'No Walk in the Park'

This is 'No Walk in the Park', but instead a brisk run. No Photoshop

was needed for these effects, created 'in camera' and 'on the run'. Your

ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If you

rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make an observation, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

To emphasize: No Photoshop effects, or special 'filters' were used in the creation of effects in this photo; they are all natural from the camera and lens. Not manipulated. Combination of show shutter speed, zooming and running.

 

John (Crosley)

Nice John, it's interesting you post this as I've been trying this myself. Not running but standing and zooming..to create a similar effect on a static subject..

 

My keeper rate is not very high, needless to say. Maybe you could offer some technique.

I'm not sure I'm a great authority on this, or even could offer help.

 

I wanted to capture momma here, who was great with her kids and the kiddies, and they were running away, and briefly (ever so briefly) a while ago, I gave chase (without them knowing) and decided to frame them differently all the while firing away in 'C' (continuous servo) drive.

 

This is the effect, as I ran, (see bounce) with slow enough shutter speed, and zooming all the while, with good enough composition.

 

Good enough to post (at least for me). I found this pleasing.

 

I could try to repeat it, but then when you get one like this the first time you might get 1,000 failures before another good one. But then I know my equipment and I press the shutter often when no one else dares, so I get a lot of oddball successes.

 

Luck favors the daring as well as the well prepared.

 

;~))

 

Good to hear from you Ken.

 

John (Crosley)

No, of course not.

 

It's a brisk run.

 

From a wonderful momma and her kiddies.

 

She was great.

 

I recorded her and this is the best of the bunch.

 

Notice how the bouncing blurs provide lines of direction toward a mysterious 'vanishing point' to one side?

 

Interesting discovery - by accident - but I think I could reproduce it.

 

Who needs Photoshop?

 

John (Crosley)

Such photos and such effects please me!

 

Svetlana.

Excuse me, John. I think that the effects should be used to enhance the meaning of the image, but not for the sake of originality. I see no need for such effects.

I am glad this pleases you.

 

This is in the park behind the large building (a library or performance building) atop a hill where Kreshatyk goes down the hill into Podol. I never knew it existed until one day, there I was and there was momma and her two children.

 

I found iinteresting the arrangement of the actors in this photo, which is all that a photo is when it's not documentary or photojournalistic, or similar. It is a piece of 'art' or some such, especially in such a case . . . it is a suspended moment in time, and the lines in such a photo become important.

 

Here the effects caused by the jagged lines (irregular lines) caused by the open shutter as I jogged alone behind (sorely I might add, and now so lame I cannot do it at all), composed lines that illustrated and 'mirrored' the nature of their sprint or at least jogging from one point (tree) to the next.

 

Trees were 'safe zones' in their play, and to touch a tree was to be 'safe' for them.

 

In any case, I was looking to illustrate 'motion' and get a winsome arrangement, and the lines from blurred leaves on the ground, all jagged and irregular but going in one general direction, seemed to me to be attractive, and, moreover, they generally pointed (or radiated out from) the subjects (or nearby), so that the eye is caused to move toward these three and thus the photo (I think) engages the eye, and is not so easily dismissed - e.g., no snapshot).

 

That's my analysis, but I'm open to others, including another posted above which says it stinks, basically (but more politely stated).

 

I don't think it stinks, of course (I have hundreds of thousands of stinkers and if I started posting those, I would wear out my welcome here fast.

 

;~))

 

Thanks Sveta.

 

John (Crosley)

I like the effect,very creative thinking.experimentation is the mother of creativity.

Joe B.

I am interested in your statement: 'I think that the effects should be used to enhance the meaning of the image, but not for the sake of originality. I see no need for such effects.'

 

Let's examine this statement, for I suspect (personally) that is has a couple of logical fallacies, and at least one major one.

 

The first is the statement that the 'effects' SHOULD be (that implies a purpose, perhaps as in the old kosher wiener commercial wiener commercials that there is a 'higher purpose, e.g.,' some sort of God-given message about the 'shoulds' and perhaps the 'should nots'.

 

And who came up with such rules. Ansel Adams,in a text? Imogen Cunningham? Wynn Bullock? And so forth?

 

I came up with this photo in the first place.

 

The second place is that not only did I take it, but I take hundreds of thousands of duds, in which a photo fulfills NO purpose, and so it resides perpetually on my hard drives taking up space (and to remind me that I ain't no such hot s*it as a photographer, and that I put my pants on one leg at a time).

 

In other words I keep my outtakes to ensure I know I'm humble, no matter how much a cheerleader for my successes others may think me; inside I'm my severest critic (other than my assistant).

 

I don't subscribe to such a 'higher purpose' view of photography. It's what works for me and for the audience.

 

This photo didn't work for you, so it's a failure for you . . . . but for me it's a success, and more than that, quite a good success. Others feel the same way,but still others feel the same as your view - it's not universally acclaimed.

 

But then Van Gogh sold only one painting it's said before he killed himself (not that I'm a Van Gogh, but it does illustrate a point.

 

Another point is that you propose that a photo should ALWAYS have a meaning.

 

I disagree.

 

It is perfectly respectable and even expected that a great many photos will have a purpose,but then a great number will have no 'purpose' at all, or at least a 'meaning' in the traditional, story-telling sense.

 

And I'm an expert; ask any well-known member who knows my work, about the 'meaning of stories that some of my photos tell If there is a story to tell, I'm a well-known story teller, but not each photo should tell a story..

 

Some require no meaning, and have none or only such meaning as a viewer attaches.

 

I choose to view my photo as 'art'.

 

'Art' is in the eye of the beholder

 

Forms can take on the 'meaning' that the viewer chooses,and the the more so the more abstract the form.

 

This is not a documentary, not a photojournalistic shot, not a product or a lifestyle illustration to sell jeans and garments for commercials.

 

Its purpose is to show the relationship between the trees (spatial relationships) and the individual (further spatial relationships) and the concept of motion and again their interrelationships amidst 'frozen time'.

 

Here the jagged lines caused by the jagged, blurred leaves appear to be in motion., AND they direct our viewers' eyes roughly toward the action, thus engaging our eyes and leaving them into the photo.

 

If these lines pointed elsewhere, they'd have been a failure,I think,or the photo would have been entirely different.

 

The continuation of each individual line of each blurred leaf (however jaggedy) continues to each leaf behind it, resulting in long, blurred lines that are intermittent,yet point us in the general direction of the motion of momma and her children playing 'tag' with 'trees' as 'safe spots'.

 

Art is not just about beauty, although aesthetics comprises beauty,and some seem to think that only aesthetic is worth.

 

Art is not always about 'meaning' and therein lies the fault of your brief analysis.

 

It cannot fail is your premise is wrong. If there is no meaning,then there can be no rule breached and only your internalized rule contravened.

 

So, if in your subjective view you don't like it,I accept that, but if you seem to apply 'rules' of aesthetics, then I do not buy that 100%. It has a place in the development of standards, but also its limitations,which I am focusing on here.

 

Are such standards and protocols justified and worthwhile?

 

I am unsure,but not for this photo in my view, but we may respectfully differ.

 

I think the effects are fulfilling and so does my previous commenter,Svetlana K.,, but yours is an opinion deserving also of high respect for there is no right and wrong necessarily in the interpretation of 'art', only what approximates what reflects the emotions that arise because of the impact of a work.

 

Do I explain 'art'-- with which I am less familiar -- well, or do I need to go take a course in art and art interpretation? And perhaps I could teach such a course, the field is so wide open', at least in the area of 'philosophy of art' if not in specific artistic references.

 

I might have answered 'you are entitled to your view' but I think if opposed, you are entitled to know my view, its etiology, and to test its validity.

 

I would be interested to hear your response.

 

With respect.

 

John (Crosley)

I endorse what you have written.

 

I am always experimenting, though within rather narrow confines, and this is an exception for me.

 

However, when I experiment, I do so knowing what I can do and trusting that it is worth while (and energy) to experiment. Some of my greatest 'tricks' have come about through experimentation; the more I do so, the more 'tricks' I put into my grab bag of tried and true, tested methods. Once they're done with the experimentation stage, they become 'old standbys,and then one puts them really to use.

 

;~))

 

I am sure you know that.

 

(But I am not a Photoshop experimenter -- there are too many possibilities just with one photo and I take too darn many photos and can in the future, so why become an artist on that level when the camera can take new and possibly great ones every day while those who cannot do that can sometimes transform their less than great ones into great ones through Photoshop magic.

 

;~))))

 

I think you understand that too, right?

 

John (Crosley)

I believe i do understand John. Personally, i feel experimentation keeps my mind spinning,and i like to see what is possible, i also love to see what others like yourself can create Thur the will to try something different,something to entertain

my eyes.

I hardly shot anything for a week (too cold, it seemed, then at the coldest, went out and shot, shot, shot and shot more.

 

I could hardly miss, and each experiment yielded gold it seemed.

 

Participation on this forum pays off, as well as paying a lot of attention to each frame that one takes that one has hopes for that misses as well as succeeds, (forgetting those that are shot as 'Hail Marys', as anything can happen with those), but for sure keeping careful attention to feedback on this forum.

 

This forum has proved tremendously helpful in deconstructing both what is 'right' and 'wrong' or 'popular' and 'unpopular' with shots, and helps guide my shooting technique toward what I think will be acceptable (for me, as I don't let this forum dictate anything about what or how I shoot). I sometimes shoot things I don't expect ever to put on this forum because it just won't fly, but I might put it without critique request in a folder (or just make a folder without critique request as I used to do and as I did recently ('12 minutes at the hot dog stand: the three daughters', without capitalization and loosely paraphrased).

 

I know what I like, and to heck with members' opinions if they don't like it, but I also like to find popular taste and to find out if something 'makes it' or not in 'mass opinion' among photo aficionados of the fledgling to serious category, and that is what this forum is for, (with sometimes 'helpful' to often time 'very helpful' critiques.)

 

My standard request for critique may be ridiculed by some as too wordy, but it yields results -- I get few 'attaboys' or 'great photo' comments, but LOTS of helpful comments and advice with some taking great effort to deconstruct the photo for which critique is being sought, and often times they find something important I totally missed (being somewhat intuitive as a shooter).

 

Often times I 'saw' it but didn't 'digest' what it was I 'saw' until someone else brought it to my attention. Thanks to the critique forum, now I am able to look at my captures now and often instantly perform the same function (and sometimes adjust instantly and take a new and better photo on the spot, a result of having deconstructed so many photos with help on this forum and being able now to do so sometimes instantaneously 'in the field' just after I've taken the shot.

 

What a boon sometimes that is!

 

But a photo like this, one can only wonder how many one might take before one could happen on this technique (running up and down -- jogging like -- and zooming with camera in 'c' (continuous servo) mode and models (actors) running away and lines emphasizing their lines of chase.

 

Very propitious, which is why I put it up for critique.

 

I like it and someone probably mirrors my taste -- somewhere.

 

Also, with the critique forum, after a while, with consistent posts one gathers a following of those who like one's 'style' (if there is a style) or in my case, an approach, and do not reflexively 'down rate' if they see something 'new' but instead look to the 'why' of my posting rather than automatically dismiss it.

 

It's a matter, I think of (1) earning credibility in the forum and (2) educating the audience, which I started to do long ago, I think, when this manner of shooting was VERY unpopular, but still attracted lots of 'lookers' because it was 'interesting'.

 

Interesting, of course, is the ultimate goal for me.

 

Also, in my writing.

 

If it gets dull, just come over and shoot me.

 

OK?

 

(it's a joke, OK, nobody take that literally, please) (for the crazies out there).

 

Thanks Joe for the interesting and attentive comments, from the land that positive temperatures forgot (damn it's cold outside), only four or six weeks from when this photo was taken and only blocks away, but frozen to the core with daytime highs (F in the teens - very cold even for here in December.)

.

John (Crosley)

I wasn't kidding about 'cold'.

 

A look at weather for this city at 11:00 p.m. when I stepped in the door (walking, not driving in this city, no parking avilable and police are 'aggressive') showed +1 Fahrenheit or -17 C.

 

And I was out shooting (at night) in this weather, but thankfully, there is a lot of this city that is underground -for reasons that from this must be by now quite obvious.

 

(same in summer when it gets boiling and often no air conditioning and there are storms, lightning, and very muggy, shirt soaking three-showers-a-day weather . . . (not in my temporary rented flat, though, of course, but even municipal heat plus room heaters leave it COLD in my flat. (looking forward to my next stay (half the time) in CA/WA/OR), particularly Southern CA and possibly Argentina. (boiling hot soon). (lots of miles, not rich.)

 

BRRRRRrrrrrr.

 

From the land that the sun forgot, five days from the longest night of the year.

 

We get even June 21st - no 'midnight sun' but damn near close. If I'm here then, as I move around a lot and keep residency in CA much of the time as well as OR and WA.

John (Crosley)