Balance, Color, and Composition

None of the elements of this photo 'stand alone' well enough to support

a composition, but the whole, well . . . to me, that maybe seems

another matter. What are your views on this photo, which features,

balance, color and composition of several elements in its framing? (It's

best viewed large, I think.) 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 to help improve my photography. Enjoy! John

The total impact of the picture is very nice. All the element fit and leading to under ground and adding depth to the picture.  Motion of the commuter is an additive effect . Regards ifti. 

Not every 'street' photo I post relies on 'impact' or 'contrasts' to make its point.

Sometimes I am quite happy to find harmony.

See if here you (or someone else) can define the compositiponal device I have used.

It actually can be defined in three or five words, and is slightly hidden because the parts of the device are not all in one element -- they are distributed among the elements.

When you discover that, or can analyze the composition, you will understand why the woman with umbrella is so important to this composition, and further, why her exact placement is so necessary.

Ifti, that's a question to you or anyone else who cares to comment.

(other comments are welcome as well).

Thanks for a concise and thorough analysis.

I do take pretty photos -- even if minor -- from time to time, and enjoy it thoroughly.

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

A very recognisable "John Crosley photo".

The colours stand out, however there is really a lot to see, making it a bit cluttered. The (my) eye cannot decide whether to rest on the woman or the graffiti and then is led to the bright light area in the background.

All the best,

Luca

PS Just an idea: why don't you think in "photographic series" rather than in singles? This one might be well part of such a series.

It is said, that one mark of a successful photo is that it engages the viewer; that except in the case of the absolutely worst photos where one looks a long time just to take in how awful the photo is, when the viewer's eye lingers over a photo, the photo and photographer have 'engaged' the viewer.

Your comment suggests that is what I have done with you; you trace the movement of your eye around this photo.  That is no mistake, for it is a byproduct of its composition; I have used a device which I hope someone will name, so I will not name it here.

And this is a composition, with no single element standing alone, but the three or four elements together comprising something that is engaging.

Timing I think is of great importance for this photo; can someone explain why?

Imagine this same photo two seconds before or after I released the shutter, and maybe explain WHY the timing is so important . . . . . anyone?

For a relatively simple photo with no 'meaning' this has engaged me since I took it, and the more I view it the higher it stands in my estimation.

(not every photo I take does that happen with, and some I am not in love with, even if I display them.  This one, however, I like.)

Luca, the word 'cluttered' is not one I thought would come to mind -- perhaps 'more complex than originally appeared?', because there is more than adequate spacial separation between the figures/elements in this photo, which one ordinarily would expect to lead to critiques of being 'cluttered'.

As to 'series' I am a peripatetic shooter, and I shoot 'ad hoc'.

As to 'series' I am of the mind of Garry Winogrand in that regard.  Without some way to decide how to shoot series and some grand overweening scheme about series, I think it is best to shoot all, then at the end, choose representative photos in a 'series'.

Think a series on 'kissing couples'.  I have enough photos to fill a book easly, and that might be well received based on how PN viewers have reacted to such photos.

Same with such 'subway/underground' photos.

Winogrand, when asked by his publisher to 'do a book' just reached into his vast collection of photos and became photo editor/he seldom shot so much for a book rather than just selected from what he had shot.

I may do just the same until someone with money and/or influence suggests that I am best aimed at this or that subject.

Of course, I do have the makings of a series on 'The Main Street of Kyiv' (Kreshatyk Street), a street of lovers. and so on.

I have portraits, and tons of them,  street and otherwise.

Nudes, I do not show, and some have said I do a good job in that regard.

Until someone wants to exhibit a certain aspect of my work, I prefer 'ad hoc' shooting, because I can shoot any old thing I see, rather than act as a photojournalist . . . . or someone else on 'assignment'.

Still, not a bad idea, and I shoot as though there were future books to be made of my present and past work.

Thanks for another helpful couple of suggestions.

john

John (Crosley)

PDE

Merci,

jean

John (Crosley)

An explanation on what I mean with the term "clutter": too many details and a lack of a defined focal point.

Of course this is absolutely subjective, but in my view street photography should tell a story, pass over a visual message on something going on. This is the reason why I look for something to concentrate on in street photography.

Garry Winogrand did not like the category (and I think he was right). Let's call it "documentary photography on streets". :-)

I have come to series very recently, but believe that they are a very good approach to improve the visual message of photographs.

But you as a former photojournalist know this much better than me.

All the best,

L.

I do not think the 'purpose' of street photography is to make or tell a point, though it is a very good medium for doing just that, and as you are well aware, I do that with great frequency with my street shots.

Cartier-Bresson for whom the word 'street' had not even I think been coined when he was photographing, just liked to create harmony from the geometry (compositions) he found, and that was enough.

I think he might have liked this one, even envied it a little, only because it is 'the moment' but in color, which he could not master.  He thought in terms of form, and gray, but color just defeated him so much that he tried to destroy his color work and once flew into  public tirade at the editor of French 'Photo' magazine for bringing him in a resturant some of his color work to comment on.  He went from table to table denouncing the former friend as  turncoat to strangers dining, creating a spectacle (source:  Photo magazine obituary, HCB).

Cartier-Bresson was 'mercurial' to say the least.

I really do think he would have liked to have created something like this, and it was in his capacity, but he was so used to black and white, he closed his eyes to color.

And this is very subtle, and without a point.

Well, there is a compositiuonal point, which I think even HCB would have appreciated.

The composition here is slightly off center hub and spoke, with three radiating lines and the center circle is the umbrella itself!

No one commented on it, despite hints above; I think it is very subtle, since the hub and spokes (two rails and the far entryway) are composed of different elements.

In my viewfinder it all seems to simple, and so balanced AND uncluttered, when one looks at the overall composition, which is why I expressed interest at your calling it 'cluttered' which in English is similar to 'messy' which this is not - it's very organized with everything in its place, however disparate.

I enjoyed writing this; I hope you enjoy reading it.  Maybe you'll see some 'organization' in what you saw formerly as disarray and clutter?

Thanks Luca.

john

John (Crosley)

I though there might be some ambiguity on my use of "cluttered".

I use the term meaning that (in my opinion) "there are too many elements to watch" in a given image.

This photo is not messy at all. It is quite orderly. I appreciate that it is your intention to take the viewer "around the frame" and that is perfectly acceptable.

There is always a lot of subjectivity on the part of the viewer - me in this case - and I have some difficulties, as I said.

But when I see a photo I relate it to my personal conception of photography, which is in any case partial.

I have no pretension that my opinion is universal.

Best,

Luca

I note your response, and add that I think that at times my photography may be difficult to categorize and pigeon-hole.

One moment (even a prior frame) I might be shooting a steet scene, a close-up of some interesting detail maybe with color I see on the street, the skyline, architecture, faces (I love faces, especially in Ukraine), whether close-up or being expressive, telling a story or just stand-alone being 'interesting to me' and maybe trying to be satisfying, as I find this one is.

Yes, it was entirely my intent to cause the eye to wander around the frame -- to engage the viewer's eye, and capture it not by any particular one interesting subject matter but by the way I melded them together in a composition.

I think if you put 100 photographers of considerable skill at that place, even on that day, that it seems highly unlikely one would have made the same capture.   I may be wrong, but it's my surmise.

Want to make bets?

I believe in the more gestaltist way of Cartier-Bresson at times to look and regard (redundant) a photo - to integrate its components into a whole and see if they all fit together.

Here, that 'fit' lasted a mere fraction of a second, enough for two acceptable frames at eight frames per second.

This is the better, by far; the other is satisfactory, but as I heard and saw in a video  "Cartier-Bresson tell someone of his prints bound for the French National Archivers ('No, no, not that one, I rushed it!', as he objected to sending a particular photo to represent the perfectionist HCB when in his mind, no matter how good it looked to others, in his mind he 'rushed it' and could have done better.  Just how perfectionist is that?

Well, I have some of that perfectionism in me, and everyday with most shots I break it, but in some I come close.

This is not perfect by a long shot, but representative of better work.

Luca, without your help I might be farther back, much farther back, on the learning curve.  Thank you as always for able assistance.

john

John (Crosley)