'The Magic Mirror?: The Meat Market, Today and Yesterday'

Is that a 'time mirror' in the background, reflecting how the foreground

scene might have looked in the '40s or '50s? Your ratings, critiques

and remarks are invited and most welcome. If you rate or critique

harshly or very critically, or wish to post a remark, please submit a

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

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Enjoy! John

Wow, John!  Love that mirror on the wall--but you were always good at finding backgrounds first, photos later.

--Lannie

It's a 'time travel mirror'.

You show it the present and it reflects the past.

Us old farts might want to gaze at our bodies into such a mirror, and others, perhaps their spouses?

Who knows?

Landrum, for the record, that is a very large blowup photo of this same meat counter (different refrigeration unit, as it has been replaced with the display, foreground), taken in the '40s or '50s.

;~))

This photo really does 'work' for me, and I've been sitting on it for a very long time.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

john

John (Crosley)

Notice that it changes black to white, much as a photo negative does -- it reverses darkness to lightness.

It really is a 'magic mirror'.

As you are aware, I often deal in 'contrasts', and this is a photo with one major contrast, plus what I hope is good composition.  Study it and you'll see, I think, the compositional element(s).

Thanks again, Landrum.

john

John (Crosley)

It is indeed a study in contrasts, John, and sometimes contrasts are truly magical.  It's another classic example for your thread "Photographers, Be Aware of Your Background":

http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=270302

--Lannie

Not only was it a labor of love, I also taught me how to analyze what I had been doing inchoate, so that I not only could 're-create' from time to time that style when I was not so inspired or creative as when I 'saw' those things through my viewfinder, but I also taught myself (I think) how to teach others.

In that regard, that presentation is a 'book' waiting to be fixed up and published, and have new photos added (such as this) and a large variety of other new and sometimes better photos.

I have plans; one of the first is my presently putting together photos to send to galleries; it's occupying my time today and the biggest problem considering my incredibly huge (and often diverse) output is 'what to send them' as 'representative'.

It's a huge conundrum:  do I send them only the highest viewed, highest rated and/or highest commented on photos, or do I send them the ones I like the most?

The highest viewed, rated and commented on may or may not be the ones collectors (purchasers) desire, and represent one major aspect of what I shoot.

Perhaps this photo won't become greatly popular but it is prototypically 'me' in my shooting.

I wish more people would click on the link to that still unfinished but very large and instructive 'presentation' -- last comment I saw was in 2008, or maybe no one just comments. 

Presentations are very hard to find, and I thank you for inserting a URL.

john

John (Crosley)

It was wondrous. John.  Every street photographer, nay, every photographer, absolutely must read through the entire presentation.  It was and is a masterpiece.

There is a store in Salisbury called "Simply Good."  I wonder what or whom I might want to place in front of that one. 

Maybe I need to have someone flown in for that one.

Hmm. . . .

--Lannie

But why not have a whack at it yourself?

Remember no one sees your 'failures' or photos you don't post.

Try and keep trying.

Sometimes, you might be surprised.

Frame the sign and what's around it, and right underneath a husband or boyfriend may give the woman of his life a huge smack on the lips followed by a very appreciative smile, or some such.

Life's full of chocolates like that.

Of course, if it's beyond you or not to your taste, let me have a whack at it; it may not take long, either . . . . or maybe I'll get skunked.  One would never know, as no one sees my rejects (oh, yeah, I know, I post rejects all the time, no sardonic smiles please! ;~)) ).

john

John (Crosley)

"right underneath a husband or boyfriend may give the woman of his life a huge smack on the lips followed by a very appreciative smile, or some such."

That sounds very promising, John.  I had been thinking solely in terms of, um, half of a couple, shall we say.

Since I am not really a street photographer, and not always a dedicated documentarian, I would have no compunction in setting up a shot--provided that I let the viewer know that it was not a candid.

--Lanie

Lannie,

I haven't the imagination to 'set up' the shots I take.

Cartier-Bresson dreamed of  becoming a film director and used his portfolio as a young man to get an assistant's position with Jean Renoir.

He did a very little cinematography, even acted one role (I did not see it yet), and did a lot of 'gopher work' (for non-Americans 'go for' this, and 'go for' that, plus a lot of 'arranging', which is the scut work of film production.

It's the scut work that makes films successful or just finish, and sometimes on budget.

He mostly failed, however, as a documentary fim maker, having frittered away the Spanish American war doing one while his good friend Robert Capa made (or faked?) one fabulous image among a portfolio of wonderful photos with his girlfriend, who was killed, and whose name lives on (test, who was she?)

Why did Cartier-Bresson fail in his life's ambition to be a fim director?  1. It was too slow for his lightning-quick mind.  2.  It required far too much foresight and imagination and lacked the spontaneity on which he thrived.  That's my opinion, and if I were teaching a course on 'street' and about Cartier-Bresson, that would be my premise.

I just don't need to 'set photos up'; life is too full of surprises and variety.

I do 'set them up' in another sense.  I see something interesting and sooner or later (often right then which is why I notice it), something happens, and get out of my way, if you're blocking me!

What I see I often could never imagine.

The word 'Imagine'  -- the image in the mind's eye!

My mind is more limited than my real eye looking through a camera, zeroing in on life using my mind as a filter.

I try to capture that life in an interesting manner, capable of and worthy of being looked at, and perhaps enjoyed -- Today with three SPAM comments being called 'gross' (today's SPAM attack).

Yes, some of my photos are gross or even depict grotesqueness.

Where would Berenice Abbott be without life's grotesqueries? (Dead of course, but other than that, I mean her reputation as a photographer.)

Speaking of 'gross' or just character, look at the photo of Berenice Abbott on Wickipedia.  Now there's a face that would stop traffic, but it has, as we say, 'character'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_Abbott

But then again, my whole body might stop traffic (with a huge splat!).

I should be careful, as maybe I live in a glass house.

I enjoy our infrequent but edifying colloquies.

john

John (Crosley)

In the comment above, 'Spanish Civil War' not 'Spanish American War'. 

The editing function disappeared, or I could have fixed it without this remark.

john

John (Crosley)

Wonderful photo.Beautiful composition. Truly Crosley(ian).

I personally feel, it would have been better if u restict the title by telling only 'Magic Mirror'. That would probably allowthe viewer to think for a while about what you want to communicate with the photo. But I do agree that concept of 'Today and Yesterday' may not be well perceived.

Regards,

Susmit 

Thank you for the superlatives, now even naming a 'style' after me; that is a first I think, though others have said my photos (however disparate) seem 'similar' to each other in many ways.

You are correct to zero in on the concept of 'perception'.

In viewing how to caption a photo on Photo.net one (and I was a professional at captioning for a worldwide news organization at one time) seeks to achieve 'views'.

The world's best photo is worth little if no one values it,and something you are not tempted to click on, first presented on the Internet, is practicality worthless for a true perception, particularly as here, where much of the 'magic' of the photo is in the far background, and thus virtually indistinguishable and indiscernible from a thumbnail view.

Who would click on a photo of a woman at a meat counter without something else being suggested.  The caption (title) must here do the suggesting.

Sometimes first clicks or even a great number of comments can move a photo into a queue position on the 'highest' or 'most' queues, so that when others of skill whose works move to those lists 'see' one's photo there also, they are consequently moved to click on it.

If it's seen as 'good enough' and/or 'interesting enough' they may rate.

No early critiques, and a photo like this may languish and thus get only 'drive-by ratings from the PN masses, which often are much lower for me than from aficionados, particularly those who like 'street' as here.

Fortunately, as above, an old Photo.net friend, began a colloquy with me and through many of my other photos.   

Landrum Kelly did this photo and me a big favor by entering several comments, (to which I replied)  That colloquy moved the photo promptly up the 'most commented on' queue.  (The queues for 'most' and 'highest' software of Photo.net is part of the magic of this service; it's a fortune in ideas, whether or not it's intellectual property that is protectable; it helps viewers and drives views to the best photos and/or most remarkable.)

That is most helpful to getting this photo before those whose rates really mean something to me -- those familiar with better photography and whose rates really mean much to me, comments also very much.

Include yourself in that group, though I suspect you troll here in this folder not just from the 'highest' and 'most' queues.

If this were a gallery or museum, no real title (caption) would be necessary.

Or, if one were expected, yours would be adequate, but perhaps with a question mark, as (and this escaped Lannie Kelly, I think) that ain't no mirror in the background, it's a photo.  Maybe he just slipped in not mentioning that as a photo and wrote of it as a 'mirror'. 

It is a 'mirror' in compositional values of course.

The photo is 'like' a mirror looking backward through time, which is why I took this photo; without it, there's nothing here worth recording from a 'photography as art' viewpoint.

I try to make that standard when I can, and also make it interesting.

But for photos here to be seen as interesting, they must be 'seen' first, here, and then clicked on.

Captions help, if only as here to create mystery and thus interest to click.

Viewers may ask 'what does he mean' then click for the answer.  The key is to only invite such interest when there's something worthy to show, or you're inviting them NOT to click on the next interesting caption you create.

Your comment, as are all your others, is marked 'helpful' for it is, no question.

Thanks, now and for other visits and critiques you've made; all have been very helpful.

john

John (Crosley)

Great view and composition.

Best regards.

Xavier Corcobado

xcorcobado.blogspot.com

Thank you so very much for the compliment.

john

John (Crosley)

This is one of the best photographs I've recently seen.

In a rush of comments and replies, yours got temporarily overlooked.

I am so glad this one pleased you so greatly.

I never know which photo, often, will strike a chord with a viewer, and for what reason, among my more workmanlike photos.

Occasionally, as here, I am convinced a photo will score low and be of little interest with clickers, and that is so with this photo, but it has been of big interest to commenters . . . . and seems to be unique in its message and presentation.

I sometimes troll others' 'highest rated' photos, and am surprised sometimes to find there some of the photos of mine I'd least expect to find . . . . . because the acclaim one person may give is far from universal.

Your taste in this agrees with mine, although I do not think it is nearly as good as you seen to say . . . . but it is very pleasing to me.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

john

John (Crosley)

Very nice. The great b&w processing really makes this work. FS

How nice to read your comment at 5:00 a.m. a cold summer morning (obviously not in the East Coast).

Ordinarily I am not quite so fastidious about my post processing; I have over 1,600 photos here, increasing my output daily almost exponentially, as I am shooting 'red hot' so there's never enough time for post processing, which I keep minimal anyway.

However, this photo depends on black and white/white and black contasts, so careful attention had to be made to getting it 'just right'.

That's what I tied to do, and I'm glad you agree it's OK.

john

John (Crosley)