'Wheelchair Dreams'

Your comment not only was well thought out, but very valuable. Your cropping suggestion, though not the one I would follow, also was very valuable to me, for it caused me to have to think through some basic thoughts about the nature of 'street photography' versus basic subject-oriented photography -- the kind I had originally been doing when I joined Photo.net as opposed to the type shown in my Early B&W folder, which I now am contributing to at a considerable rate, as I once again understand the difference between subject-oriented photography and context-oriented photography, and as discussed, street photography is context-oriented photography almost exclusively, this photo in particular.

It was your cropping suggestion and my rejection of it that caused me to have to articulate my reasons for its rejection in such lucid (I hope) terms, and for that you have performed a valuable service alone, beside the other comments you made.

Thank you so much.

John

Now that I have made the Top Rated Photo page 1, I offer to give my place here to Alexander Chubb, who has been lusting after a place here for some time -- after all, he wants a place on the TRP so he can make photo of the week (POW) and I have no such aspirations. Further, it seems that although Alexander Chubb has sent in his dues (as I once did twice myself) nearly three months ago and hasn't become a subscriber; how can he and his Altar stand being snubbed so by the Administration?

So, Alexander, I make a public offer to donate my place (as ephemeral as it is) on the TRP to you, if you can work out the mechanics with the Administration.

John '-))

Oh, what a paradox! sad story but good finding!

Biliana

There is nothing you have produced that isn't of the highest caliber; a mention of honor from you is high praise indeed; thank you.

John

Maybe you prefer the Russian/Eastern European view of this -- he's got the wheelchair and he's achieved mobility -- this is not his future dream but his achieved dream.

In those countries, they often have little or no accommodation for the handicapped, except elevators, with no ramps at all or curb cutouts for wheelchair access, and most buildings don't have elevators at all - they're large walkups.

But this guy in America, under the Eastern European view, although he's handicapped, has a speedy machine, capable of fast movement (see, he's a blur, here, almost, so much he had to be sharpened), and the 'dancing, kicking, proclaiming spirits above' are representative of the 'freedom' he already has achieved, as he sped from far away, across one curb cutout, across a street, up another curb cutout, across this long expanse and then down another curb cutout, across another street and on his way, unimpeded.

Under that view, it's not so sad, after all.

It's all in how you look at it.

(I could use some of your legendary sharpness, however, and a review of the EXIF information from my digital camera reveals I was stopped down far too much for this 'flat' view and literally 'wasted' a low shutter speed with my high ISO setting, and got 'caught' with this blurry image of the wheelchair subject -- and it could have been avoided had I been more anticipating (but then who could have known in time to prepare? I got caught unprepared and fired with my camera as it was set.)

Thanks for the endorsing comment.

John

Interesting as allways,

-I prefer the colour version

-Respect to the comment to Biliana, for what I know in USA you can get a mechanical chair IF you can pay for it. Europe used to be a good place to live, now things are changing.

-I guess that the relative low ratings on aesthetics that you are receiving come from the blur of the chair. To me this is nonsense. Should somebody prepare a course on photographic language and post it?

Now this is a large thread John. I could only read partly through it.

Thinking back of your former postings, I must say that often in your photos the REAL things are blurred and unsharp, whereas the artifcial things i.e. your backgrounds (posters, paintings, sign etc.) are sharp. Maybe that comes from how you see your pictures before you shoot them. I think it has something to do with your intense engagement with backgrounds. Your description of how you made this photo adds to this theory.

Just thinking.

Good one for me.

I also agree that the color version is the stronger of the two . . . for now. The B&W version is just too busy -- color separates the man from the subjects above him --- what I call the 'predicate'.

As to the wheelchair - actually a scooter - they are available for purchase, but for the severely disabled who have certain state/federal (or combined) benefits provided for them, such scooters can be free of cost entirely.

Also, if one is injured at work, one can receive free retraining through the workers' compensation scheme in all the states and in most states if it involves a mobility impairment issue that arose from a work injury, in order to get the individual back to work (and free the insurance company from major liability for further or increased benefits) and on a doctor's orders, a wheelchair or scooter such as this might be provided free to the injured workers.

There also are various charities which exist to help provide such aid to the severely mobility impaired (handicapped, disabled, - choose your word if you are 'politically correct')

So, having such a device is not altogether uncommon in the United States, and in most communities with 'curbs' at the edge of 'streets' and other roads, where the 'curbs' are quite raised American style, there long have been mandates in most communities that there be 'cutouts' at interesections so that the curbs be lowered to 'street level' so such wheelchairs could cross them without impairment, otherwise a man/woman in a wheelchair would be confined to a 'block', or a certain area bounded by the 'curbs' which otherwise would be impassable.

And this particular device went at quite a speed -- it's electric powered almost certainly.

Thanks for the comment, Manel. (I got your e-mail and replied).

John

I think your correspondence is some of the most thought-provoking on Photo.net.

Here, I am kicking myself for having my camera stopped down and not having the shutter speed high enough to stop the blur, and there you are analyzing why my backgrounds are always pretty sharp and my subjects more 'out of focus' as an artistic issue.

Is it just my ill-preparedness for the 'great shot', or is it an artistic expression?

You have me thinking. It may be partly what you are espousing, no matter how ill-prepared I was.

In any case, I'm not afraid to press the shutter, no matter what the shutter speed, or to process a photo, no matter how pixellated it is or grainy, or out of focus if it has great promise for a good photo.

(See my photo: 'Don't Look Back, I Think

We're Being Followed' in which a man and his son are walking, and there are a school of salmon depicted on a building wall beside and behind them. That photo started out as blurry and as unclear as could be, and gradually through several methods, was sharpened, and clarified to acceptable, even postable, levels through which the processing could not even be detected (or was barely detectable), and the photo could be enjoyed without 'making allowances' for its being a 'street photo'.

I would like to do the same for this, even if it means returning to the scene of this photograph, and retaking this photo. I know the time the man went by, he probably was going home from work, and if I can catch him at the same spot with the right shutter speed, I can replicate the photo (athough not with hand and cigarette to mouth).

Alternately, I'll be trying the giant 'Noritsu' photo processing machine sharpening methoc, followed by Photoshop, then Noritsu and Photoshop again, working for a clear photo of the guy and also reworking the original photo from the JPEG (no raw file on this one).

So, Alexander, you have me thinking. Which am I, careless, or careful but inclined artistically to render my backgrounds sharp . . . ?

Almost like a chicken and egg problem, although not quite.

Thanks for tickling my imagination.

John (who must admit to having somewhat sloppy technique sometimes or being 'surprised' sometimes by that 'great shot' and being unprepared).

This reminds me of another photographer - a great photographer in my opinion - Doug Hawks -- whose biography says he was scolded by his famous instructor, Max Yavno, for his street 'slip shod' technique because he had a 'story teller's eye. I should have as good an eye as he.

jc

In light of your honest explanation to me above, thought it over and decided i should up this to 7/7...cause 6/6 it on that basis. Of course am out of 7's for that date (darngangit) but its a virtual 7 (just as good)...You really got me thinking. In this day and age and evolution of photos on the site, what the end result equals seems to be all that matters, sometimes, not all. In this case i think it applys.

Just knowing you saw the potential here and broke your own values to a degree to make the shot happen is good enough for me to say this is a classic image. What it speaks overshadows nitty picky points like focus. Sounds bit off the wall but its true cause i have a similar image i love so much. Thought it was a writeoff and so dissapointed, its pretty well my fav street shot. After reading your responce, thought why not, sometimes a title can make it. Like your opinon on this if you would... http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3218362 .... you continue to teach me much John. Thanks.

It's comments like yours that make a bad day into something wonderful.

Some photos are poorly executed and deserve oblivion -- they have no redeeming merit and deserve the ashcan, the shredder, an unprinted negative, or a permanent place on one's hard drive, (just to leave a lesson that one's photographic skills are less than perfect much of the time -- which is why I keep many of my failures, which thank fully are diminishing in number as I get more experience).

I remember that experienced 'street photographers' expect they can take 100 photographs minimum to get one keeper, and read that one famous 'street photographer' gets an upset stomach (minimizing it somewhat) before he goes out on the 'street' to begin his shooting for any one day or session - it's intense work for some people. I used to be the same way, because I took it way too seriously. I had put my entire self-worth into making a good image, and if I didn't I felt I was a failure.

Now, I recognize that there's a rhythm to making good photos, and that through (1) the use of a digital camera with instant feedback and its fast learning curve, (2) participation on Photo.net with its feedback, and finally, (3) review of the images of others outside of PN, through reviewing the photos of other, famous and not so famous photographers, one can accelerate that process.

Now, I recognize that going out on the 'street' or going out is a matter of taking my camera everywhere and when an opportunity presents itself, just raise the camera and take the picture.

And the rule is take at least one picture before it's framed perfectly and settings are in place permanently, in case it goes away, then frame and reset the controls, and take another (if it's an ephemeral scene like the above, which indeed did go away.)

What worse thing than to be caught setting adjustments as the photo of a lifetime gets away from you? And isn't that the magic of auto focus, and auto exposure.

Or do like Henri Cartier-Bresson did. Set the exposure in advance (he used his eye and the 'sunny 16' exposure rule), and then photograph mainly in sunlight or outside and set the focus to take maximum use of depth of field, which is hard to do for me because I often shoot in low light (C-B would have been stymied I think by the lighting conditions I shoot in, indoors, after dark, outdoors after dark, in the rain under the stretlights, etc.).

And this photo, at the end of the day under a dark freeway underpass . . . I fretted about posting . . . and when a 3/7 post with a 3 representing aesthetics came in, I had absolutely no qualms about it and had expected more such ratings. In fact, that '3' was an entirely honest rating, although '3' is a low rating for aesthetics if one takes more than 'technical quality' into account for aesthetics, and takes into account composition, subject matter, impact, etc. etc.

But a '3' score for technical presentation of the wheelchair bound guy would have been a proper rating for me and I would have said 'fair enough'.

As I wrote above, in response to Max Zappa, 'I take lot of chances in my postings because I believe in my images,' and many times I get substandard ratings, but I go ahead and post those images because they satisfy me.

For instance, as I write this, this image has 16 ratings and the originality rating is well above 6.0, and the aesthetic ratings is just below 6.0, but the next posting was in my Early B&W folder of a feuding brother and sister, with momma's hand coming down on their heads, and it only got 6 ratings, but I never thought of withdrawing it, because it caught a 'moment of truth' and is worthy just for that, whether or not it views well on Photo.net.

Photo.net displays some photos well and other not at all well and a discerning photographer takes that into account in deciding which photos to select for his own favorites outside of the pressure cooker of 'views' and 'ratings' I am equally proud of some images which get '1,900' views and a 4.2/3.8 rating -- in effect what others view as not a worthwhile image at all, but which I find worthy somehow.

Long ago I posted to get ratings - I lusted after them.

But I ended up with some images I thought worthwhile that I posted then withdrew because no one would rate them when I posted them.

I then put them in folders and posted them, and they get a great viewership in secondary folders and I have enough to post a couple more such folders, all without critique or ratings. Over half my photos have never been submitted for critique, yet the folders get very high viewership.

Posting good photos isn't all about numbers. Photos are subjective. And sometimes a member/subscriber should have a surprise when they go exploring in a member's portfolio, and not just find the old images that have been on the critique forum.

Some of my absolutely best images have never been critiqued. They're excellent, and I don't need the critique forum to tell me that. If I had been smart when I joined PN, I would have posted them, I suppose to get viewership, but if you look in my Early B&W folder, there are 25 images or so that have never been critiqued and many have ratings of 6 or over, and one is my absolute best image of all times, and I expect it never will be submitted for critique (although it has over 20,000 views and about 15 ratings just from people who have 'happened upon it.'

I am glad you were encouraged to break out of the mold.

It's too easy to get caught in the ratings and numbers trap.

You're an outstanding photographer and you don't need the numbers to tell you that; and Photo.net is just another place to express your individuality, not a game to 'best' by breaking records such as for high ratings and viewership.

So, I guess I'll just keep on posting photos that tickle my fancy -- that appeal to me -- even though I have photos that I know will appeal better to the TRP crowd. I have dozens of such photos in my files which I won't post, but may show up in secondary, uncritiqued folders later on.

Just for the surprise.

Your nice comment is the highest praise I could hope for (regardless of whether the rating on the posted photo is low or high).

Thank you so much.

John (Crosley)

Thnaks John, wow.

Your points about street photography ring true and to me theres no more exciting aspect of the art. Absolute spontinaity and rythem, yes, rythem are required...and a lot more really, depending on the area you shoot, its sometimes downright dangerous. And nerves ya. Often composure is not even an option and its not surprising you would advocate popping one off before even getting setup because i have found the same.

Better some then none at all rules. Man now i'm talking about it and posting a lot of it this week, more and more i get a hunger to go shoot it. What i like the very most is a fast scene is caught and you scan it and discover what you really have. Its like Christmas a lot. Will explain that on this image for you, wanted to anyway on the shot.. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3219926

Saved images don't take much room in these days of dvd's and huge drives. I keep everything, even completly out of focus. Some as even useful in ps art layer tone effects etc. Really no such thing as a total loser, sometimes even time plays a role... time ya, i better get to safeway or no dinner!... thanks John.

This is a rework starting from shadow/highlight adjustment before any selecting for sharpening, an overall minor sharpening before selecting the wheelchair guy for sharpening.

On looking at the original image, I noticed that no right, top or even bottom cropping was needed, only a left crop (which is changed slightly in this rework).

John

Here is a rework of Image, using first Shadow/Highlight to spread the tones, then overall sharpening a little, then selecting the wheelchair guy for additional sharpening.

Also, a slight additional left area was added and just a little taken off on the bottom, though it was not necessary, just for symmetry, as the top, right and bottom margins as framed and shot were almost perfect.

John