'Goings and Comings'

You are invited to add your own narrative to this purposely mysterious

photo, taken in another country, but which stands for perhaps all men

in all modern Western Society. Your ratings, critiques and remarks

are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or

wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Sure - an alien from another world, ya!

I'm glad that you have provided an open invitation to interprete this photo in ways that people want to do. While that is one of the romances of photography, this particular photo holds more story than the more "straight" photo that we usually see. The reason for this is quite obvious. I await with interest the responses.

The first thing that strikes me is the symmetry (or geometry) in the composition. The slanting (why did you not straighten?) lines focus the eyes to the action which is of course the person at the door. Notice the sign on the door...it suggests that the door is only to enter. On a different level, once the person (who has already decided to "come in" as it were) is in full view, there is no exit. You have thus captured the moment of transition. It is almost like an actor about to enter a stage...a pregnant moment. There is expectation and bated breath.

Taking it a bit further, what we do not know is whether the person actually entered the space of the viewer. The person still had the scope to change his mind and withdraw and not be "trapped" (no exit, remember?). The success of this photo lies, in my eyes, to the depiction of uncertainty, and not so much as to who is entering the room.

The dark bit at the bottom right (back of a chair?) and the bit shadow at the bottom left help not to make the photo "bland". That the background of the man is washed out is interesting (reminds me of the work of Satyajit Ray, an Indian master of cinema. He used this in one of his films as the lead actor was moving out of a room...the door partially opened and he walked out to a bright light outside after he made his choice in life during his conversation inside the room.).

Regards.

An 'alien' for sure.

Or was I the alien in his world?

I guarantee one or the other (or both of us) were aliens.

One hundred per cent.

Thanks for an interesting and unexpecteed response.

john

John (Crosley)

You wrote such an excellent critique, I am going to ask that each and every member who really wants to understand the ramifications of this photo read it.

I do remind you that the sign on the door reads to us on this side 'NO EXIT' but at the same time, he appears to be entering or returning from the 'NO EXIT' side.

What are the philosophical ramifications of that?

The photo was taken with the 'tilt' and I liked that way, so I posted it that way. I straightened it, but it looked less dynamic, and so . . . to heck with rules about keeping lines 'stright'.

I have my own book of rules: 1. keep everything interesting.

2.  (subset maybe) keep all the interesting stuff in the frame and all the uninteresting stuff out.

3.  Break all the other rules when you see something in a scene or photo that suggests your view is better than the 'rule' would suggest.

That's about all that really is important.

The suggestion is that viewing a half million or more photos that are well done doesn't hurt.

Then taking a half million also, doesn't hurt.

john

On re-reading.

He's already inside.

The sign controlled his exit when he entered.

He now is on the 'no exit' side.

Now what?

john

John (Crosley)

I like the photo. I would remove the chair (see attached). Call it 'manipulation' but does not alter reality. No different really than physically removing the chair from the scene to begin with if given the opportunity.

Forgot to add that rotation to straighten helps.

I post photos for critique as 'raw' as I can to allow for suggestions.

Your advice to remove the chair in a journalistic setting would be unacceptable.

However, as presented here it is not an exercise in photojournalism and/or documentation. 

Therefore the removal of the chair is permissible.

Is that too much manipulation for me?

I think not, and if you think it helps the photo, I am interested in the views of others.

No matter, chair removal will make the photo more graphic -- and the question is will that increase the impact of the photo. It does take out a reference point as to (1) scale, and (2) distance, and that must be considered since there are few reference points in this photo.

One must determine whether chair removal will enhance the photo or detach the photo from needed reality.

I'd like to hear from others about that.

john

Again, with straightening I have no ethical considerations unless this were published in a magazine as depicting 'reality' in the place it was taken, and even then might consider 'straightening'.  After all, shifts, tilt, and  and other manipulation of the lens to the focal plane is considered fine in architectural photography of the highest order, and even considered de rigueur in many circumstances.

This photo is partly about an architectural detail of the smallest order, but it's still based around an architectural detail.

I'd consider it.

I felt not rotating or straightening might add focus to the figure and the tilt would add dynamism (reference Garry Winogrand's 'uneasy to view'' body of work, full of slightly tilted figures). 

It's a matter of photographic 'vision' on which I am presently unclear and similarly seek others' feedback, now that I've more clearly articulated the issue(s).

Does straightening help more than hurt?

It does not harm the photo I think, and therefore I would consider it in final reproduction, and for both contributions above, I thank you.

john

John (Crosley)

Here's an open challenge to Photo.net members.

Identify the exact position geographically and within the structure in which it's contained where this photo was taken.

Surprisingly for such guessing games, there sometimes are winners.

Winner gets a cyberprize -- special recognition from me.

At least there's one major clue . . . .

john

John (Crosley)

Frankfurter airport?

You mean 'hot dogs' have airports?

Perhaps you mean Frankfurt flughafen?

If so, sorry, wrong.

And even then, you didn't state what part of the airport.  That is essential.

Frankfurt Airport is bigger than many cities -- vastly bigger. 

I once knew all its hallways, nooks, warrens, and everything. There was no place there I hadn't been (except perhaps in security areas/police areas).

Now it's expanded even yet again, and though I am on my second or third hundred time through that monstrosity, I no longer can recognize and know where I'm going 100% of the time.

Good try.

No cigar.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)