'The Break -- No, Two Breaks'

This man takes a break for a smoke, and it seems he is not alone in his

actions, captured at an outdoor market/bazaar in Kyiv, Ukraine early

one evening. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome.

If you rate harshly, critically or wish to make a remark, please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; please share your photographic

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

This is really a beautiful portrait.

Good effort!

Good effort!

Now that is very funny! Does "Good effort" mean "nice try" but no cigar? hmmmm. You know I'm not crazy about the tonality but otherwise, wide angle and imagination etc. good photo. Wedding band on the right hand. Another "hmmmmmmmm".

Thanks so much.

 

This was taken with a 12-24 mm wide angle zoom lens of a total stranger who had never seen me before.

 

I spoke one word to me, then framed and took this photo (and a few others similar as he was about to light his coffin nail).

 

He is on his cell phone (left ear as we view him) and lighting his cigarette, so we had no chance to speak.

 

I just took the photo from about a foot away, maybe less, very low shutter speed, one of several similar, hoping for perfection.

 

I can do thiings like that now, and not get punched in the nose, but instead, thanked.

 

Life is good!

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks So Much!

 

Thanks So Much!

 

In case you felt so strongly you posted your comment twice!;~)))

 

Seriously, I am impressed by the lineup of people commenting; it means something to me.

 

You only comment for the best, it seems, so really, double thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

I think 'nice effort' means not perfect, but getting close.

 

Not 'no cigar'.

 

But you'd have to ask Mr. Downs.

 

Tonalities are compressed somewhat because it's well after normal sunset and into Mariner's Twilight (after sundown). (you can look that one up if it's not familiar; I once was a mariner and much of the terminology has slipped but there are 'degrees of lightness after the sun crosses the horizon on its way down (or approaches on its way up.)

 

This was taken with a Nikon D300, and this is the best that could be done and still show it was dark (hence the brightness of the light could be shown; if converted to brighter, the bright light of the lighter flame would be out of place. Tonalities in an after sunset photo are what you get, and this is as good as it gets.

 

As to the ring; if a wedding ring, it's the East, and Western rules don't apply if I understand them correctly.

 

[i do not ever 'flip' photos; I opposed that once-common practice at the Associated Press -- where it was practiced with 'head shots' etc. to, say, get the hair part on the correct part of the printed page -- say nearer (or farther) the 'gutter' of the newspaper.

 

I stopped looking at rings on fingers long ago (in fact I NEVER looked at them seriously.)

 

They are superfluous to me; if a person is married it will show in their behavior if they consider themselves married, and if they do not consider themselves married, a ring is no disguise. Many women wear 'wolf rings' (fake marriage rings) to discourage guys from 'hitting on them' (a horrible phrase which has currency in America, but which means 'show interest in them'.--it just sounds overly aggressive to me).

 

Can't men and women interact without there being aggression or sexual aggression?

 

I'm much older (somewhat younger than you) but long ago, quite long ago, I stopped asking women for dates or calling them or beseeching them for anything.

 

I learned that women do the choosing; men only make themselves available.

 

I learned to make myself available; that's all.

 

Yet my life has been filled with extremely intelligent, young, beautiful women -- ones who wouldn't have given me the time of day when I was two-thirds my age and much richer,

 

Go figure.

 

When married (and truly faithful) I never wore a wedding ring, and while that nearly two decade relationship was really serious and until my spouse abandoned it, I never strayed, or gave any 'scent' of straying'.

 

Maybe rings mean something to some, but not to me. (Is it the left hand in the USA - and their right hand in Russia/Ukraine?)

 

I really don't know as I never mastered the rule.

 

Nice to see you back and contributing, Meir.

 

It adds spice to the mix.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

I approached this guy, illuminated an earlier portrait of another nearby in front of his eyes with my digital screen as he chatted away on his mobile phone and fiddled with his cigarettes.

 

I indicated 'ya photograph' (I am a photographer)

 

I said the word 'moishna') which is universal in Russian for 'may I' or 'please'.

 

He didn't say no, so I got up close and began framing and focusing.

 

I stayed around until he finished his conversation, and thanked him in rudimentary Russian, then he looked at this capture and finally thanked me for having been singled out to be the subject of what he said he thought was an excellent photo.

 

Never underestimate the ability of 'street' subjects to show discrimination in understanding their own photographs in a country like Ukraine which has a relatively high level of education, even for the less well off.

 

(It was one good thing Stalin and the Communists did, to lift the peasantry to the 20th C. level -- even to compete in space, if not to compete in world markets so effectively.)

 

Also, they gave women rights (in the professions, but not necessarily otherwise).

 

Thank you three for commenting; it made my day.

 

John (Crosley)

Meir, check out the tonalities of this one taken a little while earlier in full exposure to the sky before the sun went down not so long after.

 

http://photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=10828616

 

I think you'll agree that I hit the full range of tonalities in that instance . . . correct?

 

However, tonalities does not a photo make, particularly in 'street' where 'the moment captured' is so important.

 

If this photo (with its subject which requires 'darkness') were with full tonality, it surely would be a much much better photo, but for me it's exceedingly interesting, and rating interesting is tending to verify that . . . .

 

Thanks for the observation; we've come into agreement on the importance of tonalities, and it is tension over their relative importance which is the subject always of discussion. You're a printmaker I presume; I am not, so that may help drive your point of view. I'm trying to learn from you, and I hope learning a lot.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

I spied the guy with outstretched arm and the poster, background, with woman, also outstretched arm.

 

He was talking on his mobile phone (cell phone to Americans), and apparently getting ready to have a smoke and very engrossed.

 

So after an artful introduction of one word ('moishna?') and showing him a sample photo from earlier in the session (ten to 15 minutes tops), he let me take my photo(s) and later expressed 'thanks'.

 

Part of the success of this photo is that 'it works'.

 

But 'why'?

 

Look at my never finished and always in progress Presentation: 'Photographers: Watch Your Background'' where I learned how I had done such photos in the past successfully, and in the process taught myself further how better to recognize and spot incipient photos such as this in an instant, frame them and take them (and even get permission from a subject 'close in' without even having a true conversation). I also learned how it was to do so systematically, rather than just rely on my native 'instinct' which I apparently had in abundance.

 

Of course, because 'arms' drew me to this photo, and because he was working with a cigarette, not only did I take preliminary photos of him working with his cigarette lighter, cigarette and mobile phone, but waited until the exact instant when the flame lighted . . . . for maximum story-telling effect.

 

There's an old mystery-story author's rule: if you show a gun in the opening scene, (of a mystery movie, say), if the gun is not used by the finish, the scene's probably a failure, unless the gun's showing was meant as a ruse.

 

Here' the presence of a cigarette, a lighter without the flame of the lighting I think would have significantly diminished this photo; why not take the moment -- the epitome -- of the cigarette's being lighted - especially when all the lines (the two arms) line up (and his arms form a triangle with his upper body (shoulder)?

 

(Composition: Well thought out, but also somewhat instinctive. Would that all photos had such possibilities.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

Great shot... but the treatment makes the hand distracting.

You're right, but it was 'overblown' and also out of focus, and it's the best I can do.

 

It's significantly fixable in Photoshop, but it's also mostly beyond my skills (or my patience).

 

I have a pro photoshopper on staff but he/(or she as circumstances change) does not touch things I post on Photo.net.

 

If this is ever sold commercially, put on exhibition in a gallery or museum, it will be as close to perfection as possible.

 

Your comment is right on, and I recognize that.

 

I do not deny astute criticisms.

 

(in future, please let me know how to address you, would you? Your signup moniker is a little confusing to me.)

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Hi John. I'm Frank.... for the future. :-)

I could have spotted this as a photo of yours, if I had not known it already.

You are really fast. This particular scene has probably lasted not more than a second or two.

Thanks for the wealth of info you have provided about the occasion (and also on relations with the other halves), by the way.

I enjoyed being here :)

It helps if you sign with a first name, but I'm going to try to remember.

 

I do appreciate that you came by to offer substantial criticism. I don't learn only from the 'atta boy' comments, except something is pleasing; I also need to know what 'stands out' as my 'filter' internally for spotting deficiencies sometimes has been confused.

 

I once sharpened a woman's face for a photo, and I thought I did so horribly. There were over 80 comments on the photo, some in praise and some in criticism of something else, and a pair of critiquers who were hostile, looked for anything to criticise, but they said nothing about the sharpening, which personally I felt was wanting -- but best I could do then (and maybe now).

 

My filter for 'real' deficiencies in my photo had been more effective than theirs, (they had raised spurious criticisms).

 

Other times I let things go to critique, knowing they can be fixed, knowing also that this is critique, not the absolute final product -- and I'm looking for hints and suggestions.

 

If I give ONE absolute final version, I may forestall other, worthy versions, and if I spend too much personal time on Photoshopping, which for me is bothersome, I would never have time to shoot or have a life. (I can spend a night downloading and backing up, then Photoshopping one to three photos just from a day's session) -- that means overnight, from late night to early morning. It's an interesting process trying to separate the wheat (as here) from the chafe . . . especially when there are some pretty good photos that just won't resonate with the Photo.net critiquers, as this one has.

 

Thanks Frank for stopping by and offering your able help.

 

John (Crosley)

Cool mixture of subjects, John, which is what seems so effortless for you. Lots to study here, and think about.

I am pleased as part of a 'sharing site' to share.

 

It wasn't done too much when I arrived, insofar as the actual process of taking individual photos was concerned.

 

Photos were shared, and forums were contributed to, but many interesting and important photos and how they were achieved were 'kept secret'. Questions about how they were 'taken' or 'processed' often went ignored.

 

I vowed to change that, because I thought I could do better on a 'sharing site'.

 

Besides, I was not in competition with anyone for 'top photographer' especially with my style.

 

Most top photographers here also have their own style anyway and did then so they really had little to lose, but their waa much rivalry/mate-rating cliques abounded (I didn't take part and to show it, barely rated at all -- nothing to share with those who might ask, and I announced it in comments so none would ask.)

 

I think, for myself, I have, and maybe (according to those who seem to have followed in my footsteps) it may have helped change the general 'style' on Photo.net.

 

I'm proud if it has. Also, when I arrived, 'street' had really no place in the 'top 500' even though there was stuff known as 'street' that was high scoring and highly viewed, (and it's still l\there in the all-time high stuff, but it's scarcely anything I'd want to be associated with as street, and a lot more fluffy than real street/documentary (some exceptions).

 

Those things just didn't do well here then, and still aren't everyone's cup of tea (I get a big share of 3/3 rates, but am undeterred).

 

I know the worth of my photos, having been mentored by a world class expert, and know that Photo.net is a good place for certain types of critiques (which is why my request for critique is so wordy) and also a good test of a photo's popularity.

 

Someday (maybe soon) I may be marketing them to galleries and/or museums or otherwise, and I know almost to a certainty which photos will be successful with ordinary viewers and to camera buffs, if not to gallery/exhibition professionals (I have a mentor for that.)

 

Some day a member here has suggested my own web site offering similar advice not just to Photo.net but to the whole world, and I am considering that.

 

It seems my name now is better known worldwide and with some marketing might easily be known to camera buffs worldwide -- through FaceBook/MySpace/Twittering, etc., and it's under consideration.

 

I don't think I would consider leaving Photo.net though; I like my friends here way too much, including yourself Bulent.

 

I like the abiility to bring total stranger along with me for a few seconds of a shoot, to pass on a trick I've learned through hard work, so their next 'shoot' won't be so full of anxiety, as shooting 'street' often can be full of anxiety, expecially for newcomers ('Should I take his photo/maybe he'll see me, maybe he'll think badly of me, wonder what I'm doing taking his picture/be angry at me', and so forth are ideas which plague almost all new shooters - but never bothered me from day one.

 

They did grow on me after a while when on the East Coast and after being in the politically-charged '70s where you were 'either with or ag'in' when you had a camera either on campuses or in Viet Nam, which is two places one could have found me taking photos.

 

Just the ability to share a tip as to how to get permission with saying only one word, and get close in with a busy guy like that is new to me, and I thought I'd pass it on, not to brag but to share.

 

Life is good and it should be good for my friends here too.

 

Why not share?; No one's going to steal my style or my subjects by any stretch.

 

Best to you, Bulent, and thanks.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

The huge one titled 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' in which I examined something I had done innately from the first, which was almost always to place my subject 'within context, and purposely to choose the context from those available to give additional texture, context, meaning, or otherwise to my photos.

 

It helps make a greater degree of 'keepers' from any episode of 'street' shooting and also helps make a greater number of 'stories' whether they are 'true' stories' or not.

 

It also helped in making that Presentation (not added to in a long time) to help me in spotting those circumstances and to articulate just how I went about 'seeing' and 'taking' those photographs -- literally to place them in my mind in two dimensions (in a three dimensional viewfinder of an SLR camera) what will be produced in two dimensions (unlike, say a camera which uses 'ground glass' for focusing . . . such as an original Rollei TLR and larger cameras.

 

In other words, though I had the ability to 'see' what I observed, when I put a viewfinder to my eye, the preparation of that Presentation had the interesting effect of helping me 'see' all that BEFORE I put viewfinder to my eye.

 

So, I already had this photo figured out (in part) when I approached this guy, or at least the 'arms' elements/triangle compositions,, which is why I made such a bold move in the first place, since he was VERY busy with his arms, his ear, his mouth already engaged, both arms and both hands.

 

Figure, I KNEW I HAD to be intruding and did so anyway,WITH CONFIDENCE. I must have exuded that to him when I showed him a previous capture from a few minutes before when light was stronger (and not shaded as much, of a fishmonger and also of two workmen). (I literally held one digital camera back up to his face to make my request of him . . . how's that for chutzpah?)

 

It was well rewarded.

 

I guess, Liz, you might say that the articulation about such things in these comments helps cement them in my mind so I don't have to ruminate in the street or field when shooting; it all becomes second nature.

 

By teaching others, helping others, or just sharing, helps make it second nature to me; repetition is one of the strongest teachers, right?

 

Liz, thanks for stopping by; I always enjoy your visits.

 

You sometimes help teach ME about myself . . . if that is understandable, and thus why I shoot the way I do, through the comments your observations invite from me in response..

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Meir Samel, you mentioned about the tonalities,but I remarked about failing light.

 

You vant tonalities; have I got some tonalities for you.

 

Here's a link to a photo tken with less 'shading' in better light before or as the sun went down.

 

I think it's got them there tonalities you think may be missing here; it's a function of 'time of day' however, as well as subject matter (too bright would 'wash out' cigarette light, or make it inappropriately bright or not highlight it enough).

 

So, you vant tonalities; oy have I got tonalities for you!

 

See:

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10828616

 

(If it doesn't embed, cut and paste into browser to view).

 

Same day, a little earlier, better illumination from sky and sides.

 

From the goyim with da camera.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Literally it means "nations". goy גוי is singular, goyim גויים is plural. Defined as: "gentile, non-Jew (male) ; non-observant Jew (derogatory) ; (biblical) nation, people ; הגויים - non-Jews (derogatory) " I don't used the word myself.

Many people start their day with a cigarette - I think it is a very bad habit, and even if the person understands the harm to their health, the cigarette is like a drug. From cigarettes can renounce only people with strong character.

So I should have said 'from the goy with the big cameras?'' and any derogation I bring on myself just makes me a schlemosl?

 

And oy, did I keep my promise and present you in that other photo with tonalities? You didn't mention it when you went to correct me.

 

My love and affection, Meir.

 

John (Crosley)

In English, there is a world called 'cynic' and another close word is 'cynical' and another 'cynicism'.

 

This trio of words are relatives,all of the same family and meaning essentially the same thing, meaning you look out that you will die early, but I'll make cigarettes and make a good living from making them knowing that YOU will die early, but I don't care.

 

Spoken - and actually practiced by those who sell tobacco products -- you should meet such a person and actually engage them in conversation some day.

 

'If I don't do it, somebody else will' and of course, if 'somebody doesn't rob you of our money, someone else will', except this time it's of the very days at the end of your life and your health during that period and maybe for years - decades even beforehand.

 

Lots of my relatives died early because of those long white things. Big tobacco hired doctors to falsely claim on television in reclamen (advertisements) that they didn't harm us one bit.

 

Of course, I haven't smoked even one 'tobacco cigarette' lest I become addicted like both my parents who together smoked 5 packages of cigarettes a day (and died early as a result). I'm also highly allergic to marijuana.

 

Photography is my vice!

 

John (Crosley)

 

Yes the tonality was full range.