'In Your Face'

The category 'nudes' is misleading; this is really a 'street' photo, and

this is not really a 'nude', but is posted under 'nudes' for the sake of

avoiding argument. This is a genuine 'street capture' taken very

recently. Your interpretation, ratings, critiques, and observations, et

cet., are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or

wish to make an observation, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; thank you in advance for sharing your photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. Enjoy! John.

This photo is 'surreal' and 'artlike' enough, that for a while at least, I do not feel like providing any explanations.

You are free to provide your own; I may reply . . . . about your suppositions . . . . or I may not.

How does this make you feel, and how did it come about?

john

John (Crosley)

Exellent!!!!! I like it a lot!

I NEVER saw a comment like that from you, not ever.  And I know you look at EVERYTHING here, not just 'street'.

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

I mean the positioning of the main subject and the empty room, kind of meaningful and looks nice. Technically also well done and the relation expressed with the position of the hand on the mannequin's face means something like rejecting and it's very explicitly shown! No remarks!

PDE

I couldn't ask for a more enthusiastic comment.

You wouldn't believe how I captured this (write me though, I am not sure I'll put it in comments.  E-mail's on bio page if you're really curious and want to go to the trouble).

john

John (Crosley)

Remember, this is 'street' and a 'capture' not a setup.

Of course, it required 'seeing' it.

john

John (Crosley)

The placement of the hand creates intrigue, and I LOVE intrigue! Is the hand holding her back from moving forward in her career as a mannequin? Is the hand protecting her from seeing the nudity of fellow mannequin friends? Is the hand about to save her from her sins? (Do we really know what goes on in the mannequin world when the lights are off)! :)

What I see in this image is the vast darkness behind her pushing her out of the frame and the hand holding her within the frame.

I like it! It makes my mind wander into possibilites.

deb

based on the content of a photo I've taken.

While I'd love to show you this frame and the succeeding and preceding frames, that would possibly destroy your imagination and those of the others who have clicked on this photo -- hundreds of them it seems.

For the time being, possibly a long time, I think I'll just keep silence.

Here, for once, one of John's photos speaks for itself!

(Thanks for the compliment in sharing your thoughts . . . . I hope others will also.)

john

John (Crosley)

Like most of your photos, viewing this was an experience. Time constraints mean I do not haunt photo.net as frequently as I did before, but whenever I do, I try and stop by your work.

What draws me is the surreal nature of this work. There is drama in the composition and the subject. A photo, I believe, should raise a lot of questions and make the viewer curious; this succeeds immensely in that respect. What happens when you mute a mute subject/restraint a motionless object? When would you do it, and why? And does the vast expanse of black represent the result of such action?

John, was it you who almost gave up photography having met HCB? He'd have been proud of what you do.

Indeed I DID meet Cartier=Bresson, and only after the passage of 35 or 40 years now know it was he I met, just to shake his hand.

It was his work that had such enormous influence on me, knowing with the similarity then of my work and its paucity, plus his museum full of work, I could never match his productivity or quality, plus he had already explored avenues I could only dream of.  I basically quit photography, sometimes for almost a decade at a time, just picking up a camera for a week here or there ''to prove I still had it' or if someone came into my life who valued such things, otherwise all was in  photographic 'deep freeze' until Photo.net.

I had planned on trying for an Aperture Monograph of my early work, since Aperture once was the true only outlet for such work; photography then was not in its 'own' as it is now.

I could have bought Cartier-Bresson's original works all for a few hundred dollars apiece but alas my paycheck was $145 gross (before taxes) a week, and it was all I could do to live on it.  How I lusted to buy his works, knowing they were the work of a master, but not knowing who the hell he was; just recognizing his talent.

You ask great questions about this photo, and I shall let them be; they are the stronger for the asking, and I shall not attempt to answer them  to answer them only would weaken this photo (unlike much of my other work and my usual habits.)

Please, when you stop by Photo.net, stop by my work, I hope it will keep growing, changing, and as well as 'old standards, you will see new and interesting things (some of my best recent works were taken years ago, and only recently resurrected).  This was taken three nights ago and instantly recognized as having great potential (though raters did not feel so ;~))

But who cares about raters . . . . as I've said from the start, so long as there are viewers?

And there are viewers aplenty.

Samrat,  I always appreciate your visits.

john

John (Crosley)

deb cloud - It may be wander into possibilities.

:---] 

Much as I enjoy your critiques, however brief, this one eludes me; can you pardon me, Drew?

john

John (Crosley)

On further examination of above comments, I now understand.  Thanks for going to the trouble of researching the comments before your comment.  

john

John (Crosley)