Life: Movies vs. Reality -- 'Funny and Charming'@-j-c-n

Life: Movies vs. Reality. "Funny and Charming" in the background

as depicted in the movie poster, or what is in the foreground. It

all depends on 'perspective', doesn't it? Your ratings and

critiques are very welcome and invited. (If you rate harshly or

very negatively, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment/Please honor me by sharing your superior photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography). Thanks! Enjoy!

John. ;~))

This was 'shot from the hip' and is, therefore, a slight crop. John

Good capture of an anticlimax!

Very clever study of people and "people". Too bad the real people are so funny and charming.

Hallo John.

 

That one brings me back to life (thanks). How many pictures do you have to shot to get one like this out?

 

It clearly shows the absudities in live, which most people normaly only have an uneasy sense of. Bright and fresh artificial idols against weary, tired and indifferent antipodes. (Those unlucky people living on the wrong side of our world were called antipodes in the early ages of mankind, assuming that we live on the right.)

I hope for us and our future, this shot was not to easy to make.

 

Alexander

 

 

Thank you so much for your kind comment, and for taking the trouble to rate, especially today. John

Thank you for you for your comment, but I think maybe you left out a negative, such as 'not' when you were dishing out the superlatives for the 'real people'. You might also want to 'rate' this photo, if you feel like it. Regrettably, this is real life, foreground, and Hollywood's version, in the background, at least that day; that minute, that place, but there were special circumstances -- see comment lower down. John

I always welcome your erudite comments, and this one is like a Christmas present; thank you very much.

 

Frankly, I shot two photos, both equally good, and the only difference was how much of the man's face to show, and how much of the woman's face (right) also to show, as they differed in both photos, shot semi-blindly from the neck strap held camera without looking through the eyepiece but reviewing the contents from the stored image on the digital screen immediately afterward.

 

Regrettably, I think, I can take such images with great regularity and apparent ease -- see my early B&W photos for proof of how long I have been taking photos of various sorts and various other examples of such photos including "Mary Kay Did What?" posted over our Thanksgiving at end of November, in a similar vein (out of focus -- sardonic view of people waiting in line)

 

I may make an entire folder of people waiting behind me in line.

 

There are special circumstances. These people, in a video rental store, were waiting to pay their gas, electric or other utility bills at a 'pay station' for an extra fee, as I was also, because they don't have checking accounts or credit cards to make payments or their electricity was turned off or about to be turned off (or their telephone service), so they have little to be happy about -- and the lines are long and slow moving with one overworked cashier who knows not toooo much to 'help' them and surcharges them for 'helping' them.

 

What used to be 'service' in our society has simply 'evaporated' and 'customer service' is an oxymoron.

 

These people are a reflection of that, and they are also Hispanic, probably of Mexican birth and maybe even illegal (some of them, possibly) and certainly not well-paid.

 

I make it a point not to do things by phone, by check or by credit card, but instead to attend things that could be attended to otherwise so I experience (and photograph) the people (and get photos like this treat).

 

Welcome back to active use of Photo.net.

 

Your insightful comments have been missed.

 

John

Thank you for returning to my pages, this time with a helpful criticism.

 

As to your various points: The conversion to B&W appears to have turned the contrasts brought about by color into some muddiness, and it did not withstand the conversion well; I had tried such a conversion, and may try again, but in some more serious way. The problem is the 'muddiness' of the foreground woman's tones in B&W as compared to the man behind her and the video library behind her. Her reddish shirt/hair and skin tones serve to contrast her in a color photo from what's behind and around her; not so in B&W.

 

I would love to see this photo well done in B&W. Many photos in my early B&W folder began as color slides.

 

As to the spotlight or highlight on the actress on the poster, that seemed effective in your B&W crop/redo, (though a trifle overdone) if it were to have been done that way, and effectively centered the viewer's attention.

 

I am always aware of 'repetition' in photographs and consider that important when I can achieve it. While I also am also distracted by the word "Chivas" and personally dislike 'advertising' on clothing, etc., there probably is no way (short of cloning) to get rid of that word on the woman's chest and still preserve her crossed arms which serve two purposes (1) they repeat the gesture of the man behind her, and (2) they serve to remind just how dull things are and how extremely bored (and upset with circumstances) she is. To cut out her crossed arms takes part of the heart out of this photo. (I'd sooner see cloning of the chest sign -- but don't do that in my photography, unless this photo were for, say, advertising publication, where the printing would be way too distracting.)

 

One suggestion that I absolutely should have done in the first place was to crop better on the right, especially since this was a crop in the first place -- the half figure of a man, distance IS distracting and I am taking him out now.

 

By your effort -- both as to the parts accepted AND rejected by me, you have helped me to understand what about this photograph 'works' and why it does, and therefore I may be able to 'teach' myself to take another good photograph even quicker next time, and maybe impart the skills to another through analysis.

 

You are always welcome in my folders and portfolio.

 

Kind regards.

 

John

This displayed image has been edited in the following ways:

1. It has been cropped right, to delete the man, background right, who was distracting (this was already a cropped image and the failure to eliminate him was do to an oversight on my part.

2. The edges of the images have been 'sharpened' to delinate particularly the blurry 'out of focus' woman's lines, foregound from her counterparts.

3. The 'redness' of the initial image has been counteracted by adding a substantial amount of magenta for color correction. (It helps substantially -- my initial error).

I hope this makes for a more pleasing image.

 

Although I may not have taken all the image suggestions of *[*Z above, as a whole, his critique by example has made me take my image presentation more seriously and studiously, and for that alone he is owed special 'thanks'.

Please Refresh Your Browser if you have previously viewed this image.

 

John

When I wrote that this kind of photo is so 'easy' to take, I didn't mean to say I could take photos of such quality every day, for it involves being in such circumstances every day, having a camera with you and having the guts to take the photo.

 

And when people find out you're taking a photo, you have to have an appropriate excuse for the question "why are you taking our photo" to which the answer "I have no film" no longer cuts it, because they figure out from the back screen it's digital. I can say 'I'm trying it out", (true always) or I'm focusing it (also true, always), but that has an 'edge' to it.

 

Henri Cartier-Bresson sometimes hid his Leica under a handkerchief or napkin.

 

I have used several Leicas and may have to return to them, but I Hate rangefinder focusing. H C- B simply prefocused and wasn't concerned about focusing and he preset everything anyway and relied on his trained eye for exposures and the "Sunny 16" rule and seldom used a light meter according to his printer and his book blurbs (if they're to be believed).

 

What I meant, was that as opposed to the photographers of landscapes who routinely get high scores for them, I can take them and not get high scores, even though I think they're pretty good, even 'original' in part because I don't have a 'scenic' photo following, having only submitted slightly more than a dozen such shots, but have a following for this type of photo.

 

And an affinity for this type of shooting, and a record of gettinng politely taken by the elbow and asked by management please to leave or leave my camera at the front counter while I shopped, to which I never take offense or fight.

 

(Ultimately you have to have a thick skin and believe in 'The Image' to get photos of this sort).

 

John

Five sets of glances: Two sets compared

The foreground glances are downward, dispirited, and accompany crossed arms in two cases -- these people may be having their electricity or phones shut off, or they may already be shut off. At the least they're very inconvenienced and unhappy with a slow-moving line with a new cashier who moves as slow as molassas.

The background gazes of the movie stars show young woman actress looking up with a bright gaze and a male looking out and slightly up impishly.

Contrast and compare.

Juxtaposition: That's what I look for in many of my photographs.

I'm preparing presentations in which I examine the use of 1. Juxtaposition in my photography and 2. the incorporation of a. backgrounds and b. murals, posters, etc. specifically.

I hope those who like this photo will let me know so I can direct those presentations to them. One way is to put me on your 'interesting' list.

 

John (Crosley)

I would not change anything here John. It is quite strong like it is. We had a discussion some time ago, about explanation and making photos easier to understand. I would agree to your arguments about literal explanation, but I would not agree to suit a photo to make understanding easier. The small accessories the people carry are very important for the meaning of the picture. They show that they are consciously or unconsciously contributing personally to this other commercial world which casts them out. They are not aware of the gap we both recognize in this picture. That is the main point, their being part of the system.

The outward appearance partly carries the insignia of the world which makes their face look so tired and unhappy. And real world is in colour.

To produce a simpler idol of this problematic situation would destroy the meaning.

Understanding life is complicated and the people who tell you it is simple are the most dangerous. It is important to make people think.

(The last sentence is meant to be in general and not in particular.)

 

Now that I come back here to post my second comment you have already cropped.

I still think that was not necessary.

 

And I also find your second comment to my first:

 

To my opinion the value of these STREET pictures you make is to be seen in their imperfection. The aesthetic attributes of a photo like sharpness, toning, colour, composition are not too important in this case. Leave that to the photographers. You are a narrator.

You tell stories and your pictures tell stories. That?s something different from making a good landscape photo. A good calendar landscape photograph might be interesting or pleasing to look at, but in most cases it does not tell you anything. Even your landscape photos are too close to reality, to a possible story; their aesthetics? are not abstract enough for most of those rating people.

 

I think we are lucky you have that thick skin.

 

And you are on my favourites list.

 

Alexander

 

Thanks for your comment. I belong to the school of 'street' photographers that feels that not only does 'street' photograpy capture the essence of the street, but it does it in an artistic and/or appealing manner, which takes into account (where applicable) color and/or geometry or other compositional elements.

 

Like Doug Hawks whom I admire greatly and (sometimes) Balaji, I greatly believe a good street photo should have strong compositional elements within it. See the photos in my early B&W Portfolio for evidence of same. The reason that portfolio has stood the test of time (it actually has some from this year as well) is that it is based not only on aged photographs but on composition)

 

Here, this photograph uses a large number of compositional devices:

1. Repetition of crossed arms to indicate boredom/disgust/anger at having to stand.

2. Repetition of downward glances/gazes to indicate same.

3. Repetition of upward/hopeful glances on movie poster to indicate happiness/high spirits indicative of a 'happy ending' typical of Hollywood -- suggesting a 'Hollywood ending" to the movie.

4. This foreground does not foresee any Hollywood ending and in fact the photo could be title "No Hollywood Ending".

5. The use of selecting spotligting on the woman, foreground and the same on the poster woman/girl movie actress for repetition.

6. Crossing the barrier between reality and fiction as I incorporate the poster into the reality of the photograph.

7. Incorporating the background.

8. The use of the triangle, which you know I regard as highly dynamic, into the figures, foreground (through cropping, especially).

9. Breaking that triangle, foreground, to highlight the movie poster, background.

10. Use of the background for (part of) the photo's subject.

 

Whew!

 

However, I just take the photos as I see them.

 

I don't go through that entire analysis, step by step, although some portion of my brain does just that.

 

It really does just that.

 

But it's subconscious and I know that for H C-B it also was internalized and unconscious on some level -- a reflex reponse of a highly skillfful and intellectual individual -- Have you ever read anything written by H C-B--he wrote brilliantly about his craft?

 

My idea here is to marry social comment and art through compositional elements to make the comment so much more palatable by the use of compositional elements (and I don't even have to believe in the comment -- it just has to be a valid form of expression, regardless of my personal beliefs).

 

There.

 

As Uncle Soupy (Sales) said, I hope that holds the little (B . . . . . ) for now.

 

(or in other words, I'll shut up for now.) I wrote a lot because this image is rich in various elements about which I am making presentations, and no other particular reason except maybe to explain to myself 'how' I make such photos so the next time it'll be easier and maybe someone reading this will learn how to do so quicker and easier and incorporate these techniques into their photography.

 

Best Holiday Regards.

 

John

;~))

Just to make that clear:

I did not say one should not care about composition etc., but that its not TOO IMPORTANT in this case.

 

And what you should not do - that is what I mainly refered to - is to do too much correction after the shot, because I think your intuitional photographic skills are good enough, to bring out the story clearly.

 

Now it is 2 am here and I think I better get some sleep.

 

Wishing you a quiet and peaceful holiday too.

 

Alexander

 

Alexander,

 

The depth and the warp and woof of the dialogue your comments give me, have given me a great holiday gift, and knowing (now again) that I will have to respond to your comments, will keep me on my toes; for nothing makes me sharper and more skilled than having a good commentator, and you certainly are that.

 

With great respect,

 

John

As impossible or improbable as it may seem, (or as horrendous I suspect to the perfectionist in you) I have never taken a Photoshop course, and am learning Photoshopping skills bit by bit, piece by piece, (by accretion) through use of my various books, Photoshop 'help', and other resources.

 

I have been so little interested in 'making' Photoshop images and so greatly interested in 'taking' camera images that Photoshopping skills were literally last in my priorities until I switched to digital, and even then, Photoshop stayed last until I learned that I could 'rescue' otherwise unviewable photos from my digital archives.

 

Photoshopping -- formerly abhorrent to the purist in me -- now has more cachet, since I have learned that 'flat' digital images literally 'require' some enhancement, because color negative images printed underwent many functions from giant photo processing machines (sharpening, contrast enhancement, color enhancement and saturation, etc., etc., all of which must be done by the digital photographer using Photoshop -- or other image manipulation).

 

I had placed Photoshopping priority on learning the functions that replaced those formerly performed by machine photo processors e.g., contrast enhancement, satturation, color adjustments, and belatedly, sharpening. Many of those functions I was unaware of, since I could not 'view' the color negatives with any idea of what information was stored on them.

 

I never was one to relish darkroom work as I seldom had a darkroom available as I learned photography -- it's simply a heritage question --no money, no space, no property, no opportunity. When I married and had beaucoup money, my wife objected and I relented (even gave up photography) to keep the marital peace.

 

When I used darkrooms, I used borrowed darkrooms, often from newspapers, etc., and often their chemicals were depleted, etc.

 

I have not yet ventured into the 'burn function' and was just about to, because I had been stymied by the 'selection' process which I have just begun to learn how to master; until a week ago, each time I used 'navigator' or other function to increase the image size large enough properly to be useful to 'select' an image with selection tools such as 'magnetic lasso' or otherwise; it would become so large that when I came to a border, then the image portion would scroll wildly in a way I could not stop or control. I was stymied and could not learn from indexes or help functions how to stop that or why it was happening. I was an 'idiot savant'. Or perhaps a 'savant idiot' regarding that function. Perhaps regarding photography in general. (I'll cop to that, if it pleases you.)

 

Only the other day, did I find the cure for this by observing a skilled, generous photoshopper and asking questions [his explanation follows for those who read these comments and may be similarly stymied.

 

[increase the image size greatly using 'Navigator' or Control +, +, +, etc. or View functions, then use a selection tool such as lassso and begin your selection until you begin to reach a border. Do not cross the border, and instead release the mouse button, then depress and hold the space bar which turns the cursor into the 'hand' tool and use the 'hand' tool by the mouse to 'move' the image portion displayed within the image borders without leaving marks froj your selection tool such as 'lasso', or provoking rapid, uncontrolled scrolling.

 

[The image will not 'scroll' uncontrolled, even if you have approached a boundary/border if the 'hand' tool is displayed, which is what will happen if the selection (e.g. lasso) tool is displayed and the 'hand' tool not displayed.

 

[Then carefully place the hand tool over the last place of selection which should still be visible, and release the space bar, and the selection (say, lasso) tool then reappears and you can continue the selection process, again using the mouse.

 

[since you are working on a 'giant' image in appearance, your 'selection' will have the beginnings of exquisite specificity.

 

[Couple this with 'Select' and 'Select' 'inverse' [control +shift + I on Windows Photoshop] to work on the rest of the image, repeating until the image is finished, and even doing the same around borders of the photo.

 

[For those who are experienced Photoshoppers, please feel free to comment, but please temper your criticism and be kind -- I am admittedly a tenderfoot in this area, and only hope to be helpful by passing on rudimentary skills for something that held back my Photoshopping skills by writing down for others something I didn't find easily indexed anywhere, perhaps through my own stupidity or massive inexperience, jsc.

 

(*[*Z Pardon me for the digression, but I have learned that many apparently read these comments and some have told me they 'learn' from what is written, so I feel a duty to them also, not just those I am corresponding with, and one of the values of Photo.net is its 'sharing' function; people often were there to help me with fixing images (as you have been here with your suggestions, which I have not yet visualized fully), and I feel obliged to return the favor as I gain skills.

 

Bailey, I will try to darken the left foreground woman in any case, and lighten the right foreground woman, but as I wrote above, I find the leftmost woman's being highlighted (as is the actress in the background poster) to be helpful in terms of creating repetition in theme and contrast e.g., pretty blonde (mainstream, non-ethnic) girl/woman, upward gaze very happy in background linked through use of spotlighting with foreground not-so-pretty but also highlighted darkhaired ethnic woman, arms folded gazing downward with a definitely bored/unhappy/almost dour look. It's 'compare and contrast, as tied together by lighting, in my view and to 'flatten' or otherwise rework the lighting to destroy that effect in my view would not help the photo. But, you can show me otherwise, for my ideas are not writ in stone.

 

I think a dual spotlight helps hold the photo together, but if you have a thought or a workup that you would like me to view that holds true to this crop, I would be very happy to view it. (Actually, I'm happy to view anything, but I'm attracted to this crop especially for reasons enumerated above.)

 

I understand your point about 'Chivas' vs. 'Diva' but my personal preference is to display the folded arms.

 

By the way, I had not noticed your promptly appearing comment above when I was posting my comments in general and to Alexander, and meant you no disrepect by this later posting.

 

However, if anything, developing my ideas in general and in correspondence with Alexadner has helped me in my analysis and better to make personal choices, which, after all, are just that -- personal choices.

 

I will be doing further work on this image, and now that I have learned the 'selection' function well enough as soon as I learn the 'feather' function and both 'burning' and 'dodgng' I will be reworking this and some previously submitted images and making better submissions in the future (I hope).

 

(I think I'd like to brighten the face of the lettuce worker's face -- the cap says 'Bud' and he thus apparently works for Bud Antle, world's largest lettuce grower -- and see the result; so watch this space in a week or so).

 

Respectfully (submitted)

 

John

To you, the above discourse may seem superfluous, and as to the strength of the image, it may be, but for those who require images to be as 'perfect' as they can be to enjoy them, then it is important, and I don't want my images to be distracting even to that portion of the viewership.

 

I have no 'axes to grind' by presenting 'less than the best' rendition of my images, although I prefer 'shooting' more than Photoshopping (maybe because I'm only rudimentarily skillful at Photoshopping -- even awed by its vast, unknown capabilities).

 

But, perhaps more to the point, it's a matter of personal progress -- development of personal skills that may be of importance at some future point unrelated to presentation or enjoyment of this image.

 

(See, for example the images of Wim Ipenburg (spelling?) and his exquisite image manipulation techniques coupled with what a fertile mind can do).

 

Respectfully,

 

John

Hi, John. Let me offer you another B/W version of your image. I tried to give it a newspaper look (adding some shades of grey to whites), but it turns out to be not an easy task because of different sources of light. The image lacks, maybe, some of its original depth (?), though the tonality is improved (?). (I like the AZ's version, too, - more drama in it.)

 

The three people in front are far from "funny and charming". Your message is clear, never mind we don't know why they are so unhappy. More important is that different speculations could be offered. These are not just bored people standing in queue, they are truly unhappy people waiting for something unpleasant to happen. If not the poster behind I could imagine they are in court waiting for their verdicts to be read. Your explanation is giving the image a social dimension dramatically emphasising the visual impact of the juxtaposition captured. (Why not "Paying utility bills" directly as a caption ?)

 

Your photo remembers me some classic photos of tightly packed human heads. I like the main diagonal here composed of alternating man's and lady's heads and "arresting" somehow the leading female character (beautifully depicted!) in the lower left corner. What's on her shirt? "Chivas Regal" Scotch whisky? It cannot be her favourite drink, I suppose, - too expensive. :-) But it makes for another connection: from "This is the Chivas life." to "Funny and Charming". Regards and happy holidays. Blago

I think you 'hit the nail on the head' in various ways not only with the many points you raised in your comment, which I understand and agree with, but also with your B&W rendition of this particular photograph. You have done the photograph justice. Once I take out the highlights on the woman's chest, left, and do my conversion to B&W, I will be left with the choice of whether to do a conversion to B&W and maybe place this photo in my 'Early' B&W portfolio as I think it is among my more 'classic' photos, and stands up to the works in that folder.

 

You made an interesting point about the 'diagonal' and also another interesting point about the advetisement on the top for 'Chivas' and I'm somewhat doubtful the woman even knows what Chivas Regal is (though I may be wrong). And your proposed title 'Paying Utility Bills' or some such, hardly captures the gravity of their unhappiness -- these people either are going to be cut off (terminated from service) (some of them) or they've already been cut off and are getting their utilites re-instated by making payments, sometimes from food money or from borrowed money that could go to medical treatment e.g., antibiotistics for feverish children or even being told that because of 'late payment patterns they're being forced to post 'deposits' again future nonpayments.

 

Choices have to be made and this is a line for those who are faced with grave choices -- none of that movie poster insousciance.

 

This is the line of life at its 'nitty grittiest'.

 

Thanks for the nice comment and B&W workup.

 

John

IMO the colour in this picture is essential! B&W doesn't work here for me.

The similar skin colours of the poster and the real people are some sort of connection between fiction and reality.

This emphasizes the anticlimax even more.

Your comment is interesting to me, regarding how the continuity of color (and presumably skin tones) connects the people from the foreground persons to the movie poster personages.

 

 

But doesn't the B&W image with its figures also make a similar, powerful connection, just minus the skin tones, as Blagov Tsenkulov has rendered it. I think it makes a very powerful B&W image (and thank Blagoy for his rendering; I think it took some time, and it's very nice and true to the original cropping).

 

But you are right, the 'skin tones' do tie the photo together and the only problem is 'correcting the almost blown tones of the woman with the 'Chivas' shirt and the various 'colors' which are rendered here with difficulty and not very naturally, because of 'mixed' lighting.

 

The Nikon D70 is very capable of dealing with almost any sort of lighting source, but has a problem on Auto dealing with mixed industrial/fluorescent lighting, and I had to do a major magenta addition to 'balance' this print when I 'adjusted' it after *[*Z's comment prompted me to do a right crop.

 

Thank you for your comment. I think this is a keeper and anything that helps me make decisions about this image is very much valued.

 

John

Notice that this image, which is highly-rated for originality, is over 1/3 out of focus, but somehow that seems OK, and it might even be wrong to have the foreground right woman in focus as it would detract from causing the eye to move through the photo. In this case OOF causes the eye to move through the image to the subjects, but one still sees the woman's very unhappy image as she stands in line (to have her electricity restored by paying money she had reserved for her child's Amoxicillin? or some such?)

 

See also the photo in my single photo folder, 'Mary-Kate Did What', also looking back on a line, taken in the Seattle-Tacoma area, in which the nearest woman also is greatly out of focus, and again causing the eye to move to the National Enquirer (Inquiring Minds Want to Know) held by a youthful customer.

 

Question: Am I the King of Highly-Rated Out of Focus Images?

 

(At least I use OOF as a device knowingly to 'focus' attention on my 'real' subject.

 

John

To desaturate or not is not easy to decide. My questions to myself are:

 

(1) Does color detract from overall impact?

 

(2) Is color important to the impact?

 

Color has a way of calling attention to itself. At times it can be a distractor. This is espeically if there are very bright colors (like yellow) calling your attention away from the main subject. If you check my porfolio I have a shot of a couple in my Tokyo train mini-series which I desaturated because of a bright yellow sign that was pulling the eye away from the couple--or the woman's face and the man's arm and jacket. In this case the color is not distracting and for reasons I cannot explain at this point, I prefer it to the black and white version. I think the color somehow gives this shot depth. Specifically, the skin tones in the poster and the people counterpoint each other. B/W tends to abstract and I do not think you want to do this in this shot because the message is already very strong in the didactic sense.

 

I'd put a border around this shot. Also I'd toss out the title. The new title ought to be open-ended.

That is a very helpful, and very well well thought out and constructive comment. I will think about the points it makes. I am particularly impressed with your stated reasons for keeping it a color image, and believe with certitude that it should remain in color.

 

As to the caption: I am less sure. Perhaps you have a suggestion.

 

I have not done borders on any of my images, as I'm too busy taking them to work them over in PS, etc. Maybe it's a skill I'll learn some day.

 

Obviously some serious thought went into your comment.

 

Thanks,

 

John