a machine.

But it sure tastes good and helps to celebrate -- to thumb your nose at good nutrition just one time.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

PDE

Thank you.

This is one of the ones I like very much, apparently much more than raters, solely because it's 'interesting'.

Really, it's hard NOT to look at this photo AND remember it, don't you think, just because of his expression, even though it is only a very small part of the frame.

For me, this is story telling at its happiest.  I'm glad you liked it. 

I'm surprised others have been luke warm, so far.

But pleasing me comes first; no one pays me to do this and if I'm satisfied or dissatisfied with an image, that counts very much, though ratings and especially comments often teach me a lot. 

Sometimes they just have differing tastes.

I have had a mentor who said, of  photo when asked 'who took that photo' (of kids chasing farm animals in a barnyard).  'I don't know, nobody probably, but it's a GREAT photo.'  He had it on his kitchen wall, I think from time spent curating the giant Corbis or Getty Collection as a paid curator, looking for treasures to publish as 'fine art'.

He had picked a winner, by a photographer no one has heard of or remembers because he was 'true to the photo' and that particular photo was a 'true photo'.

I never forgot the lesson this photo giant taught me there in his kitchen.  He worked with the giants of photography, a Rauschenberg was in his nook, but in his kitchen, a PHOTO by no one in particular because it was 'GREAT' and a 'TRUE PHOTO'.

He taught me and encouraged me to go with my instincts and with THE PHOTO, and then spent a very long time and much effort showing me how he recognized (from my own work many times) what was 'great' -- even 'brilliant'.

I couldn't have paid for such wonderful tutelage from a master (with a Lucie Award).

john

John (Crosley)

??

As best as I can determine you do not exist but are a 'sock puppet' for another member.  You have been challenged on this for years now and not made an appearance to explain otherwise.  I am left to believe you are a doppleganger for a member, and I am firm in this belief.

Your appearance here is unwelcome as it offers nothing of help in any case.

John Crosley

Member

you are repeating yourself. your old Work was much better, than this sweet, mainstream shots for crowd, on surface..

BB

Don't worry.

I've got about 500 to 800 photos worked up for upload; a great number of them are QUITE DIFFERENT and definitely NOT MAINSTREAM.

It's just a matter of which ones to choose.

I post what I like, not what I think will get high rates or views.

That's the way it works.

Some sticks, some doesn't.  Remember Shakespeare played to the groundlings as well as the better paying customers and he didn't disappoint the groundlings or disrespect them either.

I doubt I'll get stale; you it works.

just haven't seen what I take just in one day -- it's blow you away.

However, not all is for Photo.net -- there are other fora in the world.

Maybe you should have a look at 'the blockhead' about to be posted when it's posted later.  You definitely can't say it's been seen before -- it's entirely suis generis.

john

John (Crosley)

What about 'The Beauty Parlor'?  Just posted a few days ago. 

A copy of previous work?  I doubt it.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12906413

Or the Bubble Gum girl with the bubble superimposed almost exactly on an overhead Metro light?

I doubt if you've ever seen such a thing.  It was posted just prior to 'The Beauty Parlor".

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12895480

I think you're way to cynical or critical.

I post one you think is saccharine and suddenly you say I'm stale or repeating myself.

NO WAY.

I read recently an insightful article in the New York Times by a columnist.  It said essentially the price of fame or celebrity these days was the number and amount of detractors who climb aboard just to detract because that's the new way of getting noticed.  It's the price of being 'known', the author posited.

You, I think, have rushed to judgment and not taken even a few of my recent works into account.

Plus you have NO idea what I'm holding in reserve or is in my files unworked on of a million photos -- I'm far too busy taking one or two from a day's shooting (if that) and then sitting on the rest for a very long time, a la Garry Winogrand (well, not for a lifetime I hope or past my death, but I go back periodically and bring out real gems . . . . some of my best work is 'found' among those passed over previous times, and there's a real wealth -- some of my best 'classics' are from those 'passovers'.

Sometimes it takes a fresh eye to spot the 'classics' as I told Luca, whose critical eye is very much valued and whom I regard as a cyberfriend.

And not every photo will be a classic, nor should it be, or expected to be.

This is supposed to be fun!   Don't be a spoiler.

And besides, Luca was commenting on a 'classic' he said.  It was taken very recently, along with many others that may someday be 'classics'.  Luca's comments are always made in good faith and with the intent of helping, and taken that way.

john

John (Crosley)