'A Triangle of Fatigue: The Headresters'

It's the weekend, there's been a birthday, it's well past midnight, one

young man is sleeping at his restaurant table, a woman next to him

rests her head on hand and arm and same with the man on her right

(our view), and by happenstance, the three form a 'right triangle'. Your

ratings, critiques and observations 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. Enjoy! John

Great shot!

John,

Amazing and hilarious shot. Congratulations. Regards.

This also makes a wonderful color capture.

I was mixed whether to post in color or not.

Thanks for noticing and commenting.

john

John (Crosley)

You never know when you post a shot such as this whether the audience will 'get it.  Sometimes it helps to put pointers in the caption, as here.

I'm glad you found this amusing; I did.  But then I'm easily amused, like the feeble-minded?

john

John (Crosley)

it is also interesting that they're all sitting in a row with the chairs opposite remaining empty... and one's interest is piqued by what lies on the other side, where the two who have not succumbed are looking... amusing that the sleeping one has a finger crooked over the smoothie floater

Three heads, three chairs, three smoothies, three menu items showing, three glasses. If only there were a clock showing 3:00 o'clock.

Great moment captured indeed!

deb

Sometimes photos are all about 'composition', sometimes about 'the decisive moment, sometimes about 'beauty' and/or aesthetics, and sometimes just for little 'details' like the young man/boy with his finger above 'smoothie'.

In other words, photos can be for our amusement, too, as this obviously has amused you as it does me.

In fact, there are few photos which I take and exhibit here, which I am not quite amused by, in one way or another, though laughing and guffawing is not my reaction to the very serious ones.  Amusement can also mean 'interesting' and needn't be associated with mirth or laughter, but just delight in how for instance a photo comes together or is composed; my hope is to produce 'interesting' photos.

As I said early on when I joined this service, my ultimate goal is to make 'interesting photos' 'the ultimate sin is to be boring' (while still making 'art')

Thanks for a caring comment.

john

John (Crosley)

You've done it still another time.

I have a presentation on 'threes in my photography' (have you seen it?  - it was done several years ago, but it captures my sometimes penchant to use 'threes' as a compositional device).

I had entirely overlooked the 'threes' in so many occurrences in this photo, having long since eschewed emphasis on such a device, yet never having abandoned it.  It still works great, but I have a grab bag full of 'compositional devices'.

I long have thought threes in photo composition is interesting, in part because it's somewhat unbalanced, yet, at the same time, if properly placed can be 'balanced' too, depending on how the 'threes' are distributed in the frame.

I used the device here and didn't articulate it to myself so much, but still consciously, as in the other instances, didn't follow through as you did.

You, however, did, just once again, adding depth to what had seemed at first glance to be a little more trivial.

Bless you deb.

john

John (Crosley)

Interesting composition

Best regards

Xavier Corcobado

xcorcobado.blogspot.com

Thank you for taking time to comment.  I appreciate it.

john

John (Crosley)

did you shoot  father, son and holy ghost yet?

In my dreams.

I'm now trying to figure out what 'medium' to use for reproduction.

And what to charge for an 'original'.

john

John (Crosley)

What do you mean by "reproduction"? Making prints? Assuming so..Cotton Fiber paper and archival ink is not cheap a cheap venture.  For digital prints I've been using lately Super A3 13"x19" Moab Velvet from B&H and happy with it -liking it better than glossy.... Or Epson Velvet. What I especialy like about the Moab is they have a 4"x6" size of the EXACT SAME PAPER so you can make inexpensive test prints which will exactly match what your large print will look like and not have to spend the money on 8x10 for tests. I use the Epson Pro 3800 printer. I'd say selling $250 tops for a 12"x18". But if you want a gallery to represent you than google "afterimage" and check prices. I think you'll find them starting about about $600. You also might ask Brad Kim.

Very helpful advice, even if you did miss the jest about 'in my dreams' (meaning  . . . well you can guess)

I spoke with a printing house which does digital, film and Epson printing and the boss told me that he is aware of no museum or gallery that seriously considers Epson prints truly to be worthy of acquisition, and the owner of this world famous printing house, said chemical (silver halide or other chemical-based papers only) were the ones worth producing, and don't waste your money on Epson.

 No doubt, he said they make beautiful prints but if you plan on getting them into galleries and museums, go the chemical and paper route, he said, and then said that his firm uses Light jet and another (I forgot the name) of digital device for doing digital work before applying the chemistry (I presume, since I haven't seen it done, nor have I had a complete rundown).

If you think that advice is 'loaded' consider that his clients print (and he prints) for the MOMA, the Getty, the Metropolitan, sometimes the Louvre, and basically every major museum in the world, so he speaks with some authority, however if he is skewing his argument to me based on his own internal profitability based on the high costs of Epson inks, that would be of interest to me, so if you do know anything contrary, please let me know.

I do not print; I share that one thing with Cartier-Bresson who printed next to nothing after returning from World War II and had his own personal printer.  I was sensitive to chemicals when I did my own limited printing years and years ago, and surely still am, though possibly not to Epson inks, and I admit they make wonderful looking prints, and now even in black and white, whereas Lightjet requires a three-color source for making black and white prints (it mixes them, and they can come out with some 'cast' unless done perfectly, but this outfit can and does 'perfect' work, and the cast can amount only to a slightest shade of warmth, say.

They printed privately for me a book of 100 pages and 200 photos which I did privately two years ago, and never shown and seldom shown to anybody, but those who see it almost never put it down until they've turned every page (a high compliment - two looked at it today -- a rare occurrence -- and I have to remind myself to add an extra 30 minutes to any conversation if I let the other party put their hands on that book.

And, it's two years out of date, so some of my best, most recent stuff just isn't represented.

I'm disabled and not able to get out every day, but shoot like a devil when I do, and almost always come back with something interesting and occasionally something noteworthy.

'Keepers' are becoming more common, I find, with less time spent between the good ones and more frames spent for each good one, but fewer wasted frames that never were going to amount to anything.

(I'm learning still).

I'd like to take up printing, if my lungs could take it, but it takes a lot of time and then you have to have a place to put prints, and except for a gallery and a large living place I have none -- I'd print if I had buyers, but nothing's for sale (YET).

I get approached with some regularity, but want to start out on an organized and not ad hoc basis if I do decide to become 'commercial' or at least 'sell'.

I get too much enjoyment out of taking these blasted photos, to soil it by having to turn it into a job.

I might then start to hate it -- or people who are potential customers who turn from my photos then buy someone else's oversaturated landscapes or another's cute kitty cats.

;~))

I'm also planning (if I have money) to go to Arles next Spring, having just missed Paris this year.

And do it right.

That means starting now.

Which I'm doing.

Arles or high-ranking galleries -- my feelers are out, and soon I will have to print, so your further advice is sought on the question above.

Thanks for offering your expertise, as I am sure YOU know how to print and to the highest caliber, and I do NOT -- not at all, and I hear the Epson has a pretty steep learning curve besides slurping ink more costly than Chanel No. 5.

john

John (Crosley)

'If you want a gallery to represent you . . . . '

That has a presumption that galleries are  consideration for my photos in your mind, I believe.

I take that as a very high compliment.

You have gone the exhibition route; I have not.

I have only printed some things (lots of things actually) at Costco, ending several years ago, as it just became too burdensome in my travels to carry around prints or to store them properly, and so they started to deteriorate and start to show signs of being 'shopworn'.

No use to throw away money just to have a pile of prints, so I did a book, and it was a personal triumph, but only for private use; I am thin-skinned about who judges my photography professionally (not on PN), as it is highly personal for me (at least when I make my first jump into the gallery/professional/museum world) even though I have been assured for 2-1/2 years now that I will be MOST WELCOME, but that was when things were selling, before the current economic crisis put a lid on acquisitions and spending was more free.

Fists are tighter now; I feel it and so do the big spending bigwigs,  according to Art-Source which tracks the market.

I've also been told by one world-class expert (actually more than one) that my prints won't probably ever sell for a LOT of money but might be quite popular and sell also at galleries around the world -- I was told 'aim for China and Korea, as Korea is hungry for photography (and I'm known there) and China has lots of remnimbi - even if 5 percent of the ! billion population is millionaires, that's still an awful lot of millionaires, and my photos are (I am told) universal in their appeal, (compared, to say, photos of the 'length of the Los Angeles River' or the 'Despoliation of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains South of Denver by Urban Blight', both of which have been featured prominently by very accomplished -- and 'acquired -- photographers.

In fact, my driving force is to find universality' within the human experience within everyday life (there, I've finally found what it is I do).

It encompasses all the human predicament, and for me it's endless.

I could go on taking photos until they drop that casket lid and be happy about being remembered for that (the photos, not the lid)--not for practicing law, being a securities analyst, being an assistant to two Columbia Univ. Vice Presidents, being an AP photographer, reporter, editor, and so on.

Just photographer who 'captured the human experience in day to day life' and seemed to catch telling moments would be enough (more than enough, to tell the truth).

I think if I'm careful and store my numerous hard drives (and their numerous backups) with discretion and care, and move more quickly now as I advance in age, that some day, when I'm worm poop, I may have a photo or two someone will remember me for.

"Crosley, J; very minor early 21st C. photographer, 'street'."  (maybe in some footnote in some obscure photo compendium somewhere, would be more than most people here get).

That would be plenty.

Meir, thanks for the compliment, assuming 'something' I had produced might be 'gallery worthy' -- from you it's a high compliment for which I give you profound thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

If you shoot digital tnen Silver Gel is not an option.  Not so sure that galleries will not touch digital. Here on photo.net Brad Kim (American) shows and he has also been published in LensWork. He shoots with a Canon Mark II. Teresa Zafon (Spain) shoots with the D200, does solo shows in Europe and sells. She uses an Epson printer one step down from mine. Jacaueline Roberts, Probably Bela Molnar, Hugo Romano is presently showing in a prestigious Tel Aviv gallery. The group show is strictly digital. See attachment.  And there are others right here on photo.net.

I am told by printers (the highest-rated firm I wrote about), that resolution even from a 6 MP image will be sufficient for gallery standards for 'street' since the image is the thing.   I was told that two years ago.

I have yet to test it with a real gallery owner, but will get my chance probably before end of January.

Thank you for the helpful compendium of PN members exhibiting; I never would have known.

You never know when great help is available here until you ask.  Sometimes I forget to ask; I'm so busy shooting and my 'career' has definitely taken back seat to my 'shooting'.

Thanks very much, Meir.

john

John (Crosley)

6 megapixels is fine. You are not making a fucking billboard. I had a Gateway DC-T50 5mega pixel (a gift from Gateway PC)  The quality of a 12"x18"print is as good as my Nikon D700 produces  http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7008328 and  my ex's Nikon CoolPix won't touch it .Why I'm not sure.  I think it is the lens and/or the quality of the sensor but not the pixels. google ebay DC-T50.  You'll find it. The DC-T50 has a viewfinder in addition to the back panel screen. I think (and used it only with) viewfinder. I think pressing the camera against the face reduces handshake as opposed to holding it out and looking at the screen when shooting.

I think galleries of the caliber I'm looking at are envisioning 16 x 20 or 20 x 36, at least when they sell to museums (they broker to museums,send things around the country/world on exhibition, help with books, etc.), but still, for 'street' that may be OK, and some smaller work (12 x 16) may be acceptable, and later I started using larger mega pixels which will support larger sizes according to the print staff.

One drawback:  I do not often shoot in broad daylight, but often indoors, in tunnels, at night, and often at pretty high ISOs, and especially earlier, digital 'noise' artifacts were an issue, so besides new, careful re-processing of my images, some may not be up to standard for gallery no matter how good they are/were, unless the image simply is overpowering.

I think we can agree that the more overwhelming the image, the greater the reproduction leeway, especially in 'street'.

I am not a printer, never aspired to be, sensitivities and allergies militated against it, besides the tedium of working with captures in a very time consuming manner rather than MAKING or CAPTURING new ones.

I'd much rather be on the street, or elsewhere or just about anywhere than along with a printer, although at one time I worked for AP in New York and was in and out of their HUGE commercial scale walk-in and walk-out darkroom on an hourly basis, so I have a great knowledge of how it's done . . . . at least at the reproduction level they worked at, and some was pretty good, as they printed not only for wirephoto, but printed for the AP library, which essentially as Wide World Photos (a division of AP which marketed their library, and was quite profitable, I think, because they turned negatives into dollars, and had a rather quirky staff -- misfits many of us would have regarded them, but for their work they were fine, and did their job well.

(They still have a couple of standout original photos and negs of mine that were not taken for AP, for which I was never paid as a stringer, and I OWN them and need to get prints to make my collection complete, including one of Nixon facing a guy coming out of a sidewalk elevator by surprise, reaching down and shaking the guy's hand -- the hand as well could have held an uzi and history that day could have changed forever, and I'd have had my Pulitzer -- no consolation.  Ran front pages worldwide, for the lapse in security.  Now they weld those things shut and don't allow impromptu 'walks' by presidents where there are such things.  Special teams come to town and weld shut manhole covers along motorcade routes in part because of the security 'hole' that was revealed by that gaffe'.

Secret Service carried me (and my camera(s) by my armpits down the sidewalk as they rushed Nixon and wife, Pat, away, and he later resumed his walk in front of a famous San Francisco hotel (see photo in Black and White, Then to Now, folder).

I was just walking to work and got front pages; the White House press corps of AP had two photographers following Nixon and they missed out entirely and I swept international front pages.

I got front pages for others, taken when I was a writer . . . . . surreptitiously . . . . . on my own time and ostensibly as a 'stringer' and often never paid (see photo of Leonard Fristoe, returned to prison after 47 years for escaping from Nevada State Penitentiary where he had been imprisoned for life for a double murder in a train robbery.  How wild west is that.  He was an old, hobbled man with a can, as they led him away under the light of the evening prison watch towers.

I need a better reproduction of that and AP has the negative and one other.  The family of Fristoe has contributed to his story - it's also followed up in my same black and white folder.

And I was only a 'writer' not a photographer, using my own basic equipment, competing against the best AP had to offer. 

My mentor in San Francisco was Sal Vader, eventual Pulitzer winner (woman skipping to husband returning from duty in Viet Nam at war's end.)

A great guy, in my book, one of the best, looking back.

The image quality of your point and shoot (with eye viewfinder) is really quite great, but I am sure you had it at best ISO, which I almost never use.

Sadly.

I go where the action is and often there is not optimal light.

Thanks Meir.

john

John (Crosley)

Nope, not the best. It was ISO 400. I always shoot at 400. If its dark I brace on something.