'Miniaturization and Its Opposite?'

Miniaturization often has some distinct advantages; giant computers

that once filled huge rooms with dedicated air conditioning units to

serve them have been surpassed by laptops, I-Pads and even some 'smart

phones' that often times have even more computing power in a few

pounds or even ounces than those old computing 'dinosaurs', thanks to

miniaturization of computer chips. But sometimes there is in consumer

products a symbiosis between size and usability -- has this man

exceeded that symbiotic size between his size and that of his camera?

Your ratings, critiques and remarks are invited and most welcome. If

you rate harshly, very critically or wish to make your own

observation, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

John, it has been a very long time since I critiqued a photograph of yours. I love this—such great humor. It seems that the gentleman is either extremely nearsighted or he has possibly never used a P&S before. It almost appears as if he is trying to find a viewfinder that the camera probably does not have. If he is viewing the LCD he is awfully close. Add that to the aforementioned disparity in size and you just have to smile. Great shot.

What can I possibly say?

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

I still don't know what to say -- my files are loaded with gems (and tens, even hundreds of thousands of non-gems of course).

This is not a new photo; just a previously unrealized gem.

john

John (Crosley)

I know you compose very carefully, so there must be reasons for it, but I noticed the "pressure" exerted by the frame on the man from all sides:

Did you set a high ISO? Could explain the peculiar toning and maybe contrast. And make it a bit flat (lacking separation of image layers).

A photo which should be part of a series or explicitly have a documentary function.

Cheers,

L

The 'pressure' you note is just close cropping.

The aspect ratio of this photo is more square than 2:3 because of the needs posed by the subject matter.  Actually it is not square exactly but more 4 x 5, and would more suit a Sony format than a Nikon, but I shot it with a Nikon and an older (but wonderful one) at that with very poor high ISO capabilities compared to today, hence the inability to capture and display all the tones well -- this shot is from 2007 and even then although I didn't realize it I was carrying another camera that could have done better with higher ISO capabilities.

Live and learn.

Look at the lines of his arms apparently pinwheeling around his face, then imagine there's lots of 'dead space' to his left and right with distracting elements -- random out of focus walking and standing people and you then can see why the design elements of this called for tight cropping, I think.

This was just one bystander at the 2007 (I think) annual adult video (porno) extravaganza in Las Vegas, Nevada - where there wasn't anything really porno to see, except the mostly fully-clothed participants of those who did wild things on screen and NO TOUCHING  and no nudity for sure.

More nudity in a Las Vegas show, than at the so-called porno extravaganza, but good photography to be had anyway which is why I went.

;~)) 

I'd go again, now, it's time.

Good comment, Luca, thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

I see not mention above to what appears to be a damaged left arm and lots of stitches.  I have to guess right arm also.

There is a very long line of indentation on the man's left forearm facing the camera, but its appearance suggest to me the kind of indentation that occurs when one leans a long time against an angular surface such as the edge of a table or counter, where the skin is 'indented' but left to its own devices within a half hour or so, resumes its own shape. 

I don't see any trace of stitches or the cross-hatching that would indicate stitches or the change in tones that would indicate reddening that comes with fresher stitches/cut/slash, and an older scar would be whiter than that as scars heal with a whitish appearance.

I think it's just something he leaned on temporarily with his left forearm and if you saw him in a half hour or so, it would disappear.

That's my view and reasons.

john

John (Crosley)

Meir Samel,

No rebuke should be implied in my above rely comment.

I understand you are blind in one eye and have severe vision difficulties in the other and take that into account; no scolding should be read into my reply comment above -- just better vision on my part, I think, OK?

john

John (Crosley)

Great photo to put under each thread that advocates that we all want smaller cameras ;-)

But it's a photo that reaches far beyond that, for me. It seems a protest against our current times. Consumption society at work. The overly obese with miniature toys, a rather unneeded pair of sunglasses indoors, the badges.... it's very these times and not at their greatest. A funny photo with a much bigger story which maybe isn't all that much fun at all.

Honest to God, when I posted this it was primarily to show the contrast between a big guy and a small camera and not much more.

The response has been overwhelming, and I had surely overlooked that it was a point and shoot with a digital screen and not an optical viewfinder, which begs the question of why his eye is so close to the camera at all.

Yes, the other things you point out also have bearing, and in its own regard, it is a funny photo, but like all 'funny photos' it has some grit to it in its contrast, like so many of my photos -- if one looks underneath the humor, one is likely to find some very interesting truths in the humor or the 'humorous' photos that I post.

I thank you for pointing that out, Wouter.

john

John (Crosley)