'The Cleanup'

Midnight has passed, the filling station is closing and the lone attendant

has the task of cleaning up. Here he lifts a leg over his hose as he

sprays the premises, for a study in blacks, whites, grays and overall

composition. Your ratings, and critiques are invited and most welcome.

If you rate harshly, very critically, or just wish to make an observation,

please submit a helpful and construtive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

I have always advised that it is best to 'fill the frame' with 'the photo' and to 'crop closely' for best effect, so how to explain this photo?

 

This photo conforms well with the above advice, but only if one understands what 'the photo' consists of.

 

In this case the photo consists not only of the brightly illuminated and silhouetted figure with the cleanup hose, but also of the surrounding areas of lightness and darkness, especially the foreground darkness and background brightness that emphasize his 'loneliness' and his 'brightness amidst darkness'

 

Although he is a central figure, he is not 'the subject'.

 

'The subject' is the entire photo as depicted and 'the subject is 'one man at his job silhouetted brightly amidst an ocean of darkness, most certainly late at night and obviously he's doing late night cleanup.

 

If one were to misunderstand the photo as being of a man instead of the scene,then one might try to crop to the man and hoses, and it would be an entirely different photo (and less interesting, I think, maybe bankrupt, compared to this, as this encompasses that action, plus the idea or sense of his brightness (emphasising his centrality to the work situation and his loneliness (emphasizing the hour and its lateness with his isolation/).

 

Some photos are very ambiguous, but this is a photo that can be 'read' and is best presented 'one way' I think, though one can make cropping suggestions

 

I think it is best to present full frame, but can conceive of different 'large' crops, however I just dislike cropping. If I want a different photo,I prefer to go take another photo (but I do crop from time to time rather than throw away a good photo, don't get me wrong).

 

John (Crosley)

john i disagree with your cropping choice. i think if it had been cropped closer to the subject it would have emphasized the lighting more.keeping it simple i think looks better. you just dont need the rest of the picture. all the best samme

When I consider cropping, | consider several things, among them:

 

1. I compose in the viewfinder; to crop is to destroy my initial composition.

 

2. If my initial lens length is too short for the composition, cropping may be necessary and desirable.

 

3. Sometimes it appears a much more desirable photo may be created by cropping, but I am reluctant to do this; I rather would go out and take another, better, full-frame photo.

 

4. All this excludes where things that were unseen or unintended intrude into the frame such as unseen or unrecognized pedestrians, cars, power lines or poles, signs with partial words, etc., which may make cropping necessary or even just things that are extraneous to the photo or detract from it.

 

None of those apply here

 

As stated above, this is a photo about loneliness, or better, aloneness.

 

You state you prefer more simple, but 'more simple' as I read it since you didn't provide a visual cropping suggestion apparently means to crop at the brightness leaving the dark figure (silhouette), thus the photo would be bright/dark. Presently it is dark, bright, dark and thus is slightly more complex and more in keeping with the theme I have presented above and more true to it. Your suggestion would not be.

 

For composition, the majority of my photos other than portraits (even many of those) lead the eye away from the center point. Your cropping suggestion would place the central figure and create him into a subject (which is the antithesis of what this photo is) and then lower him within the frame so his feet are much lower and his body or other parts are center in the photo, for a static photo, and one that does not encourage the eye to wander.

 

I believe more in placing the 'central figure' leftward or rightward, upward or downward of the 'horizon line'. Here he is centered left to right but above the horizon line giving this photo both parallelism and asynchronicity at the same time; enough to cause the eye to rest on it for a moment, and not just glance and dismiss.

 

Moreover there is mirroring, the bright 'block' behind the man is repeated in another bright block behind and above him, and it is best that both be above the 'horizon' -- your suggestion would not allow that

 

Indeed for reasons stated, your suggestions would destroy the synchronicity of this photo, its parallelism and its anti parallelism which were precisely created for the purpose of eliminating foreground 'dead space' which in my eye has the purpose of EMPHASIZING the brightening both the brightness of the bright space and the sharpness of the contrast of his silhouette. (see an earlier essay on contrasts under one of my photos and how 'contrasts in any form act as 'sharpeners' in any variety of ways' not just in composition, but also in contrast, etc..

 

So, I appreciate the suggestion, but will not incorporate it unless and until you provide me a workup that to my eye seems to 'work', and if you can and it does (as from time to time a member does) then I very well might make the change.

 

Until then, however, no cigar. This was carefully constructed and your suggestion would kick out the foundation. However i understand it was made in good faith and with a good spirit and please don't take this deconstruction as criticism of you or your good faith or inventiveness.

 

Rather it is an indication that I took and considered your suggestion clearly, tried to visualize it against what I believe this photo to represent, and found IT (not you or your good faith) wanting for my purposes. My mind might still be changed, and always your suggestions are welcome on other photos of mine as well.

 

Thanks for stopping by and making a critique. A helpful critique is not always one I agree with if it sharpens my ability to identify what is 'right' with a photo I have taken enough to defend it against the proposed change (as well as for other reasons.)

 

You are welcome here.

 

John (Crosley)

John, This is the first time I am writing something underneath one of your photos, as you probably know:-)

I already had seen some of your other & older photos before, and I just wanted to tell you that there are some really very beautiful and powerful photos, among them, as you probably know too :-)

The reason I'm commenting now on this particular photo is to simply tell you that I agree with your vision to see this picture as a whole, and that any cropping to it would really be wrong - imho.

I think that the balance of the lights is perfect, with dark areas and light areas -- any cropping would put that balance off. Also, your subject ( if I may call it that, since he/she is the only person here) is put in the right spot. One more thing I like is the fact that the water spray from the hose can be clearly seen, being lit up in the darkest area of the photo. Congratulations! Another very good photo!

With kind regards, Marjolein

I am pleased to welcome you, not just because you agree or are complimentary, but because you offer a well thought out argument.

 

Also, you have caused me to rethink and re-look at this photo and see something new - a connector -- the whiteness of the water from the light area through the hose into the dark area (very good eye!)

 

I congratulate you.

 

You should feel free to try your skills on any other of my photos you feel so moved, from time to time; you won't always be 'right' but good thought usually is appreciated here, rather than the one line expression of approval or disapproval.

 

Thanks for adding to my understanding of my own photo (and no B;.S., you have.)

 

I have to rethink it and may consider re editing it at some future time to emphasize the water slightly.

 

John (Crosley)

I thank you also for obviously reading the entire discussion above, then responding to it, on point.

 

This makes for an interesting 'thread' and makes it something that a beginner can learn from.

 

That is the goal from these discussions - not only does it satisfy your and my needs to communicate, but it also leaves something for our immediate posterity -- those who would view this photo (or my --our-- writings,and attempt to improve their skills.

 

I have made a decision this weekend, now that in Ukraine where I am now is available for low cost to consolidate ALL my comments,re-edit them and compiled them into an illustrated book (or write an original book with thoughts from comments distilled -- all along with numerous other things).

 

You can imagine that thoughts like yours will be consolidated into such a 'tome' as I envision a textbook size reference for use in photo classes, in universities and community colleges, with periodic revisions.

 

In my wildest imagination, it would be a reference - how to teach yourself the ability to critique your own and others' photos, or how to determine what is good and bad.

 

I invite you to view, in that regard, the latest submission of a child sitting in a hotel lobby chair and the discussion between Wolfgang Arnold and myself.

 

It does not matter also what your level of photographic achievement is, so long as you your critique if observant and made in good faith (honest and not snide). For the rest, I can handle myself.

 

I absolutely LOVE critiques like yours above, - they're the heart of why the critique forum exists, even if few realize it those who write 'wow' or 'great photo' or give one-line observations, or like Samme above, suggest re-cropping without giving a concrete suggestion causing me to write an essay about cropping and considering ALL cropping possibilities I could think of, rejecting them all (but leaving the door open).

 

Pin a rose on you, Marjolein, you earned it!!!

 

John (Crosley)