Three States of Awareness

This is slightly newer than the vintage of film noir, but not much (look at the copyright date!)

This is currently being cleaned up for being reposted and made into exhibition quality (I hope). I may have to rescan it. Rescanning it and re-Photoshopping it may be able to make this into something truly wonderful --- if it is capable of attaining that level.)

Thanks for the nice comparison.

John (Crosley)

This one almost never saw the light of day/its print was so badly done, but it was rescued with some Photoshop work. It was poorly exposed, indoors and the exposure almost exceeded the film's ability to capture the information, but somehow it got printed, and though the neg was destroyed, this was captured as a copy from a print and manipulated a bit to make it viewable. There is no print in existence that looks this good; this is a 'web' version only and only exists in pixels, though I am working it up for printing.

It has got quite a reception here, including, now, from you.

Thanks.

John (Crosley)

I had this for 35 years and never appreciated it until I Photoshopped it, then threw it open for critique and got wonderful rates and reviews.

It opened my eyes as it never had been printed well, but Photoshop rescued it from a poor print. Photoshop has its strong points, and this is one of them.

Thanks for the endorsement.

John (Crosley)

Soon after I took this shot, I went to the giant De Young Museum in San Francisco where Henri Cartier-Bresson was showing his works -- literally hundreds and hundreds of works from the world over.

They were selling for bargain basement prices there in 1969, and I wanted to buy the place out. I had never heard of him before, though a colleague at AP which had just hired me had worked with Cartier-Bresson in China together and described him to me.

I was taking photos like this at the time, and looked at Cartier-Bresson's work and decided that his was an extension of my style though I had never consciously seen any of his photos before, and that he 'occupied the field' and commanded it, so I simply mostly gave up photography, except as an occasional hobby or avocation.

I changed into a writer at AP though they had hired me as a photographer. I did not know that Richard Avedon later would agree with interviewer Charlie Rose that Cartier-Bresson was one of the five greatest artists of the 20th Century - not photographers but artists and that 'we are all children' of Cartier-Bresson.

Now, 29 years later, I look at this and look through C-B's work and I judge he easily might have taken this photo, so I was right - I had no hopes with that style in competing with him.

I would always have been a wannabe or a disciple of Cartier-Bresson. I made a wise choice.

However, I migth have continued with photography and developed my myriad styles if I had continued experience and had known that Cartier-Bresson was financing his retirement through sales of his work . . . and I would have been a purchaser as those prices but my salary (before taxes) was $145 a week!

I lusted and knew the value of those prints for sale and knew someday they would be priceless, but didn't have the price for just one - and then which one to buy -- the better ones were priced higher, at that.

Do you agree with my assessment? Or am I all wet?

First, the comparison - this photo with a C-B photo style, and second with my career choices?

John (Crosley)

Wanted to see what you termed as "Best of the best" and well...I really do not have anything to say after all the comments/discussion that have taken place above.

The photo somehow captures more than just a situation; the man watching hawk-eyed seems to represent the degeneration of SROs like this into the seedy places with drug addicts, as you describe. The triangular composition of the characters is perfect and there exists a palpable tension in the photo. It may be by the line joining the subjects or the rather "intrusive" nature of the man at the entrance as he seems to break into a relatively calm setting. I think for all the pose of the elderly gentleman, the man in the hat makes the shot. Take him away and though you have a more relaxed atmosphere, and the shot, however good, becomes a bit flat.

I did say "I really do not have anything to say", but as you see, I did blurt out my opinion...lol. And not only have I said a few words, I have also close cropped the photo to see if it creates more drama.

Once again, my congratulations, however belated, on a very successful shot. Regards.

Without the guy in the hat noticing the young (respectful) whippersnapper at the entrance, camera in hand, that this photo would not be nearly as successful.

But then again, since there's either triangulation, or a paralellogram here, any of the 'anchors' of that (or the other) figure missing, would destroy the layout and the composition.

Regrettably, to my mind, that's what your crop does, as part of the 'magic' of this shot is the three differnt levels of awareness, something PN viewers taught me about my own photo (no overweening pride in my own critical skills there, but recognition that PN members were quick to see much, much more in this photo than I ever did.)

But all I had was a raggedly executed blowup done in an atrocious manner by maybe a poor apprentice in a good, gallery level print shop, that snuck by me, and for which I paid . . . . and should not have. 

I undertook its rescue through Photoshop decades later with the negative missing,, and miracle of miracles, this is what I came up with.

If you saw the original, you'd have a similar opinion as I did . . . as I remembered mostly what it DID look like before it was cleaned up.

Even now it could use some real professional Photoshopping but the overdodging in the front (or window light which I think it really is) seriously adds to the presentation and draws the eye to the triangle/parallelogram of the figures.

Your crop destroys that figure, and also destroys it within the 2:3 aspect ratio -- in fact it destroys that aspect ratio. I find that aspect ratio very pleasing, and when I can I try not to crop the aspect ratio and instead to preserve it.

For good reason.

Composition for me is a very important thing; you'll find attempts at serious composition in so many of my photos, even those with people, or even especially those with people. 

Certainly no Cartier-Bresson, but an admirer, this photo was taken before I saw any of his works and is part of the reason I was sent to meet him; his former China hand colleague saw some similarity in style, when he saw this and some other works of mine.

;~))

But I didn't want to be an also-ran or be seen as a lesser imitator of this guy I didn't know named Henry (C-B) referred to me by his friend, so when I saw the magnifcence and huge size of his his life's works, I just folded my photographic cards, gave up my photographic aspirations and went other directions (probably a very good decison . . . magazines which bought such photos were drying up, and I'd have been very poor, or a whore for advertisers, and have had to give up my 'art' aspirations as 'street' photographer, a designation I had never even heard, and I am not sure then had been coined.

Maybe Winogrand and others had coined the term, but it hadn't made its way to me; I should have been hanging around with those guys; I had lived near their lairs in NYC when I started. 

Another guy who intimidated me was Bruce Davidson, whose project, East 100th Street, I saw in preview when he presented it in slides, hoping for help in finding a quality publisher, there in New York City. 

I was in awe both of the quality he got with his big camera and his access to East 100th street, as I was a 'drive-by', walk-by photographer with no big projects under my belt (and none to date except to chronical daily life in Ukraine's streets, which I now understand has put my work onthe map, at least in Eastern Europe, where my work is well known and my name too..

Three levels of awareness was suggested to me for the theme of this; and I instantly endorsed it.

I still do; it is exactly what this photo is about.

Taking and cropping out the face of the hatted man, takes away the life from this photo, I think, rather than giving it zest, and makes it into a focus on an old somnalent guy.

I have another of him, which now I'll never post, and for a long time I thought THAT was THE photo.

But when I fixed this in photoshop, I thought I'd give this one a try at posting because it seemed more 'complex'.

And appealing.

Now it seems like its appeal may far outlast my lifetime if i am careful.

I hope that's true.

Hope, hope, hope, hope!

and try, try, try, try!

Thnks for your hard work, even in wading through the extensive commentary above; that must have been a Herculean task.  This photo's success certainly astounded me, and gave me faith overall in the rating system here for all its myriad faults, especially in times past.

Members lust for 'real quality' I found, at least 'certain members'. (which is not to say I produce 'real quality' very often' or of this caliber, perhaps ore than once a blue moon or even less frequently).

That admiration, I've never really lost.

john

John (Crosley)