'The Country Mice Go Home'

The train station is in the big city, but these passengers, reminiscent of

the 'Country Mice', are apparently on their way home . . . . Your

ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly

or very critically or just wish to make a statement, please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; please share your photographic

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

Notice the skewed feet, bottom center, of the boy, his masked face (swine flu and/or cold), his face completely covered, his hand around his neck, and the period accessories, which could have come from early 20th C. except for the banana and other boxes and the elastic strap on the cart.

 

ISO: 2500, subjects in almost total darkness.

 

Thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

Excellent work, John!

 

Best regards from NL,

 

Ruud.

I don't ever think you have ever given me such praise.

 

I think it is one of my BEST photos, also.

 

Raters think it is one of my worst, yet you are one of the most prominent members and one of the best critics.

 

Whom am I to believe, the anonymous raters or you and me?

 

You and me, I think.

 

I go with my instincts and think the rates just are not seeing what I see; a GREAT view of something still able to be photographed in 2009 in a city with BMWs and other signs of wealth (even in crisis) that smacks of 19C. or early 20th C. - a step back in history.

 

This is one of the things I also would see from time to time in rural Rossija, but was not photographing ten years ago and not regret.

 

Time has passed these things by in most of the modernizing world, but from time to time one sees them, which is why I am here, not somewhere else.

 

And at ISO 2500 and the only photo I took here (police told me 'no photos') I was happy for just this one.

 

Your positive critique means more to me than any 3 3/3s or 4/4s, as you know, as you are a known quantity.

 

I'm glad you enjoy this.

 

I am wondering how the others just don't see this, but there's no accounting for taste.

 

Alas.

 

But then I don't shoot for ratings but for myself . . . . ratings only validate or don't . . . . though of course no one will turn down high ratings and universal popularity. Heh!

 

Best to you, Ruud.

 

John (Crosley)

I like this image a lot! The tuckered out country folk heading home. A great capture, particularly when/where prohibited. I am still learning "street" (it is not my cup), however, this is obviously a wonderful slice from life. As much a part of this photo than not, is the woman to the right, face covered by scarf or mask, the urbanite, whom brings the image to the modern day. Wonderful work, thank you for sharing.

 

-Dave

Great scene, John ... well seen & captured. Regards.

You always rate the rater according to the rate the rater gave to you. Peter Piper picked a peck....... Maybe would be improved if you moved left and eliminated the background. You of course would then lose the girl with the scarf but she does not fit the decor anyway.

Dave,

 

You and I both like this image a lot.

 

I actually stopped in my tracks when I saw this pair (Pair?---I have to keep staring to make sure it's a pair, as they are still crumpled up and what I saw was almost total darkness, lightened in this reproduction.)

 

In any case, instead of just approaching with camera (photo apparat), I did what I normally do if I want to ensure a capture and have just walked into some place.

 

I slowed, turned around to face the opposite direction, peered down at my camera (photo apparat) and looked at controls to ensure - that autofocus and autofocus point were what I wanted, adjusted ISO to highest (checking shutter speed that resulted and settled (quickly) on very high at ISO 2500, the highest I ever have shot, because they really were almost entirely in blackness), then with everything 'set' turned around, walked a little bit, decided I could not approach closer without disturbing the scene and took this entire frame as a rectangle (same proportions) within a slightly larger rectangle, a preplanned crop, a rarity for me.

 

So the only cropping was to nearly equally trim all four parts of the frame, which I already had known I would have to do - well, looking at it, it ended up more like a 4:5 aspect ratio than that of a 35 mm. But you get the idea. I made the crop fit the subject.

 

I also wanted to include the background somewhat, to include the repetition of the waiting area around the post -- a sort of distant 'mirroring' so it would place these folks in context, of sorts.

 

I haven't seen people like this since I left rural Ukraine some while ago, or occasionally at the nearby airport, usually with people flying to (of all places) Oregon and Washington, usually Baptist or Pentacostalists, who have or want a dozen kids or so and believe in one big rural happy family.

 

But that s not apparent for this woman.

 

Oregon and Washington state both have a lot of Russian and Ukrainian (more Ukrainian I think) fundamentalist Christians with a huge number of children, who often came from the 'Old Country' but fairly recently.

 

It was little different than Jews doing the same thing, except the greater part of Jews were welcome in their 'homeland' Esra, and Israel apparently has (had?) a huge number of of Russian or Ukrainian (or former Soviet) emigre Jews among their population, even if not religiously Jewish -- Jewish by family heritage (if your mother and so on through lineage was Jewish, even if you are Baptized and confirmed a Christian, or even a Muslim. because you are . . .I understand, because your Jewishness is in your lineage, unless you join Judaism by conversion.

 

I was taught this by a former girlfriend whose father and mother survived the Holocaust hiding out in an attic in Germany, surviving on smuggle bread crumbs and crusts, and later only letting me date their daughter because they believed I also was Jewish ('ma, they have blond Jews in Oregon,she intoned to maaaaa' in her delightfully Brooklyn accent (like Fran Dresher tawked, only stronger in accent -- making Fran Dresher look 'gentrified').

 

My bets are that this woman is a fundamentalist,but I cannot prove it; just it's my instinct. My experience is most fundamentalist Pentacostalists in Russia and Ukraine wold be entirely surprised to learn that Pentacostalism was started by a black man in Atlanta . . . . because the really think it was 'home grown' in their own country(ies).,

 

Hah!

 

So, this is a capture of the 'old ways' still extant today.

 

For that alone it has worth, to me (and I think to others).

 

I treasure it; soon there may be no more such captures of Caucasian (white) people in developing countries . . . as times progress.

 

It harkens back to the days of 'Old Europe' taken by the classic Leica photographers, Doisnea, Cartier-Bresson, Ronis, etc,, I think (even though in color) as it brings forth a certain 'earthiness' or maybe 'salt of the earthiness' to the capture, that brought those 'classic captures' to life. They captures, to me, the essence of humanity in a single frame so many times; I attempted to do that here.

 

That's why I value it - in major part because for me it's possibly a historical photo.

 

In second part because it's just plain interesting, historical or not, and taken with sufficient skill to remain interesting and maybe with increasing interest as time passes far past the time when such scenes can no longer be captured ever again (outside, say Kyrgystan or Rumania, but then Kyrgystan is modernizing, and I cannot speak for neighboring Rumania (Romania), not having been there, though now I want to go there very much, if such scenes can be captured there; I'l have to write Borat or his counterpart and ask . . . right?

 

In fact, Borat would have depicted this scene exactly, I think, if he had thought of it,or a script called for it, but with some bathroom or homosexual 'humour'.

 

Police did not ask me (in sign language) not to take photos until after I had taken this AND removed my flash card and pocketed it, so when they did inquire, (with sign language) I just spoke to them rather loudly in English (which they did not understand) explaining that I took photos, that the place was great for photos, then illuminated my menu to show the message 'no compact flash card inserted' or similar. heh heh heh heh.

 

Only one capture, and this was it, safely tucked away,and me unaware for sure that photography was forbidden there (and for what reason, anyway? as Ukraine is not at war with Chechnya like neighboring Russia was (I was a victim of that conflict in a small way -- wife's photos destroyed/burned in Metro bombing under Moscow's Pushkinskaya Metro, later returned half burned six months later.)

 

Truth!

 

I am very glad, David, that you like this. I looked at ratings and found that a large number of raters felt this was a mediocre to pretty bad photo, especially for me, and frankly felt they were 'all wet'.

 

I still do, but respect that their rates were their own judgment; I just question their judgment, especially since more respected raters have weighed in, now, and I've now got comments.

 

I do respect all honest rates, even if I strongly disagree/no honest rate is 'wrong' -- no matter how delusional the rater may be. (it's a dogmatic sort of thing) ;~)))

 

Kind of like believing (or not) in the Second Coming.

 

Dave, thanks for helping me sort things out with critics here, both high and low.

 

Bolshoi spasibo (big thanks)

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Thank you for your concise and to the point compliment.

 

John (Crosley)

I took a 'larger scene' because to approach closer for a more tightly framed capture was to risk ruining the scene.

 

I framed it to crop, and did so.

 

I had every opportunity to crop out all I thought unnecessary -- and did.

 

(see above for explanation)

 

This is what's left.

 

I wouldn't change it for anything, but thank you for your opinion.

 

You and I frequently differ.

 

That's why they make chocolate and vanilla (and occasionally strawberry)

 

John (Crosley)

about who is Jewish, and how it is determined, as told me by a Jewish girlfriend long ago.

 

A member, Jewish, from Israel wrote me a rather interesting and somewhat humorous letter about just that subject, showing a complexity I was unaware of, and considerable knowledge of the subject.

 

I urged him to post it, as it was not only entertaining but also quite didactic as well, and encyclopedic, but in his second letter to me (which I read after replying to his first) he suggested I adopt his letter and post it 'as told to' which I refuse to do. It is not my work and of it I have no personal and little reputations knowledge who is a Jew and who is not.

 

Until that member decides to post, you're in the dark about what he might share, and it truly was worth sharing -- more than several cuts above his usual contributions - truly worthy and of a subject of which he has considerable experience and surely some expertise as well. Very entertaining and encyclopedic even if not of GREAT length.

 

In the meantime, the issue of 'what comprises a Jew' or 'who is a Jew' it turns out is before England's Highest Court right now, on the issue of who gets into state-sponsored religious schools, including those set aside for Jews. It turns out that the Orthodox definition of Jew is 'mother is Jewish (or converted to Orthodox Judaism) was the test for entering a particular Jewish school which received state funding and they reserved some places for strictly Jews but set their own definition of Jewish', and a practicing and allegedly devout Jewish student was turned away for admission on the supposition that he was NOT a Jew because his mother was not Jewish because, though Jewish by ordinary definitions (she had married a Jew and converted, she had not converted to Orthodox Judaism).

 

Under that definition, a British Appeals Court intoned that 40% of all British Jews did not meet the test of being Jewish, and the Appeals court (a lower court than will decide the matter once and for all) decided that a test of one's maternal religious violated anti-ethnicity laws of Britain as they did not depend on religion but upon heritage (of the child).

 

One could require parents to be all sorts of things rather than that the student be 'religious' or 'devout'. In fact, a representative of the Orthodox branch of Judaism in that country said that one could eat a ham sandwich on Yom Kippur (Jews are religiously forbidden from eating pork products and Yom Kippur is as high a holy day as they get), and it would be irrelevant to one's Jewishness, as devoutness is not the test of Jewishness (to the orthodox, but rather the Jewishness of one's mother).

 

Presumably one's mother might have a Jewish mother, or her mother before her, and neither mother, nor grandmother would even know she was 'Jewish' until research was done, but when done, each would be 'Jewish' and when 'grandma' was "Jewish' (even if long dead' and 'mom' were determined Jewish as a result' (even if long dead, or so I posit), then all progeny of mom would also be Jewish.

 

Under Israeli law, with the so-called Right of Return allowing Jews from around the world to 'return' to Israel, Jews from the Soviet Union (and successor countries) supposedly hunted down family records (or doctored them) to claim Jewishness through maternal heritage, sometimes through generations, (even if previously unknown) in order to get permission to exit the Soviet Union and to enter Israel where there now are very large number of Russian (and other Eastern European) Jews from the former Soviet Union (Hitler didn't penetrate far enough to get them all and kill them all, though he razed much of Kiev, Ukraine, laid siege to Leningrad, and fought on the outskirts of Moscow . . . . while residents huddled in the city's fabulous and extremely deep Metro tunnels (I presume).

 

(which is why they were built soo deeeeeep in the first place. In places deeper than many mines.)

 

 

Here is a link (for so long as it remains active) to the original article on Jewishness,published in today's New York Times (Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009)

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=all

 

Between what the member wrote me and what is in the article above, there's a lot more there there (apologies to Gertrude Stein) than ever met my eye (or my ham-sandwich on the sabbath eating girlfriend, Shoiley, who was perpetually Jewish in spite of washing down those sabbath ham sandwiches with milkshakes (Jewish dietary law: don't mix meat and milk, especially for the orthodox of which her father was one as I recall - as he was a kosher butcher . . .. . )

 

I guess I was an instigator of my own anti-religious movement for buying those ham sandwiches and milkshakes for her (and me) . . . . . . on Friday evening dates at the local Columbia deli, far from her Brooklyn home.

 

John (Crosley)

 

The one-time blond 'Jew',with the 'Ivy League' yarmulke - button and strap on back.

 

A Baptized Episcopalian from Oregon

 

 

 

 

John, Above you mention a blonde jewish boy as if he was an anomaly. I attach an image of Israeli Jews (mind you ISRAELI CITIZENS). The Ethiopean boy is in fact posted on photonet and there are others). You can extrapolate and guess that blonde jews boys and jewish boys with red hair and freckles are all around you. And blonde hair holds with Paletinian Arabs also.

 

 

P.S. As I said just above, Palestinian boys (taken in Jerusalem) also have blonde hair. (not posted because it is horribly out of focus)

!

of the story above, that is was the parents of the girlfriend who were being told that 'they have blond Jews in Oregon' where I was coming from, and that I was offering NO OPINION about the hair color of Jews at all, but the parents, having suffered the entire Holocaust living in an attic in Germany (or so the daughter told me), living on food brought by sympathizers, and suffering lifelong digestion problems as a result of near starvation, assuredly were of a group who considered blond Jews to be extraordinary.

 

Now, as it happens one of my schoolmates (I wrote you of this I think) was indeed quite red headed, and knowing nothing then about Judaism, good or bad, as a youth, I had no thoughts on it at all, except he was freckled and/or ruddy skinned and had red hair (and his father owned a very large furniture store, now I think a chain, and probably he now is the owner, in Eugene, Oregon.

 

I could have cared less what religion a person was (or wasn't). Talk of 'this person being a Jew or that person not was utterly useless information to me . . . . as I had few or almost no stereotypes. I did know the guy who owned the fishing store and outdoor store, based his pricing policy on some secret (no longer) code which he publicized when he went 'discount' and you had to figure out the true cost, then add a percent to the figures by using the code Simon F. Judah (and transliterate that into numbers, then add a percent to get your price) Clever, hunh, rather than just putting a price. He emphasized his Jewishness and made shopping fun at the same time - hunting for a bargain through his use of a 'Jewish' named price code and even revealing that shops then used price codes on price tags -- something no longer done in this era or computers.

 

And when I went to Columbia, I almost pledged the Jewish fraternity, and they had a blond guy in front inviting potential pledges to 'come on in', but eventually I pledged for a short time a fraternity, started to be kidnapped as part of the hi-jinks, decided it was stupid and depledged on the spot., I just gave it up and never looked back. It never came up again. Any house that wanted me,I didn't want, and any one that wanted me, I didn't want. (Only one house was my target any way, and they didn't look my way.) Today I am proud of my decision to eschew fraternity life . . . . it is not part of my needs and never was.

 

I did the right thing.

 

Blonds, brunettes and redheads, blue eyes, brown eyes and green eyes meant nothing to me, same with skin color; my house was visited by people with Technicolors on a regular basis and as kids we in my household were not allowed to say one word of discrimination, and did not. My sister married an Arab and his father was blue-eyed (and they lived together in Iraq until just before Saddam declared war in Iran, when she fled with her two kids, one of whom became a Muslim pilot in the US Air Force with a US passport and an Iraqi citizen also by birth (but born in the USA) as was his sister, last I heard a dentist - both wonderful people . . . . and loved in the family (and I loved their father, a Mosul, Iraq native whom I worked with side by side in my first out of the home job.)

 

I tutored in Harlem and my kids (black) named me an 'honorary Nigger), their term of endearment, not mine.

 

I'm proud of it.

 

I think I earned it.

 

Even if as a white guy I can't say it without getting harsh stares no matter what color company.

 

Blond Jews?

 

Great?

 

From Ethiopia?

 

Just don't get mistaken for albino,or they'll get slaughtered and eaten.

 

Albinos have it worse than everyone, at least in Africa.

 

There they kill you (and sometimes eat you).

 

White is the hair color there that really matters.

 

Meir, thanks for contributing.

 

Anything else?

 

John (Crosley)

A striking documentary - an icon - of the Eastern Society [ukrainian], showing the contrast between a modern setting in a station and the people coming from the countryside.

Imagine this icon printed out large, not on a screen.

John is good, very good at spotting these icons in a flash, and has a well refined technique to capture them. Look at this one, this one, this one, and this one.

The problem is that he knows it, and sometimes he's carried away by his communication.

An artist of street photography.

Not always but quite often.

As any artist he tends to fall in love with his works.

 

There is another thing which goes to his credit: creating art requires working hard. It is clear that John works hard to "see" and to "react fast" to reproduce scenes which materialize and de-materialize very quickly.

 

Meir is different from John. His art is something I would call "street portraiture". The strength of his pictures - portraits - is incredible: just browse this folder, or this folder.

 

On this photo: there is nothing to change. Not the cutaway figures in the background, not the missing leg of the trolley in the foreground. It is absolutely self-standing. You cannot say the same of this one.

This photo is also humoristic in a way: the worldwide Chiquita corporation strikes again!

 

One other thing: these are the ratings:

 

Aesth Orig Ratings

3 4 2

4 4 1

4 5 1

5 4 1

6 5 1

6 6 1

6 7 1

7 7 2

 

If 4 is average, this is the demonstration that quite a few people here on photo.net who have rated this do not understand the photo, nor the ability required to take it. And this is another thing I am longing for: training for critique. But also that is hard work.

 

L.

It is not apparent, or it is not apparent to me, that the original scene is very dark. There is some slight "noise", but nothing dramatic.

 

L.

I do understand.

 

In order to even make it 'viewable' or even to see any detail, I had to lighten it. It is almost entirely dark on this side of the support column,so much so that I could not see what you now can see more clearly, there in the darkness.

 

Thanks for giving me a heads' up.

 

John (Crosley)