'Overlooking'

One man- a ,ammequin in a poster, and his elongated shadow --

appeaars to be interested in another, doing a cross word puzzle outside

a shopping center. Your ratings, critiques and remarks are ivnited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; thank you in advance for sharing your

photographic knowledge. Enjoy! John

John,

I like this. The main attraction is the shadow.

A product of well imagination and execution. Title is exact.

Regards,

Susmit 

I see so many of these "real life juxtaposed against advertising billboard/mannequin" photos (three within five minutes in the Street queue tonight), it's hard to get excited about another.

But this one actually works.  And it reminds me of how relatively difficult it is to get a spare, uncluttered example like this, not to mention an interesting position or stance from the real person in the photo.  I usually don't have the good fortune patience to wait for that perfect situation.

The wee bit of an angled something or other at the bottom left corner may be a minor distraction from otherwise nearly perfect lines.

??

I am glad you like this one.

I was with a companion who seldom likes my work, and I walk very slowly, usually much more slow than my companion, as I am always 'looking' but in this instance, speeded up substantially when I saw this from a large distance, and my companion, (knowing me thoroughly) saw immediately what it was I was going to frame and take.

This companion had finally suggested to me that 99.5% of what I shoot, the companion doesn't like, but I agree, neither do I; that's the record for shooting 'street' successfully, so there really was no bone of contention between us at all (we were in quite complete agreement, but my companion had been hiding from me what had been supposed to be a 'criticism' which was not a 'criticism' at all). 

As a further compliment, my companion acknowledged that this one was very good in that person's eyes.

Since that person had been to art/design school and has wonderful judgment about art and design, that was wonderful validation for me.

Yours also is wonderful to read, albeit a little beltedly, as I have been away.

john

John (Crosley)

About 'execution'.

Given the constraints of catching the cross-word puzzle doing man, right in just the right 'attitude, and worrying about 'signs' to his right, which in most frames were included, it took over 70 frames to 'get this right'.

That's the price of exactness.

Re:  Lex's critique above, if shown, the left, lower logo should either have been cloned or 'selected' then had its contrast adjusted to be almost invisible; he made a very valuable contribution just for that, but I expose these things for critique with the utmost minimum of work/just brightness and tones and little else.

It's better that way, as critiques on an unworked piece can sometimes show that sometimes that what might have been cloned out is occasionally a strength instead of a weakness.

Best to you, Susmit.

And Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

You note the plethora of such advertising juxtaposition photos in the 'street' section of Photo.net now, and I commiserate.

Most of them do not work.

For the record, when I joined over six years ago, there were almost no such images, and I submitted a great number of them and received accolades for some of the best, including a Photo of the Week for one.

I do not take so many now, unless they really 'say something' to me, as this one did.

I note above, you are right about the minor 'logo' showing, botton left,and that I might have cloned it out, and might in a gallery/museum showing, but for exposition, here I do almost nothing to my work and especially NO cloning.

I might consider selecting it then reducing greatly its contrast, as an alternative.

Otherwise, a gallerist or curator would be my guide, as it is a little distracting.

I took over 70 frames to get this right as my companion stewed and steamed a little over my perfectionism, but KNEW absolutely I would not move until I got it to my standards, or the guy left.

That's the photographer I am.

I may get it one shot and frequently do, but if a guy is standing on the edge of a lots of signs (and they're behind him) I may take photos waiting for him to move, then cross his legs (as here) so the signs are gone and his legs are crossed (as here) for what you call near perfection (and I agree).

I always love to read your critiques, as they are almost always completely 'right on'.

And ALWAYS HELPFUL!

john

John (Crosley)

You have been accused before of being a 'sock puppet' and not being a 'real person'.

You have never replied to those accusations.

Your question marks are ill-placed and are useless; they add nothing.

Why do you bother?

If you are not a real person and do not have anything to contribute, what's the use?

I would be glad to receive some indication you are 'really a person' and not another member's 'sock puppet', though after several years now it will take some substantial proof . . . . . given the many clues you have left.

But then again if ?? is all you can muster, then why???

john

John (Crosley)

I'm in agreement with Lex's comments: about this being a bit of a cliché, but also on the good execution of the photo.

I'm struck by your patience: 70 frames!

As a film shooter, I would not "invest" so much in such a photo.

I notice this peculiar attitude of yours: you seem to work on the details of a single photo.

Myself, I tend to prefigure the overall photographic situation but not overdo the single picture.

L.

Btw: you are the initiator of these "publicity backdrop photos" and have many imitators!

ah yes, the good ole film days.

When I first came on this scene, it was good, but the guy working on the crossword puzzle was farther to the right standing in front of a lot of white advertising signs on the window.

I shot to preserve the scene and as his legs changed their position, I kept shooting, then as his pencil went to mouth, kept shooting, aware that just ONE is necessary for a great shot.

Pixels don't cost anything; film does.  I have been a film shooter, and the attitude is different; you have to be more careful or be bankrupt -- not so with digital.

With digital you get the opportunity to wait it out.

With time, as I predicted, since he had moved somewhat, he moved leftward (as I viewed him) away from the advertising, so it no longer was a factor, but his legs were not in the optimal position.

I still shot, still to preserve a better photo.

In some the shadow showed the mannequin's arms outspread, Jesus on the Cross like, and I liked that, but felt it might be overpowering.

I finally chose this because the puzzle worker's feet and lower legs were crossed in an agreeable manner, in contrast to the feet together pose of the mannequin.

It didn't take all that long, and in the end I left the scene, confident I'd done the absolute best with the situation, the man still in place, but moved again to a worse position.

Best to you Luca, and thanks for weighing in.

Thanks also for noting that I initiated the man vs. advertising shots here on P.N.  Such shots have a rich heritage in magazine photography; I didn't 'invent' them, but seek to build on that heritage.  Even Cartier-Bresson did a couple of them, including one with a friend and a Michelin tire advertisement/billboard, another with a smiling man in Uvalde, Texas beside a Coke advertisement.  ;~))

john

John (Crosley)

As noted above, 'the good old film days' caused me to miss a lot of good shots because of being too conservative and not having enough film for my next shot -- afraid I'd have to change rolls in the midst of something 'important'.

That's often why I carried two cameras, or three, with one devoted solely to color.

Digital solved all that.

I still love the look of film, but times have passed by and the ability to adjust ISO 'on the run' is vital to me, as I go from bright sunlight to underground passages in seconds and instantly adjust, and I sometimes do that all day long.

I'd miss a great number of shots, if I shot film, or require a second assistant.

john

John (Crosley)

One day from my front yard I looked into the sky and I saw this thing.(remember specifically the event). I thought to myself: "jet planes are not real planes". A F6F Hellcat, now there is a real plane." (My older cousins shot down Zeros from Hellcats, they really did). My D700 is not a real camera. I am shooting with a fucking PC. My F4S, now there is a real camera. Bravo to Luca. The Offset Focus feature of the digital camera however is great for me because I shoot people. Not available on with film camera. Maybe explain someday but don't visit "street" that often.

I longed for film and still do, but constantly changing exposure conditions for me, cause me to revere digital just for the ability to set and reset.  Without that, this photo could never have been taken unless I were carrying four or five cameras, perhaps.

I am constantly in and out, down subway stairs, or subway escalators into the bowels of the earth, into buildings, and then out in bright sunlight or maybe a rainy night and the ability to set, reset and reset again the ISO is a godsend for a guy like me.

I might encounter all those conditions in a few hours in one afternoon, early evening (evening in Ukraine -- I am NOT in Ukraine presently but will be - starts at 4:00 p.m. right now and will until end of February.

Another *checking thing that bothers me is disappearance of the aperture ring.

Once, early on and even later, I could set the aperture in the dark, under a table sight unseen, under a coat or jacket and do that entirely by feel, since I knew my lenses and the 'feel' and where that ring connector should be located for each 'f stop'.

With a command dial, it's not possible, and worse, the command dial is not active (as I shoot anyway) because the camera goes inactive to save battery, and when it's inactive unless you activate it by a half depression of the shutter button (or other means) you can twiddle that damn subcommand dial in the front all you want and nothing happens to the aperture at all, and then you must verify while you twiddle it and read it out on a screen to 'make sure'

It's a waste of good ergonomics that worked.

What a shame.

But when I go through x-ray next time, I remember having made those inspectors open each and every one of hundreds of film cannisters (they would not 'spot check) in order to avoid x-ray, at least in the USA, where one could demand a 'hand inspection' but seldom overseas.

And the stupid inspectors with limited intelligence and forethought would always be saying 'well it's film safe' it says so and we were told so.

Well, for one pass through the machine, maybe, but what about a trip to or from Europe with three or six security check points?

And the same film returning exposed, not processed, passing through the same checkpoints and I'd try to explain and they'd suggest I was an idiot (maybe but not for that)

I was a mother hen for my film in film days and then and still travel a lot with LOTS of checkpoints, but radiation has no affect on my media now with digital (hooray, but now I get irradiated or they get to touch my 'junk'!)

Ugh!

Germans been doing that for 15 years and that's the price of going through Frankfurt especially where terrorists once blew up the arrival hall, and where the Lockerbie bomb passed through undetected.

Munich is slightly less difficult but they're crappy there too, especially to travelers with disabilities.

I mean really crappy . . . . as in violation of law crappy.(EU law)

The stories I will some day tell, (not now, but they're real horror stories . . . . that would make anyone wince).

Meir, they're PCs, yes, but they're PCs that allow me to take lots and lots of wonderful (I hope) photos in a short time.

For me, that's a Godsend, as when I was younger it often was months between such photos, now it can be mere hours, not even days.

Best to you, Meir.

john

John (Crosley)

Excellent work!

Thank you so much.  This is one with critical acclaim but not so 'popular' with viewers.  Interesting.

john

John (Crosley)

As I revisit this photo and the followup discussion, it occurs to me that perhaps it's more appropriate to think of photos like this as haiku.  There's a certain aesthetic satisfaction to be enjoyed from working within the confines of a familiar format, while striving to create something as elegantly as possible within those confines.

Two points: 

Although the format may now be somewhat cliched, and it as as old as Cartier-Bresson framing his friend Andre Pieyre de Mandriargues against a Michelin Tire Poster, I think I am the first (or one of the first) to popularize this 'style' on Photo.net.  [see comments above).   

This style/genre has a long and rich tradition, however, with 'magazine photographers, who dealt primarily in black and white, when making what they called 'feature photographs' say, for a full page in 'Look Magazine' or some such, or even the last page of "Life Magazine'. 

'Magazine photographers' predated the use of 'street' photographer' I think by some time, I think, but I cannot claim to have researched the subject thoroughly.  It's just I never heard the term 'street photographer' even in realtion to the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson until long after he was into his retirement.  (Did I miss something).

That being said, your commentary relating doing well within a format  and relating this format (and apparently the successs of the above effort) to what appears to be a superlative in haiku, I find most refreshing and ultimately incredibly flattering.

I once posted a photo that had no 'point' and no 'story' just because it 'looked good' and was 'interesting to the eye'.

A friend rater and commenter called it 'poetry for the eye'.

I think he would join you in your thought about this photo and your thought about relating this 'familiar format' in general to the 'familiar format' of haiku.

Thank you for offering a superb and insightful comment.

(That being said, the number of 'views' indicates that although a 'success' by some marks, the 'popularity' of this photo, (which I think  most of the commenters seem to agree is pretty good,) is just not high, indicating a lack of popularity . . . . which I find interesting.

In fact, another recent photo that a member compared the work to HCB's also I thought was pretty good (he did too,  of course), but the 'view' numbers were mediocre, yet when I post a photo of  a couple kissing in some unusual way, the 'view' numbers become quite high.

It's an interesting thing to reflect on, since I regard this as an exceptional opportunity that I worked with well, and the other photo as well . . . . . but the majority of viewers seem to want to 'pass over' -- in fact my entire black and white folder still gets fewer viewers than my 'color, then to now' folder, in which some of the photos are inspired but a smaller percentage.

Viewers, it seems, (the plupart of them) may prefer color, no matter how good the black and white offered up to them.

I'll still place the black and white among my very best work, though I do cherish taking a good to great color photo.

Best to you, Mr. Perpendicularity Consultant.

Mr. Jenkins, you.

john

John (Crosley)

Had to look that one up in the milah. I could hardy believe my eyes! I think perpendicular is tottering.

Mr. Perpendicularity himself made one of the most insightful comments above, that has been made about any of my photographs over time, and he has recently been making a very substantial number of quite substantial and very insightful comments (for which I thank him profusely).

I think his comments are stellar, and if I had many others of such high caliber I would indeed be one of the world's richest men, just for that.  (This does not detract from the many wonderful, often very high caliber comments I do get, but his are absolutely stellar.)

No kidding!

john

John (Crosley)

Looking at the 20 comments (as always, half by me) but from some of the most esteemed critics on PN (at least in my estimation), this photo has been a very critical success, even if not 'inspiring' to common viewers' or at least rewarded so far by high view count.

I know when I take a photo, generally if I think it is good or not, and when I saw this guy, the mannequin figure (poster guy) and his shadow (actually the shadow makes a cross if not cropped so), I understood this one would look pretty good.

I invested a lot of time on this one because the guy, right, was out of place, but had promise, and he was static, working on a crossword puzzle, sometimes pencil in mouth.

He eventually moved left, and I waited until he crossed his legs, just so, and among many others photos, snapped this shot.

Sometimes you see something that is 'near perfect' and if you wait, you can anticipate how a scene will 'unfold' before it disintegrates.

That period or 'window or opportunity' may be a fraction of a second, or as here, ten or more minutes.

I was far away, in the dark, with a telephoto, max, 120 mm, so he was entirely unaware of my presence, even as I moved closer (there also were crowds about, and I shot through them when they opened -- this guy was VERY engrossed.  Now what is three letters across for small insect that eats sugar and grease and begins with 'a' . . . . (English)

Hint:  Some photographers get them in their pants, then move on too quickly.

john

John (Crosley)

נמלה

Until I polish up on my Hebrew, I'll have to pass up on marking your  comment as 'helpful' or even comprehensible.

Sorry Meir, but you gotta do better; I'm not even gonna go for a translation engine with such a sparse clue.

Oh, and the answer is 'ants' in English, but then you lived in America, maybe even are an American citizen.

Please don't ask me to read 'Hebrew'.

My closest encounter with that was when I was dating Shoiley Shatzkamer whose father was Joina, Kosher butcher from Brownsville, Brooklyn. 

In order for her parents to 'accept' my presence (before she promptly whisked me away each date), I had to wear a yarmulka -- a borrowed one from a fellow Columbia College, Columbia University student, this one with an Ivy League buckle on the back.

The Shatzkamers spoke Yiddish around the house, but Shoiley kept me far, far, far away (I spoke not a word, but then I was from "Oregon' ma and Oregon Jews don't speak Jewish as she called Yiddish), and she only sold me to 'ma' and 'pa' as 'Jews are blonde in Oregon, ma' - they look different!' 

"Ma' and 'pa' who spent the entire Holocaust in a German attic apparently swallowed that whole line.  Really, nothing feigned.  I once called up and gave my real first name, John, and in seven calls 'ma' hung up seven times on hearing 'John' (a Christian name).  Shoiley and I decided on my middle name which is less 'Christian' sounding.

They'd roll over in their graves if they thought their girl was dating a goyim . . . . . believe you me . . . . we used to go out on Fridays -- at sunset and eat milkshakes and ham and butter sandwiches -- rebellion, that's youth, eh? 

Ham and butter sandwiches for the sole daughter of a kosher household -- I might as well have deflowered her in a schul on Saturday, especially since they were Holocaust survivors (with an amazing story -- and such a beautiful daughter).

(She told me they lived in a German attic sheltered by sympathizers for the entirety of World War II -- something I believed, and which today I tend to believe.  It would make a GREAT movie, but then Stephen Spielberg already tackled that subject? 

However, it's an endlessly interesting subject, and I'd love to see Joina's and wife's story told cinematically.

You can see her photo earlier in my Black and White, Then to Now portfolio, the one with the long dark hair, my only portrait from long, long ago.

My father, a gentile with blond hair, reminded me when I went to Columbia in far-away New York City, not to overlook some of the world's fabulous Jewesses.

The word is antiquated, maybe derogatory, but not as he meant it.  There really was not much discrimination in my family; race, color, creed, sexual orientation.  We were ecumenical, from a state (Oregon -- Western) with a strong ecumenical tradition, at least then, and lived in a University town.

I really never heard racial, religious, or other epithets in my life, and often was confused when I read adult books or went to movies, as the words, such as 'Spic' or 'Kike' or some such, as they had no meaning for me.

And when I went to NYC where they still had meaning, I didn't 'hang' with people who used such words ever.  Still don't.

john

John (Crosley)

You asked the question. The answer is  נמלה = n'mala=ant.  A word no more difficult for you, than haiku is for me (and everyone else who doesn't do crosswords puzzles). .....  oh well.... There are three words in the English Language ending in "gry". Hungry and angry are two of them. All you crossword puzzle guys know the other. haiku -> נמלה -> .....gry. The plot thickens. Bye :-)