Do Men Look Like Their Pets?

This is a new scan. If you have previously viewed this photo, the old scan may be stored in your browser cache, and to view the new scan you may have to refresh your browser. There will be further work on this scan. Enjoy! John

slice of life.. got to love it.

Somehow, in the course of events, the original transparency (that's right, transparency) has become unavailable -- it's a long story and I won't bore you. Just like so many other of my original media from my older works, through no fault of my own, regrettably. You might be surprised to learn that in the transparency (slide), the dogs' colors matched the owners' shirt colors exactly, color for color -- an amazing coincidence. I had it converted also to B&W. So often people comment on my color work and say "it would work well in B & W", and they don't realize that I started out with Tri-X and the occasional roll of Plus-X and no enlarger -- just a loupe sometimes, and possibly a contact print -- or held the negative to the light at an angle to see the "positive view" which you can see if you hold a silver negative to the light at an angle. . . . so impecunious was I.

 

So graphic elements were a big part of my photographic upbringing -- I couldn't see subtlety, even with a loupe and whatever lightbox I happened to have access to. I had to see some large graphic element, or see nothing at all.

 

In this case, it is an unusual case of color coming first, but not by necessity, then B & W, as opposed to B & W, then color, as happened with much of the rest of my work.

 

The same for the work showing a man on a bench on a pier, lower Manhattan. Can you name an artist whose work it reminds you of?

 

Balaji, I am so pleased you picked this "minor" photo to comment on, as so often such photos are overlooked by those with less practiced and discerning eyes (but then we all know your eyes are among the most practiced and experienced around as you chronicle Your Fair City.

 

Thanks for the attention; I remain greatly flattered by your visit(s). John.

:)!

Ditto ;-)

they seem to 'dress' alike, as well. great connection. regards, mmwhite

I took this when I was 22, and soon within a few years of much less photographic activity almost completely 'gave up' photography, with rare exceptions about once or twice a decade, but if you see a resemblance to my current style, so do I, only I'm now much,much more prolific, and shooting is now much easier work because now I know what I'm doing.

 

If you read the comment to now dormant member Balaji explaining about the lost color transparency, you will understand that the color capture was just as good, maybe better, and this is a desaturation, though it does hold its own, I think.

 

A certain number of my 'Early Black and White' captures started out as Tri-X, while others started out as transparencies which I had desaturated. It's little different now than shooting digital (which captures in color) then desaturating.

 

I also shot 'stock photography' for a while, all in color, just a little, but what I shot sold well and for EXTREMELY high prices for the time as color was very rarely sold - black and white then was king in publications, while color was reserved for 'special' articles, covers, etc.

 

My 'stock' work was quite different - much more representational - and one ended up as an amazingly huge poster in the lobby in a tower of the World Trade Center which I never saw, but got a huge amount of money for - especially for its being color, (Traffic interchange in L.A from overhead).

 

(It's now destroyed too, for obvious reasons.)

 

I like this photo a lot, if only for its subtle humor.

 

It's now old enough to be a 'historic photo'- something I never thought I'd live to see.

 

I'm glad you have enjoyed it.

 

That was my wish at 22 when I took it, that someone when I was much much older would appreciate it; even perhaps past my lifetime.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)