'The Joy of Life II'

This girl celebrates 'The Joy of Life' a little while ago. Your rates,

critiques and remarks 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 image showed a little 'dark' on upload.

I lightened and replaced.

Photo.net has a minimum of three servers, and it may take a while for the image to change and update on all servers

If it still shows 'dark' after a while, and you have seen this before, you may need to clear your browser cache.

john

John (Crosley)

John, your title is leading me, so I want to see an expression of the joy of life.  Seeing just the top half of the girl, despite the expression on her face, just doesn't fully convey that title for me.  Her expression is one of daring excitement rather than pure joy, IMO.  I imagine you were constrained in showing the foreground and her legs; I'm guessing this was an indoor play area on air-filled tubes.  It's too bad one of her hands is in shadow, again I suspect the result of a fairly constrained area.

I had my work curated at his request and for mostly free by a Lucie Award Winner two years ago.

He stopped at this photo and said 'John, this is fabulous'

I said 'what?'

He said, 'this photo is absolutely fantastic, it is pure art, it's a sure seller in a gallery.'

I said in reply, 'well maybe if I take the shadow out in her left arm.'

His reply:  'No, No, No, No, No!  Don't you get it, it is the shadow that absolutely makes this photo.  Without the shadow, it's just another photo.  Don't touch the shadow.' 

It has been shown elsewhere on a more advanced forum with tremendous interest from very advanced photographers and those who watch their work.  (I don't name it). 

It's very well known photo.  It is one of my most well-known photos and most clicked on elsewhere.

At first, I was a nonbeliever, as you are now.

Now I'm a believer.

I wont be touching this photo for anything.

It took a while to understand until after an Internet world tour through photo and art gallery web sites, as he assigned me to to do, and sometimes going to photo gallery openings with this person, who is extremely well known in the gallery, museum exhibition industry, and whose taste I admire greatly.  His selections are almost invariably 'right on'; famous photographers seek out his opinion and world class names are his personal friends.

I met some famous people through him, and they all seemed to respect his opinion and seek it out.  I had 'masters classes' (for one) with him almost nightly for a good long period two years ago, and am greatly richer for the experience and extremely grateful; I learned things that no one else could teach me, I think, and grew greatly in my knowledge of the exhibition/collection/reproduction industry, as well as the photographic arts. 

It was a truly unique experience and one I cherish.

And although I resisted the discussions and his conclusions at times, time and experience with his curated choices has borne him out; my hat's off to his artistic judgment.

I won't name him here, and if you write me, (e-mail's on bio page) I may send it to you. 

I did not at first see the worth of this photo 'as is' but now I see it, and so have many others elsewhere.  I was skeptical too, of a photo with an arm partly in shadow, but that was the amateur and untutored in me; but time has been a winner for this photo and for his judgment, in this and almost all other cases.

As to captions, they're merely pointers -- a photo is a photo, and not a photo and a caption.  Captions are superfluous except as they bring viewers to a photo; and if you don't see her joy in your mind, you're fee to recaption it there.

If I exhibit ever, I doubt if thre will be captions at all, much less the captions I place on photos on this service.

Whether or not space was at a premium for me is irrelevant; I think this is absolutely the best photo that could be obtained that day under the circumstances, and I'm proud to have taken it.

I get wonderful criticism and helpful hints from members on a daily basis, and many times I'll write that the writer is absolutely correct, and it doesn't hurt to say so; I'm not a blind defender of my work.  Some needs criticism, and sometimes others see many things in my work I didn't see, so this forum is extremely helpful to me as a photographer.

Sometimes for a critique, I must say, regrettably so, that I reject its conclusions but not its author; I thank you for taking the time to analyze and pass on your opinion. 

It may be others have other suggestions about this photo that cause me to rethink all or part of its presentation; and I welcome those comments.

Thank you for taking the time and effort, and don't let this discourage you; perhaps you have other thoughts on other photos, and they may be exactly what the chef ordered.

john

John (Crosley)

John, thanks for your lengthy reply. I'm just a landscape photographer, and even there I'm restricted in what I prefer to photograph and what I prefer to view in the portfolios of others. I'm commenting on photos in other forums only to expand my involvement in the wide range of photographic subjects and approaches.

I can understand the value of the shadow on the hand and the fact that it would become "just another photograph" without that shadow. Thanks for expanding my understanding of that aspect of your photo.

I guess that I looked at the photograph as a whole, saw the shadow on the hand and the shadow of a person on the left, saw the blue tubes, and I immediately knew (although it may be better to use the word "assumed") what was going on when this photo was taken. I was not able to see just the young girl and only the young girl; I saw the image of the young girl playing in an amusement area for young children. Perhaps if I hadn't seen so many details so quickly, I could have appreciated the image more. I imagine that quick assessment stems from my background as a biologist.

I take the same approach to criticism as you when it comes to my own photos. Comments cause me to look at my photo from another perspective, and I'll then either accept the criticism and alter/expand my view of my photo, or I'll reject the criticism in the sense that it doesn't alter or expand my view of my photo.

Clearly, I'm not in your league when it comes to photography. I'm just a self-taught, amateur photographer with limited experience and with relatively narrow interests in subject matter. This simply reflects my background. I'm happy in the world of photography that I've chosen for myself. If a few other folks enjoy my photos, then I'm an even happier photographer.

You say you're just a 'self-styled amateur photographer' but you've been on this service longer than I, and also have a photo of the week to your credit, and are a valuable contributor. I know your name and your work and I respect both.

With those credentials, you're hardly just an 'amateur' with limited interests, even though that's how you style yourself.

Well, aside from a little freelancing as a youth, in my 20s, and getting job offers as photographer from AP and UPI in San Francisco, then briefly working for AP, but after meeting Cartier-Bresson and seeing his museum full of work, and how wonderful it was, and how my work then had some resemblance to his but very decidedly inferior, in every way, and having been sent to see him to 'get encouragement' by his friend, Jimmy White, a colleague of his from China, I just gave up.

I didn't know him from a hill of beans, but this 'talented guy' I know made masterpiece photos of the sort I WISHED I could make, and had a museum full (De Young Museum,  San Francisco, about 1969).  I bought Cartier-Bresson's book there, 'The World of Henri Cartier-Bresson' and treasured it through most of my adult life, but my photographic aspirations ended the day I saw his work.

I became  writer/newsman/editor, then went to Reno, then New York as a photo editor for AP, becoming sometimes 'head of department, and even being groomed someday to take over the whole AP, the general manager told me, but it was a real cheap outfit, and I needed to pay for an apartment, buy clothes, support a new wife, and simple things, which one couldn't do on an AP salary and so I quadrupled my salary in one job move.

This hi-falutin stuff about being curated and 'Lucie Award Winner' happened to this self-taught, self-styled amateur one day when a PN member steered me to a different man, a fine art printer, too busy to see me, and that man steered me to the Lucie Award winner. 

 I walked into his office, he had set aside 15 minutes to see me, and ended up spending 7 hours with me, then the next night took me to one of he most famous galleries in the world for an opening, as his guest, to meet the owners!  I was rubbing shoulders with Heidi Klum, Nick Ut and a bevy of very rich and famous society people, whom I had no idea were 'real' in my own life.  I spent much of my adult life in Silicon Valley, and neighbors Wozniak and Jobs there started Apple, Cisco also by a neighbor, and same with Adobe, even.  All around me the movers and shakers developed out of people who were neighbors, while I practiced law, and with a different move might have become deputy counsel for Apple (a mentor had moved to be chief counsel as i recall, and I had not followed him when he left a previous job, and I was on retainer to his prior employer, as an attorney, then quit to help solely my clients, and never after represented 'big business'.

Billions are made by neighbors, some who were quite introspective and bookish . . . who had fancy ideas that developed into nationwide and worldwide businesses.  The LA world, however, is an extension of the New York City world, I think and the LA/Hollywood world put together, when one gets into the 'art scene'.

I am only on its periphery, and never will be more than a photographer, if that.

I have aspirations, but only to get my photos seen and maybe exhibited and sold, and maybe write a few books.

When most people are thinking of retiring to Arizona or Florida, I'm just getting started, though I'm in enormous pain.  I still get around to the astonishment of my medical care providers and myself.  Never underestimate the analgesic effects of taking a great photo while out for a limping stroll, perhaps with a friend kind enough to slow down while I point my camera. 

I was (and still am) a self-styled amateur.

I lost a $6,000  commission last year because of bad circumstances; which would have been my new move into 'pro' work, because a  friend almost died, and then I had to make an unexpected international trip, and thus miss the work which had a short window of opportunity. 

How sad, as it would have opened more doors, and I'm poised to walk through.

Other than briefly freelancing before joining AP (which is how they and UPI identified me), I was an amateur, and almost immediately after joining them as a photographer, seeing Cartier-Bresson's work, realizing how great his work was, and knowing AP wanted me to photograph Willie Mays, the Giants, the Raiders, and the '49ers, I just said 'enough is enough' -- I dont' give a whit about sports or being a sports photographer, even though there would have been time during weeks to take my own sort of photographs.

But there really was no place for my kind of photographs (see Black and White, Then to Now' folder, early photos) except in an 'Aperture' Monograph, and I barely had enough to support myself,  and no money to promote myself, plus I was barely 22, or a few months older and what did I know. 

I thought my work was good, but had nobody to see it; it saw in drawers for decades!  I thought my shot of Nixon with his arms around me, shaking hands and all sorts of stuff going on was great, but who could se that and tell me; it was not wire service material (though I got a front page around the world with another shot that day).

At 25, I went to a business publication, primarily as writer/editor,and also took photos, but when McGraw Hill offered me a job as an editor of 'Business Week', I took stock, realized that would stick me in New York City in times of high crime and much stress, and went to law school on the West Coast, and my photography languished mostly (with few exceptions, noted in that folder) for 35 years until Photo.net

So, except for that, I'm just a self-styled amateur, who happened to pick up a highly-skilled and respected PN sponsor who 'knew everybody' because of movie/film work he had done, and who had left the business, but knew GREAT printers and others in the photo industry, as he had been a photo software CEO and guru, who 'invented' a certain famous photo software, now sold as a plug-in.

He's off to other ventures, including photographing, the man he sent me to was 'too busy' to see me, but recommended the second man, the Lucie Award winner. 

I fretted for months about what to show him, and in the end took him nothing but just told him to go to Google.com and open my PN folder.

He did, and seven hours later, we started what is now a three-year relationship, with some substantial interruptions.  

He has taken me to a number of galleries, introduced me, and I met some famous, but VERY GROUNDED photographers . . . . he had been Helmut Newton's private printer and friend and printer (and friend of)  any number of photo luminaries, but no need to print their names here.  

His reproduction work hangs in every major museum in the world. 

That he should take time to curate my work, on his own, bowled me over.  He said I owed him nothing;he wanted to 'discover me' to the art/photography fine art world.

So, when he saw this photo and said 'this is fantastic' I was bowled over, as I thought, like you, it was flawed, and immediately recommended lightening her left arm.

No soap, he said.

Leave it as it is.

I learned, over time,  with his recommendations, to respect his great taste - he really is an expert. and just his taste is worthy of respect.

Others in the LA area, and also nationwide I think, knew and know him, and he is famous (or infamous depending on whom you ask), but his opinion is well respected. 

He is passionate about photography AND about art, and this is ART, he counseled me.

You see, Stephen, self taught, self-styled amateur, Penland, I am not much different than you, basically. 

I had another career or careers most of my adult life and only late in life did I return to photographing seriously, and it took me some time to 'hit my stride'.

I now know so much more than before, when it was all a matter of instinct to me.

I see so much more, so often, it can now be almost uncanny, but never with such complexity and such grace and ease as Cartier-Bresson, though now I understand almost all his work, whereas before, at  one time, a good part struck me as 'intellectually appealing' but devoid of personal interest. 

Now when I see his work, it's me standing behind the camera, REALLY!

And I 'understand', or think I do, though I can't hold a candle to his 40 years of amazing work.

So, from one self-styled amateur to another, that this photo has 'credentials' is not my doing; I had passed if over, or was thinking of it as an afterthought. 

In fact, after he praised it, it was posted on another service, where it's my second most viewed thumbnail and I think in my first ten most viewed large photos.

PN seems not to appreciate this one so much, but the other service is devoted to skilled photographers (again I don't name it).  This image is in Google.com under my name and not from PN posting.

We're possibly very much alike, except I've been urged to try to exhibit and sell, and I don't know about you. 

Possibly you're much younger than I, and have support obligations for more than one person.

I'm now truly 'in love with' photography, and intend to do this craft, this art, this lifestyle until they slam the coffin lid down on me.

Maybe I have time to do more work that might be significant; I feel (though disabled somewhat) I have it in me, for years and years of produ

I marked your comments 'helpful'.

Because both were.

Thanks for being a good sport; maybe only luck separates us, or your time will come; mine came VERY late in life, and is not fully developed, though I'm working at it.

john

John (Crosley)

John, thanks for your reply.  From my point of view, my time is already here.  I'm thoroughly immersed in the kind of photography that I enjoy, I'm able to come away with images with which I'm very happy, and yet I always have an open mind and value comments and criticisms that might make my photos even more expressive of the thought I have in mind when I press the shutter.

The same applies to the criticisms I offer.  Sometimes my comments help a photographer, sometimes the photographer's response reveals something I hadn't know about the photo (why it was taken, conditions under which it was taken, the experience involved in its taking, etc.).  In either case, I get something out of the act of offering a comment, so in part my participation in providing comments is partly "selfish."

Best wishes for 2011.

Little as it may seem in my initial response to your criticism, I am overwhelmed and overjoyed at some of the great quality of criticism, and the large amount of it on this site for some of the photos I post -- I get some of the best criticsim I think anybody gets on this site, when viewed from the point of 'is it helpful' because to me almost everything is helpful.

The act of rating or not rating is helpful for judigng the appeal of a photo to the Photo.net user.

The people who rate the photos when their names are revealed, whether I recognize them as members or not, their reputation, their level of criticism when I remember how they rated as members when their rates were kmown, their portfolios of highest-rated photos, and so forth all tell me a great deal about my photos.

The quality of a criticism will tell me one thing and occasionally, a criticism will be so on-point it will stun me -- even almost knock me over.

People see things in my photos I didn't see, but might have if I looked long enough; other times even I would never see, but they can be 'right on'.

The comments, and their vagaries and digressions, or the points relating to the photo and digressions on them, can be the stuff I look forward to, and I get e-mails and comments from many members they enjoy reading them

(those who don't, dont have to read, of course).

I use this as a 'testing ground' to learn the relative appeal of a photo, both for popularity through number and size of rates with the average PN member, and for the critiques, to learn what those of varying degrees of analytical complexity also think. 

So, for me, it's also selfish, but I also try to give back, to posts of photos that are interesting, and in the proces to teach others how to go about the process of doing what it is I do, or just get the nerve up to try.

This has been a wonderful encounter for me.

Thanks Stephen.

john

John (Crosley)