'Dreams and Reality' (IV)

Sometimes the promised dreams of advertisements don't match up with

the reality of life, as the contrasts in this photo exemplify. Your ratings,

critiques, and remarks are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly

or very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment.

Please share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy or at least be edified. John

Maybe the picture of the dreams should have been a bit sharper, maybe not!

PDE

Pierre, I'm not too 'up' on my abbreviations, especially since I believe in spelling things out and taking little for granted when communicating with those I do not know well -- particularly whose vocabulary I am not familiar with.

I assume, therefore, that PDE means 'Pretty Damn (or darn) Excellent' and for that, I thank you wholeheartedly.

As a matter of fact, I got curious and just now went to look up the initials on Google.com and came up with various references, but no reference near my suggested one, so maybe it is wrong. 

I got a variety of results - about 37 in one source, from 'Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture' to 'partial differential equation' to 'project demonstrating excellence' (closest).

Perhaps you can enlighten me, since I've seen those initials from you before, and doubtless they mean something laudatory . . . . . based on contextual analysis.

As to the 'dream' being 'sharper' - no way.

It's a reproduction on the sales poster, probably of a 35 mm shot, and it's got its own fuzziness problems. 

I was stopped down (smaller than widest aperture), shooting (for this shot) substantially carefully with a 'fast' shutter speed [this shot only], and based very stably, so EVERYTHING is within the hyperfocal distance and the parts that can be anlyzed that are capable of objective sharpness analysis are quite sharp.  The poster is not, but because it's out of focus.

Under my inspection, if any one thing is in focus (and my lens was clean) everything within any similar distance will be in focus, and the poster was definitely in focus.  Also, those lines through the poster were there in the original - someone's sloppy 35 mm camera sensor had an electrical data interpretation problem [i forgot the name for this particular issue] that resulted in 'bands [aha, banding!], and still they reproduced that shot, or the scanner or printer had a 'banding' problem -- or just perhaps they hand-produced this poster and it did not roll off the press uniformly (but then one would expect to see the lines bunched up horizontally -- crosswise, not diagonally as shown here in the blacks of the poster).

I puzzled over how to defeat the 'banding effect' shown in the poster as I reproduced it in this photo, and could have done so with substantial photoshopping, but then it wouldn't be reality, and my photos are about reality - it's my ultimate refuge. 

I decided to save further photoshopping decisions for when (and if) anyone wants me to work this up for a gallery or museum.

I don't make up my captures and only photoshop them so minimally that people will know it's the capture I saw, not the capture I imagined when I saw the image on my computer screen and subsequently manipulated it to equal some new idea that later came to me.  [it's my own requirement -- keeps me honest, plus I do not like photoshopping -- I do it poorly and I can take a dozen photos or even three or four dozen photos while I would 'fix' or 'clean' one photo like this. 

At least one of that bunch probably would be worthy enough to post here, or better,  based on my recent averages.

Now, truth be told, I spotted this poster four months ago, or more, then waited.

I awaited the appropriate juxtaposition.

This man sat there and watched me taking photos, his eyes to one side, then another, most at shutter speed 1/5th of a second as I was set at ISO 500 (left over from being outside at dusk).

This particular capture was at ISO 1600, when I felt I must have one sure-fire 'in focus' shot with the aperture still stopped down for good depth of field.  

He was not showing signs of attacking or going away, so I had the unusual luxury of being able to take more than a split second for this last photo of a bunch.

Good thing, as his eyes were moving in the others with slow (1/5th sec.) shutter speed; lids were blurry in some, eyes were turning and therefore ghostlike, etc., in the others.

Worse, in some they just weren't sharp overall, so from a bunch of shots, this is the best.

Just because of high ISO do not shake your head at a shot when there is low light and human subjects -- low shutter speeds allow for subject (and eyeball and eyelid movement) that can ruin an otherwise excellent capture [let alone the whole issue of camera movement].

I often (almost always) take multiple captures at fps (frames per second) of almost every human face capture because of subject and eye/eyelid motion issues, as well as issues such as squinting, tongues that dart out, facial tics, and so forth.

ON ANALYSIS

I have finally analyzed this photo after posting, and find that in other photos before this, the man's eyes were pointed to one side or another, and not staring directly at the camera.  They would never have been as successful as this, I feel, for reasons then I did not understand.

Now notice:  He's staring here directly at the camera, then look at the dancer -- she's staring almost exactly the same -- right at us.

Both also have white footwear.

Both have serious, straightforward expressions as they stare into the camera - both are quite aware they're being photographed (at least I believe this guy was aware enough when he SAW my camera and me standing there pointing it at him that he realized he was being photographed, since I was right in front of him, though turned slightly sideways).

I couldn't believe my good fortune that I got several shots off; life's like that sometimes. 

Sometimes you get 1/100th of a second or less to get one shot, and when taking 8 frames a second, only one of eight in one second will be of a subject showing lack of awareness of the camera, and seven others will show awareness of being photographed ruining the capture's naturalness.

Here it didn't matter.

The direct stare and the white footwear on each are what I call in my own photo vocabulary 'mirroring' - another photographer (a pro) just described it to me as 'symmetry'.  I like my own term and think it's more universal and useful than just being my personal term.

The dancer/model is very, very active here.

He's totally static.

Her hands indicate her activity, as well as her legs.

His hands (what we can see of them) indicate total inactivity; they are crossed and holding each other.

Likewise her hands seem crossed or holding each other, but they are quite active to her left side . . . . points both of similarity and difference.   Standing with one leg lifted, her hands need to be to that side for balance.

Since he's seated, he has no balance issues;  that his hands are to one side only reveals his inertness.

Famous photo great Elliott Erwitt, three times head of the Magnum Agency, always said 'watch the hands'.  He explained that hands reveal what the individual is thinking and doing, since we don't generally program our hands like some (actors and politicians especially - preachers too?) can program our facial expressions. 

If in doubt about a subject's true motivations, watch the hands.

I think the ultimate (final) point is that she's shown predominately white/light  --  emblematic of her youth and innocence as she engages in her leg lift, while he's dark and completely filthy; his knees and hands are drawn up to his body, defensively, eyes staring straight ahead in an alarming or defensive glare, like a deer caught in the headlights.

Thanks Pierre for enduring this exposition.

I try to put some thought into analysis of my own photos where they can bear it; this one I think can. 

I think that is why you were drawn to it, unless I miss my bet, and maybe I helped put inchoate thoughts into words  -- these words came to me just as I wrote them, not from any notes or rewritten script -- all written stream of consciousness at 45-60 words per minute (keyboard speed).

john

John (Crosley)

Very powerful capture , A bit too dark

Thanks Alon,

I put thought into lightning this capture, but decided that I wanted only his face to show, as it does.

I wanted the blacks 'blocked up' in it, since it was taken at night, underground in a tunnel and that is the natural condition there, with little artificial lighting.

If you walked past, you might not have seen this man except for the brightness of a nearby light on his face and the gleam of his stare.  The poster too is almost completely blocked up in the blacks.  I am sure of that -- I've been looking at it for four or five months, intermittently as I would pass from time to time, sure I ultimately would make it part of a good to great capture.

I hope I have succeeded, for this is the last time I will photograph it.

(I've tried before without success.)

Thanks Alon . . . . you can't know the ambient conditions when you make a critique . . . and maybe the critique just points out a deficiency in the capture that is a defect that must remain there forever condemning this photo to being 'less than perfection'.

However, I assure you to my eyes it looks terrible if it's lighter.  I did lighten it to  take a look -- the info's there, but it totally fails as a capture when brightened -- too many extraneous things to break the 'story' and the 'juxtaposition' when brought out of the shadows . . . and the poster is indeed 'blocked up' in the 'blacks'.

Your communicated thoughts are always appreciated, Alon.  Never hesitate to make a critique on a photo of mine -- I learn a lot from them . . . . sometimes to cement thoughts or choices I have made, and other times to make notes for changes when I rework a photo in the future.

john

John (Crosley)

I take bird photos too.

In one photo, it's a great egret, all white in a hazy day back lit by diffuse sunlight standing in a pond which reflects the bird and the reflection is punctuated by the circles or small waves where the bird's beak has just plucked a small fish, which is in his beak.

The photo is high key -- white on white.

It's truly a great photo.

[my opinion -- best of all my bird photos at least]

Problem is, like the critique you made of this photo, it has trouble attracting viewers.

On this service, no one will stop to click on it. 

It just looks 'white' or 'washed out, it's so subtle. 

It fails on an Internet exposition where brightness and contrast rule.

This one ultimately looks 'black'.

Few will be curious in the future, I think to click on this photo, unless they are drawn to the dancing girl and just wonder 'why did John post this black photo? and click out of curiosity based on my reputation, not on the quality of the thumbnail.

If shown first in a museum or gallery in silver halide with controlled lighting, I don't think that would be an issue, either with the great egret photo or with this.

It's partly a matter of venue, therefore, as far as I'm presently concerned.

Some photos just will not do well on thumbnail and computer screen exposition that will look GREAT blown up to 36 inches horizontally.

Maybe I'm just full of it; I'm not presently in any museums or galleries. But that's my thinking, and I intend to make a good try.

So bear with me, if I test your eyesight, OK?

My goals are a bit beyond Photo.net.

john

John (Crosley)

Viewers, if this seems 'too dark' to you, that is 'on purpose, at least when it's shown 'smaller'.

Even in the 'normal' view of Photo.net the guy's face shows pretty dark, yet it's illuminated by lights above.

Many members, but not all, know that on a full-size photo, if one clicks on that full-size photo a second time a 'larger' size photo will appear.

Try double-clicking on the full-size photo to see the 'large' photo and see if looking at this photo 'large' doesn't make it appear more palatable with its blacks, especially with the lightness/brightness on the man's face.

That's what I saw when I worked it up in image editing - not a reduced size version.

If it were exhibited, only a much larger version would be exhibited -- according to today's standards for exhibition.

That's ultimately how I judge such a photo -- not by Photo.net standards - though rating here is tremendously helpful for critiques and for finding popularity of an educated audience for any particular photo.

I hope this helps.

john

John (Crosley)

Hi John,

Wonderful street snap telling whole stories and with a contrast that is shouting at you. And a type of motive I am forever looking for, but rarely manage to capture like this.

My compliments.

All the best

Peter Blum

Good day John, Every now and then, as I'm exploring image on PN, I come across a photo that pings my interest.  This is such a photo.  The stark reality of a homeless person verses the life of a performer.  Are we all not performers?  Are we all just a breath away from being in a situation of despair?  Your image forces one to think such thoughts and ponder the path to reach the point each of these souls arrived.  Thank you for sharing your work.  Regards, Doug.

In a sense, one comes upon a scene like this 'by accident, but in fact, I keep a visual and mental library of places where I am likely to obtain such encounters and get such captures, then return to those places from time to time, just including them when I pass nearby.

As you may have read above, four or five months ago, I spied this poster of the knee-kicking girl and decided it might make a GREAT juxtaposition photo, being on a drab wall in an  underground tunnel with cement floor - a place haunted by all sorts of denizens including many citizens scurrying to and fro from metro to kiosk to autobus and so forth.

Around the pillars there is a display of wedding dresses.

And inside that display there is a whole underground city that stretches for blocks under the most fashionable two streets in all of Kyiv.

This is just outside one end.

A great place to be as the underground city has 'guards' Oxorono (security) every little distance, programmed to chase away photographers, but this place has none.

And stores . . .  well stores are hard to get good captures with all that lined up merchandise.

For this guy I had to wait four or five months for him (or someone like him) to sit there or be there or do something in juxtaposition to the poster.

He did, as I walked there looking again (my umpteenth time), and I got the capture.

There is more than just a 'snap' involved.

There's loads of planning o getting a 'snap'. when you're talking about some of them.  Others are instantaneous and last less than one second, start to finish, from eyeballing to capture, then disappear (not this one however).

Thanks, Peter.

john

John (Crosley)

Doug, your thoughts on the close in reality and also the philosophical connection between those who perform and those who are helpless and in need are very well spoken.

I needn't add my own commentary; yours is excellent.  I'll just point to your words and say 'I wish I could have said it so well, so succinctly.'

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

John, I'm with Pierre if he sticks to the "maybe not" ! It should not be sharp and perfect in technical terms. Reality is different in most cases.

Dreams and reality goes parallel for both in this scene.  I think they are both too far away from each other so that the reality of the other is just irrelevant. They are both in dreamworlds and realities of their own. The girl trying to fit to an ideal of a pom-pom girl, far from any reality and the guy up till the neck in a reality that he might try desperately to dream away from (he is looking to the left of him to find it - maybe!).

Good picture that provokes and make you reflect.

I learned long ago, just to let the most amazing critiques stay there and direct readers to read them with my compliments.

Well done.  (as with by far the greater part of your photography I might add, since I've been remiss in telling you so, but feeling I should let you know nevertheless.)

john

John (Crosley)

To me aesthetics come second to the emotions that a photo evokes. I keep coming back to this photo. I don't recall seeing a photo where someone looks as lonely as this man. The photo of the girl definately adds to this photo due to the contrast of the two situations.

P.S. I believe PDE is Pierre's initials.

a powerful statement... arresting and disturbing... the lighting is an integral part of the statement

I have found throughout my photography which began in the year 1968, and had a hiatus of 36 or so years (intermittently) that I often have dealt in contrasts.

Also, often isolated and lonely or dejected individuals have been subjects of my photography, not because I have been such either -- often my life during those times has been just the opposite.  Maybe it's my reminder of 'how far one can fall, and sometimes quickly' or maybe it's just my aesthetic.

Sharpness is only a relative term and only works when compared to something blurry . . . . though advocates will say it is entirely objective.

However, for an isolated subject like this, taken in isolation, it would be hardly as powerful as taking him next to a photo of a youthful woman dancer doing a leg lift at the height of her prowess, while he sits there dejected, already have endured motionless six or seven photos and still staring at the photographer (who was even taking his time, not rushing things, as is his usual)

Thanks for clarifying the PDE after Pierre's name -- it mystified me and Pierre did not step in to clarify -- it was doubly mystifying because he signs Pierre Dumas without any E. for an initial at the end, so personal initials were the last thing I thought of.

I guess I should go eat some humble pie.

Thanks Sid for the informative and personal critique -- I am heartened to learn how this photo has moved you.

john

John (Crosley)

Decades ago when I practiced law, I represented people like this man when they got cut off from or applied for Social Security disability benefits and had been turned down (they always are turned down).

I am no stranger to dealing with such people, though it was a small and mostly 'pro bono' portion of my practice, no long since (several decades) terminated.

Because of that experience, I am able to take a more straightforward view of such people -- most are schizophrenic, but if given proper medications could escape the private hell they endure.

I have little hesitation producing photos such as this; nor would they in my recollection have little objection for the most part in taking such a photo to heart -- most are super aware of their predicament and often are in great pain, some hearing voices.  One man who is usually employed at a high level but still schizophrenic tells me he hears music - often classical -- all day, every day, usually in the background, and more in the background when he takes his medication.  Before medication he was in and out of mental hospitals for extended periods, a drug and alcohol abuser/user as he sought to control his private chemical-induced demons.

Now, as he's older, he's lived a productive but bedeviled life, and is a leader in his field, but still looks back over a mess that for those in the future with proper medication given during their lives (they weren't developed during his early and middle years) they might avoid the train wreck that marked his early and middle years.

So, such a work from me is partly documentary and demonstrates not a drive-by photo, but a studied work of life as I have experienced it through the lives of those I've known and work with and represents part of my rather large understanding of such individuals.

Contrasts are a great part of showing off in sharpness what one wants to demonstrate, and that is the device I've used here, to apparently great effect.

An earlier commenter remarked that the photo was 'too dark' but I replied it was so in a studious way.  I take your remark as an endorsement of that.  Brightening only kills it. Sometimes Nikon Matrix metering is NOT the right solution, though it will produce a proper 18% gray scale average, that is not the proper artistic choice.

I'm glad the 'lack of detail' and the suspicions of light in the man's face and barely in his hands met your apparent approval.  It was greatly studied for just that effect -- to make you 'work' a little to view him, just as I had to do to see him in the shadows.

Thanks so much.

john

John (Crosley)

i find this photograph a worthy study of the art/technique/rationale of composing pictures... have placed it in my favorites folder

beautiful landscapes are fine for relaxing, not for rumination

this photograph is true drama -- a document that will transcend the passage of time... it is not a thing of beauty like a Claude Lorrain or Ansell Adams landscape... but arrests the viewer for its powerful latent social commentary

Frankly, that is the highest praise you could possibly give me as a photographic artist, not a technician, but an artist.

Thank you from the bottom (and top) of my heart.

john

John (Crosley)

From the start, I posted for the sharing and for personal reasons, never entirely for rates.

Rates were fine if they came in high, but if they came in low, so what?

In fact, I expected the darkness of this photo to drive viewers away or at least ratings.

I am surprised as heck to find extensive commentary and high ratings as well.

At the beginning I posted several hundred photos without commentary requested just to avoid the ratings trap and to allow myself the freedom to post what I wanted rather than fall into a ratings or 'mate rating' trap.

I still hardly ever rate anybody else's photos to avoid being accused of mate-rating.  (Apologies to the wonderful photographers whose work I admire so much who so often stop here and do not get rates -- you probably know or suspect who you are, but if I start to appear to 'trade rates' you may begin to suspect yourself and your rates and comments here, and surely others will.)

Any rate here is sure to be pure -- no trading can possibly be suspected, and for that I am 100% proud, as I started this way on Photo.net, which was contrary to the custom then, and it has now become the custom on this service for which I am happy and proud to be possibly a leader.

I have no disdain for rates:  Together they are a wonderful source of educated taste in photography, but individually any one rate can be completely erroneous, and one member I know has stopped submitting his 6/6 and 7/7 work because someone always came along with a 3/3 or 4/4 rate apparently just as a spoiler.

For me, it may be bothersome at times, when someone who only likes butterflies gives a 'street' photo a 3/3 or a 4/4 because I don't shoot butterflies or landscapes at f 16, but that's the way of this service.

I'm aimed higher.

Perhaps this will end up in a museum of gallery.

Collective taste here indicates is has such potential despite breaking many or most Photo.net rules.

Thank you all for your comments, they mean so much to me.

john

John (Crosley)

Sometime when you go underground at Phloeshit Lva Tolstogo near Metrograd, just walk around, and you'll see the site of this photo.

You're a Kyiv resident, and this is a very well known place.  I've been eying this site with this particular reclamen poster for four or five months, knowing eventually it had potential for a possibly GREAT photo, if just . . . . . .   It's a good thing Ukrainians keep posters up almost 'forever' unlike Parisians who keep theirs up for about four to six weeks in their undergrounds, then banish them forever.

I think this site has reached its maximum potential; not one I had imagined but I like to be surprised and am now very happy with the result.

This is the result of being open and flexible, but still being somewhat 'preplanned' in street shooting (See my 'presentation"  'Photographers:  Watch Your Background'  (Photonet's largest and still 'in progress, possibly never to be finished, as by definition it represents my 'work in progress' and that I hope will not be finished until my death as I have no plans to quit, ever!

Thanks for the kind comment.

john

John (Crosley)

Perfect shot

Tonality and composition are so strong

I watched this poster for months and separately encountered this man, then one day I found him seated there.

Voila!

Some things you imagine and never come true; some things you hardly imagine do come true, almost as if you, the photographer willed them into place.

Telekenesis aside, this is a good example of pre-visualizing, here by months, your capture, (or something like it, then 'keeping an eye out'.

john

john (Crosley)

John, amazing photograph.

In honesty, I want to know more about this man, see more of him. He's 90% of the interest for me. The irony (or whatever) seems lite by comparison to that might-have-been portrait or essay. JK