"Red Eye from the 'Red Eye' Gone Awry"

This woman from Pennsylvania (and her husband seated on his

motorized scooter) sports a very red pair of eyes, a result of traveling

from early morning through near midnight for a scheduled five hour flight

to Seattle -- because the airline refused to take her husband's

oxygen 'generator' as opposed to oxygen tanks (without a doctors' note -

- until a note was generated). Your ratings, critiques and comments are

invited and most welcome; if you rate harshly or very critically or wish to

make an observation, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; please share your photographic knowledge to improve my

photography (her unusual look is due to (1) stress of travel; (2) age, and

(3) unusual lighting, as opposed to any manipulation. Thanks! Enjoy!

John

This is a 'true' view of this woman's face -- as close to 'factual' as a digital camera can make late at night (about midnight) under artificial light at high ISO in an airport bus waiting area.

 

It does accurately represent her face; no Photoshop 'filters' or special enhancements, sharpening, contrast adjustments other than 'normally would be appropriate for a proper adjustment' have been applied' and as such this photo is 'unmanipulated' and is a 'true representation' of her appearance.

 

As she remarked, she is 'no Spring Chicken' but still game enough with her somewhat ailing husband to travel together unaided across the country on what was to be a five and something hour journey that ended up taking about three times that.

 

John (Crosley)

This was one very, very nice woman.

 

She is easily representative of the gentility of another generation, one that had manners and mores, and said 'please' and 'thank you' and was accommodating, even to guys like me, who asked for photos when she had a horribly red eye after a very bad day -- perhaps she was glad to have a 'witness' to her horrible travail.

 

But then she was not ashamed of it at all; she came by it honestly; her husband was to come with his 'oxygen generator/extractor' which pulls oxygen out of the air, but had no 'doctor's note', but their airline mysteriously required one, so they were denied boarding (as I recall) and either had to get such a note or get an exception (or divert to another airline) (the details are lost in my memory) but their early morning departure from Pennsylvania ended up with their arriving in Seattle near midnight instead of taking just 5-1/2 hours (and that does not take into account the time zone difference which provides if you leave the East Coast at 10:00 for a 5-1/2 hour flight, you arrive at 12:30 p.m. local time, Seattle (5-1/2 real hours, but local time, she would have arrived maybe 10-12 hours earlier with her husband.

 

If he needed oxygen, which he did, can you imagine the stress on him; after all he could not walk without an 'electric scooter' and his oxygen generator, but she was still walking, and at a very advanced age. I am sure I recall it, but not so sure I can write it here, but it was quite advanced.

 

She's the sort of person who used to ride First Class in a fancy dress or other fancy clothes -- a woman of 'days gone by', but not ungracious about the present at all or critical.

 

Happy to be alive and vigorous, I'd say.

 

Yes, there's loads of truth in this photo.

 

Thanks for noticing.

 

John (Crosley)

Fabulous portrait!!

Fabulous comment to walk in the door to read.

 

********

 

A guy like me runs 'hot and cold' on this service . . . with some I think are 'great' posted with great anticipation, only to get a bucket of cold ratings water thrown in my face.

 

In some cases (for instance, in the photo of the woman smoking on San Diego's waterfront that went to 'Fine Art' today, with a background of 'red' from a ticket booth/shack, it doesn't really matter. Raters can have their fun, but I hope to have the last laugh.

 

But somewhere, and more times than not there is collective wisdom in the ratings process.

 

Raters are like juries.

 

Individually one or almost all may stink on a particular day . . . and woe betide the person who puts up photos that day before that bunch, you'd think.

 

Not necessarily so!

 

No matter how stupid or ill-informed one particular juror might be, juries of eight to twelve have almost complete and total collective recall, so if one doesn't understand, doesn't grasp testimony or just forgets, there are the others to bring it forth, in the deliberation process.

 

Juries make mistakes - most often in processing 'eye-witnesses' who are 'sure it was the guy' especially it turns out if the police show them a bunch of black guys who don't look so upright -- maybe picked up off the street,all of them, and really some people think all those guys should be in the hoosegow anyway and can't really tell one black face from another, in some parts of the US, so 'I AM SURE IT WAS HIM really means in some cases, to I think I saw a black guy or he might have been Arab, or Mexican, or really really suntanned and he was somewhere (give or take six inches to a foot) about the size of this guy - this loser -- you're presenting me, so damn it, he's the one!

 

And I'll swear it!

 

Give me a stack of Bibles.

 

Or if reluctant, a witness might have his memory prodded by being reminded that his wife somehow has been 'involved in an 'incident'" that might be prosecuted unless there is some 'cooperation' and sure enough, the eyewitness account is forthcoming . . . . and men fry or choke on prison death chamber gas based on those non-reviewable testimonies . . . . as appeals courts in almost all circumstances are forbidden from retrying 'facts' except where recanted, and even then there is little leeway.

 

However, like juries, there is 'collective wisdom in raters, rating what they know (not cutting edge Photo Art' but 'what they know' and then guards are let down and some intermixing becomes more possible.

 

I do not 'hate' ratings, and instead look to it for guidance,especially about a photo's popularity, since some day I may try to sell and/or exhibit some of my best and most attractive (doesn't mean most 'beautiful' either.

 

Ratings will sometimes surprise you, and below are a few of the categories I've learned to watch for.

 

 

As to 'juries' and 'finality' US law values finality, and if your ass is grass, sitting behind bars because of that, well, that's just the breaks -- we gotta have finality and everybody knows everybody in prison really is 'innocent' -- just ask 'em, right.

 

Nobody wants to be giving new trials to all those inmates every year or so as the witnesses disberse, die off, or just become reluctant and their meories face *or they recant . .. which is rare in a non-capital punishment or life imprisonment case.

 

So when I put a photo like this, which looks like it had some crazy-ass Photoshop 'filter' used on it, to make her face good and crinkly, I have to wonder if there won't be a backlash against the usual rule that the older and more wrinkly a face, the better it will do on ratings on PN, for the reason that "'wrinkles somehow are supposed to reveal 'character'."

 

I don't know if they do or not, but they do reveal past sun exposure and often prior cigarette and tobacco smoking . . . . . as tobacco breaks down the collagen in the skin, as does UV-B rays from the sun, causing significant and often premature aging.

 

My skin, having avoided completely the former (except second-hand) and much of the latter, looks pretty good, at a pretty ripe age, and it's not all genetics, but quite predictable based on my prior wisdom in learning what broke down collagen at a VERY early age -- about 4 or 5 i noticed that the wrinkly people smoked and tanned a lot (and drank a lot also) and vowed not to be wrinkly when I got to be 'my age now' and am NOT.

 

Anyway, in their own way, raters have their own collective wisdom. One rater may be WAY OFF, but if raters stay away in droves, your photo just is not popular with those who rate -- that can be said for sure.

 

If for some reason it gets all low rates uniformly and NO high rates, then it probably either is (1) a very poor photo or (2) gallery worthy but of such a genre it goes over almost all PN posters' heads.

 

If a photo gets a sprinkling of low to high rates, but a lot of them, it's interesting, and maybe a bit hard to interpret, or subject to varying tastes.

 

A few raters will down rate ALL photos of smokers or if they like flowers, of all photos that are not of flowers, and so forth. Street gets a whammy like this: I don't like 'street' so it's all getting low rates . . . there is no good 'street' as far as I am concerned, and mostly the Administration backs those raters up, from what I have seen.

 

If I photo gets extremely high rates and lots of them, it also bespeaks two things possible: 1. It's possible a terrific photo; or (2) it's possibly a pretty good (maybe even mediocre) photo but well executed, then stunningly worked up in Photoshop so it looks like it belongs in a magazine . . . a Photoshop Special!

 

There are other combinations, regarding 'rates and views' with high 'views' often meaning popularity, but sometimes an obscure photo will get clicked on just because viewers want to 'see' what that interesting 'lump' in the photo is, and the only way to do that is to click on it. And lots do.

 

I have one photo that once got a lot of clicks, showing the top of a woman's head with her face and part of her head top obscured behind a high bench back at a pizza restaurant. Why did it get so many clicks? People mistakenly . . . made repeatedly the mistake that if they clicked on it they could see 'over' the bench back to see her face, and since her hair was well groomed and she appeared otherwise possibly good looking, they were intrigued, and somehow 'forgot' they could not lower the bench back or peer over it, artificially.

 

;~))))

 

So, no one knows the fate of a photo like this; it might fall into the cracks get high-rated category or there might be backlash since her skin looks sooo worn and crackly . . . . . . and it is not at all 'pretty' (though her soul indeed is extremely pretty and she is a wonderful person to meet and to engage in conversation . . . . bar none, and I am richer for the experience, and thank her for that.)

 

Somehow the raters may surprise me on this one -- so far they have.

 

But you never now.

 

Sometimes there are no ratings, but over time they just pile up day after day.

 

Other times ratings flood in during a few hours, then just STOP!

 

It's all a crap shoot.

 

Which is why I keep my interests up in more than one genre, post so many and NEVER take any down.

 

Some of those I might 'take down' have turned out to have critical acclaim from at least one noteworthy (world renowned) photo critic who has extraordinary credentials.

 

So, I almost never delete, and learn from every post, even as I work on going for post no. 1400 here.

 

I keep getting surprised at both ends of the scale (and in between).

 

Best to you, Alan.

 

John (Crosley)

I learned at the start not to rely on the ratings. It seems too unbalanced. How can a photo rate 3/3 and then 7/7 on the same pic. So which number is more accurate? Some names also speak louder than otheres in the ratings game. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think my eye is good.

i am not sure that i get the point or meaning to this picture? is it for riducule shock value ? cigarette and sun exposure oh come on? is that what she verbalized to you? i am a firm believer that beauty comes from within and works it way out. we should embrace the elderly population and not judge or pity them. maybe we should put your face up here when you reach her age and we can all judge you, if you are lucky enough to reach her age that is. no processing? i see a lot of elderly people and i have never seen skin this colour before.

I happen to agree with just about everything you have written, and endorse it.

 

Also, so far as I have seen, your ratings seem to be 'right on'. I think it's something innate at first, but can be learned, and a member with experience and great rating exposure or who has become a pretty good photographer (either) can rate rather well (in my opinion).

 

I rue the photographers who rate only flowers high because they 'like flowers' and are so narrow'. I only rate 'street' generally, but rate very very very few photos, and don't down rate anybody. See my statistics.

 

Best to you Hal.

 

John (Crosley)

I am a bit surprised by your comment. I have a sterling reputation here for placing my subjects here with warmth and caring, and not for exploitation.

 

And if you read my words about this dear women above, it is clear they negate your accusations. It is noted they were taken under harsh lights near midnight at high ISO at an outdoor bus pickup facility, and if there is a color cast at all, that is the reason, not for any other, but for all that, it is a 'true' capture.

 

In a way,all photos are for 'exploitation' which just means that other people should see them and view them, but I don't pander. This woman knew her photo was to be taken for this purpose, knew exactly that she looked like this and seemed pleased to have the attention plus she was extremely gracious about it and viewed the captures.

 

How is that in any way exploitative in a pejorative sense? It is not.

 

About the problems of cigarette smoking and UV-B exposure with collagen breakdown,those are something I have added, as they undoubtedly play a part, but they are my addition, not hers, however, my point of view is that of the highest class medical thinking in the US and abroad for Caucasian individuals. Look it up and you'll see. I do my research and do not spout off -- have authority, and not just 'The Internet' but recognizable authority-- the absolute majority of medical opinion. I bet if I called this woman tonight and spoke with her we'd find one of those two conditions applied (smoking or UVB exposure or both. Her husband is on oxygen, an indicator he may have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or similar, a common outcome of excessive smoking (COPD) which is what I recall she told me. He also was very nice.

 

In her heyday, everybody smoked and they were told on TV by men dressed up as doctors (and some actual doctors) that medical research said smoking was great for health (it was all a lie, and provably so).

 

Shock value! That wasn't my intention, and I even tried to temper that; perhaps you didn't read above what I have written? Especially the kind things I wrote?

 

My skin?

 

My skin at her age will never look like hers.

 

It just won't.

 

I have never had a cigarette nor excessive sun exposure, and at my age (not so far from hers) it is baby smooth. That is not to say I'm a retiree, but I'm not far off, yet I've scarcely a wrinkle, but my collagen is in great shape.

 

Nice try.

 

I had an aunt who died in her mid '70s who the same applied to; nurses praised her for her beautiful skin. It was not just genetic -- it's a lifetime of skin care (not smoking and less sun exposure . . . which does not mean NO sun exposure as that means Vitamin D deficiency). (that may just be unwitting, and not planned, but that 'care' is 'care' nonetheless.

 

I think you should re-read the above, and maybe read with a kinder heart this time.

 

Perhaps you are saying you are 'moved' by this photo or 'affected by it', and in that case it is very effective - and has achieved its goal. It is a documentary/street portrait, and it depicts a certain reality that may be uncomfortable, but if it passed that to you (and it seems it has) then it has been quite successful.

 

In fact, your complaints above, may be a sign of that success.

 

Think about it. (not all photos are pretty beach sunsets or other beautiful things . .. and note I did praise her for her warmth and spirit . . . using different words but essentially the same thing as you suggested I did not).

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Excellent portrait.

Thank you for kind words of praise.

 

And for recognizing it's a portrait (no point necessary other than photographically subjective depiction).

 

John (Crosley)