pretty darn new 'Passed Out: Waiting for the Last Bus (and Beyond)'

This young man showed up early for the last bus of the evening, but

once he extended his legs, he passed out. Will he get up for the last

bus, or will it pass him by and must he fend for himself the entire, chilly

night. Your ratings, critiques and observations 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

I'm not sure if you'll agree with me, but this seems different to your 'usual' photos. Maybe it is because I have not seen too many night shots from you.

The posture of the man, the cycle leaning against the pole, empty streets...the feeling of desolation very much exists. The man is in a world of his own and the lights in the distance only serves to accentuate the sense of emptiness.

The fact is that I shoot what I see when I can do so in an interesting manner -- or at least in what I hope is an interesting manner.

So, if I'm out on the street late at night with a camera, then that's what I'll shoot.

If I'm at the circus, that's what' I'll shoot; same for the playground, an old folks home, or otherwise.

I have shot a number of night shots, but they can be tricky, especially for getting proper compensation.

Remember my shot of the three men looking at fireworks taken in a Kyiv, suburb?  A number of night shots simply do no 'make it' for failure to satisfy both the 'interesting element' and the exposure range necessary to be posted. 

But then again, see the photo taken almost exactly a year ago (plus a few days) of the two girls walking during night, summer solstice, in Kyiv Ukraine's central most park/square, which got high marks.

Fact is I just shoot what I can see.  Also, my Metro shots, taken in ultra low light, might as well be 'night shots' too, but their lack of light and the skill required to take them.

Does that explain it?  I hope so.

Inquire further, please, if it does not; I always enjoy my interplay with you here (or elsewhere).

john

John (Crosley)

I enjoy the silence of this shot, the surreal silence that I have experienced in the early hours in the city, I feel its almost tangible in this shot. I can empathise to some degree with the slumped figure ......(courtesy of a mispent youth), nights like this usually ended with a long walk home. I like the shadows, the varying degrees of shade that you have captured so well. The cycle is another interesting element. I do wonder why you chose not to show it in its entirety? Was it just that you were concentrating more on the slumped figure? Or a purposeful act?  I ask this question as I know you will have the patience to explain as you have kindly done in the past, so I can derive a better understanding and hopefully a bit more knowledge.  In summary this is an image I immediately connected with, and for me conveys an atmosphere so authentic and real, I feel I could almost step into the frame. The image for me is not necessarily all about the figure of the passed out guy, (although he is a central figure), it is about the feeling and the atmosphere of the streets that surrounds him.

Best Regards

Alf

Yours is a wonderful and heartwarming critique.

I don't make it a point always to be near the 'last bus home', or in such circumstances, especially in Los Angeles, but when holding a camera and such a situation arises, why not try to make the best of it?

I started out at the right, from down the street to the right of the subject, taking a photo down the street of him slumped, bike in background and it was GOOD.

But I preferred to have a wider angle lens, which I did not then have, and I had to step farther back than I preferred.

But like my most recent Photo of the Week, this is a photo where I had an opportunity to 'work the subject' so as time passed, and he showed little signs of stirring, I moved to the back.

It is a goal of mine to incorporate aesthetic elements into as many shots as I can and as well as I can.

The bus stop roof and it shadow I found with its parallelogram proved most interesting to me, as it cast an overarching shadow, then there was the shadow of the man.  A shadow underneath a shadow, for slightly more complexity.

The bike, which was of primary concern when taking a photo from the street side down the street toward the direction of where the bus was expected, now became of decidedly secondary concern.

It was the portico or roof of the bus bench cover and its shadow that was uppermost.

I suppose I could justify keeping the bike by saying it 'shows the incompleteness of life' or some such, and frankly I probably reasoned that to myself, as I was aware I was cutting it off.

But who really know.

I took a number of photos, and even with the bike cut off, I like this one the best.

Maybe it's really true, the bike should be shown cut off . . . . .

Life is never finished and maybe some things should be shown as they lead into the frame from outside from time to time.

There may be rules against that, but I'm for breaking rules when other things please me better.

;~))

I think you understand me well on that one.

john

John (Crosley)

 (I rustled this guy awake, and he slept all the way home; it may have been dangerous as people just awakened from outdoor slumber can do dangerous things, but I did it anyway, and he got home without a walk of miles and miles.)

jc

I noticed this photo yesterday. It has some element of interest photographically: the geometric forms and the dark tones.

However much of its meaning is due to your "verbal" explanation.

I still believe that "assembling" photos into series can help you passing the visual messages you want.

Your viewing capability is out of question, your capability to handle the camera, too.

My suggestion would be to start editing and assembling.

Cheers,

L.

PS I have started to look at the set of photos you have reserved to me. Will tell you something about it soon.

Series have their place when one has a 'concept' or an 'assignment' with someone footing the bill.

To get maximum productivity, I shoot what I see.

If I were to pass up such things because they were not 'on my list' it would impair my productivity incredibly.

In fact, I have No LIST and I have 100 lists.

Maybe 1,000 lists, but just never have fully explained them.

If you start assembling my photos, you'll see that sooner or later one or another photo will belong next to 'another' but due to the nature of my shooting, I can't preplan any shooting schedule.

I just have to go shoot, and like Garry Winogrand, when asked if he could do a book on airplanes and airports, his reply was, (in paraphrase) 'oh, sure, I spend already a lot of time at those places and have lots  of photos already.'   That was a man who (except when shooting women at which he was famously unsuccessful) just shot what he pleased, and to heck with series . . . . until someone put the series together.

One exception was his trip across the USA, but he also was very unproductive I understand.  In part, he was wedded to walking with a Leica, and even in LA, where he taught at UCLA, he had problems as he insisted on trying to shoot from the right front seat of a car -- perhaps one reason he left so much work unreviewed, undeveloped and unedited.

It has not been said, really, but this man KNEW one style of shooting (unlike me) but couldn't adapt easily. I adapt, adapt, adapt and there's little I can't shoot, and do shoot, daily, hourly and even by the minute, as the subjects and the view scape changes.

For me, also, variety is my spice.

I don't mind assembling after it's all done, perhaps some later year when I can no longer shoot or there's a commercial market for my work.

;~))

Perhaps your answer will be to help me find that market.

john

John (Crosley)

We might have to agree to disagree here. Being driven by a concept does not necessarily require a bill.

I give myself assignments.

What I normally do is to look around all the time seeking concepts. Although I have my camera with me most of the times, I do not feel it is necessary to take photographs all the time.

While I watch I develop concepts which then become my own assignments then.

Differently from what you are stating, I do not pursue maximum productivity, but rather I try to make the photos I want to make.

You might be "driven" by the fact that you used to be a reporter and that reporters cannot afford to "miss a shot".

But it's a free world, at least in photography, ain't it?

Regards,

L.

I don't want to miss a world class shot because it is not on my 'assignment' or 'list' of things I have chosen to shoot.

Also I have almost insatiable curiosity when I have a camera, plus an extensive history relating to the arts -- much of which I was unaware of when I joined Photo.net -- trips through most of the world's major museums, a wife who worked for 'Art in America' with their major publication spread out in our flat -- 24 copies at a time for idle browsing' and so forth.

All that plus my intense interest and experience in photography over decades.  So, when it comes to self-assigning things, everything I see is a self-assignment; I might be different from almost all here in that respect, as I slip across genres rather easily, and shoot what pleases me.

I feel kinship with the 'grandfather of us all' who felt he had to give no justification for what he shot. 

He called himself a photojournalist to the public, but he stubbornly refused to tell others what he thought of himself when he shot; he just shot, and shot, and shot, and each photo was different and yet each was somehow harmonious in his own particular way.

I aim for something like that.

I think you can see that in my work.

I appreciate that my work might be categorized, much as Le maitre could have his work categorized into shots of Paris "A Propos de Paris' for instance, and similar, but he shot first, and sometimes on assignment, but he shot what he wanted.

When he shot the coronation of King George, he famously included not one shot of King George, but instead gained fame with a photo of a sleeping member of a massive crowd gathered for the coronation.

That's the man and the style  of 'self-assignment' I idealize.

It's just at a different level, I think.   I admire good criticism, as you well know, and prize it highly, just as the maitre did from the very few he trusted, but I also shoot for myself, just as he did.

[i am not comparing my work to us, as his is sine qua non, and my work comes nowhere near his in quality, but I have fun].

We are just looking at the same issue from differnt viewpoints -- you from the cateloguer's point of view, me from from the point of view of the guy having fun with a camera, making new and I hope interesting shots on a regular basis no matter where they come from.

john

John (Crosley)

Notice that under the 'umbra' of the bus stop roof, and even of the bus bench and its occupant, there are shadows within shadows, for multiple levels of shadows.

Although this photo is deliberately 'low key', it does not obscure he various shadows cast by lights coming from different angles.

For instance the trash barrel(s) cast their shadow one way, then a second shadow within a shadow of the bus stop roof.

Same with the roof supporting poles.

The stretched out man and the identically tilted bus bench, both form shadows, barely visible.

While greater attention might have been paid to highlighting (or some such) these shadows, that would have meant lightening this photo and increasing its contrast, something I then felt was anathema to its presentation.

Your view on the interplay of shadows, however, is invited.

john

John (Crosley)

Not necessarily I have a "catologuer's point of view". Actually my primary purpose is to produce good photographs myself. I have to admit that I tried to understand how to produce good photos, also discussing with knowledgeable fellows here, but nobody can tell me exactly how to judge whether a photo is good or not.

A photo can be good for one viewer and not good for another. And when it comes to my own photos, it gets even worse, because of the personal bias towards the picture or his subject.

Technique (not technology, please) is very important, and you're a master of technique. And then there  feelings, personal taste, personal inclination, the novelty of a subject. And originality. Being able to single out each and every detail of an image might not be absolutely important.

What I realised now is that I need to place a photo, or a series of photos, into an overall, interactive framework which includes the photographer's approach, the purpose. And then feelings, personal taste, personal inclination, the novelty of a subject, and originality, and technique. Then I am able to understand it better. It's not linear, not ruled. But has an invisible red thread.

I'll try to give you an example, I have quite a large series of photos of a person very significant to me. I like most of the photos in this series, and I mean that I would hang them on my wall to look at them most of the time.

But John, there is only one photo in the series of about ten which exactly summarises my relationship with the subject and my narrative purpose, and which is technically completely satisfactory to me.

As you see, in the end I used my purpose framework to understand which of the numerous photos was really good and representative of me.

That's why I need to place a photo in context to properly view and consider it.

Regards,

L.

I do not deny at all that it is fine to place or make 'series'.

My last Photo of the Week 'the Bus Stop IV' (B&W Ed) was in  fact the fourth in a small series on bus stops that has been going back four or five years. 

It is not worth a folder on its, own, or was not, but now that I have four really good photos, it may be.

I am continually working on different and SAME subjects all the time, but from different viewpoints.

Famous American painter, Andrew Wyeth had his model Christina, whom he famously painted seated on grass, looking away from the painter, far away, (and whom  supposedly with whom he was allegedly a lover, but his wife it turns out was fully cognizant of Christina as amodel, she was no 'secret' as heralded, and his wife approved.  Perhaps it all turned out to be hype to promote his career.)

If you look through my portfolio, you'll find one particular person, a woman, young at that, caught in a large variety of poses -- and each one tells a different side of that person.  There are a large variety of extraordinarily different poses of this extraordinarily complex person.

My price of taking these photos is that I NOT organize them into a folder, so I don't.

Maybe someday when she's older and I'm older, and exhbiting too, and not in her country.  But there is not ONE photo that epitomozes her -- only the entire assemblage, for I have caught her in being complex and her complexity shows in the entire range of the photos of her. 

She is extraordinarily pretty, camera shy (at times), and capable of the slightest nuance that can transform a photo, as well as being stunningly beautiful (please do not try to guess publicly here through comments, though e-mail guesses are fine).

Again,the price of taking and even showing those photos is not to call attention to them, though I would like to.

But it's a small price, and over time one that I judge will be worth it.

i am continually working (as I previously wrote you) on no project or 100 or even 1000) all at once.

I cannot categorize them all, and they overlap.

I prefer to be curated if I exhjbit, for others often see things in my work I do not, or do not deem so important which others find glaringly evident.

I have my favorites, but others do too, and often there is an overlap but not always.

As I said, we are not necessarily 'ad odds' at all on this mattter, but perhaps I am so far advanced on this matter that what may appear to be one off' shooting, is just for each such shot not necessarily 'one off' but a continuation of prior series that just are obscured or obscure  . . . . . and only need my (or another) skilled hand (or mind) to assemble.

Many same themes keep recurring but get new treatment; I'm quite fertile, and I also get bored taking the same subject over and over.

I LOVE variety.

And to keep it interesting for my viewers.

So far it's working.

I hope of exhibited to be curated, and have one curator in mind,but your contribution is considered important to my thoughts; I do not dismiss them out of hand and take each part of them with great weight.

I just place them in line with my own shooting.

What you may not recognize it that my 'Man at the Side of Wooworths' may have a modern day analogue, or it may possibly have another which I have yet to shoot, but I am open for it.

I am open for everything.

And with more than 1,600 photos exhibited here, that's a lot of photos to continue with in series.

I hope you see my point.  Any one of several of those photos could be the start point of a series.  (It would take a book, and I may write it) about how those series are started and taken together).

john

John (Crosley)

You must have been "passed out" when you came up with that 'yarn'. Did you ever see a picture of Christina? No.

That is no 'yarn' but a true story, however the model name is wrong - it was not Christina as in Christina Olson, the cripple, Wyeth painted in 1948 looking uphill on grass.

That painting was pictured, as I recall, in the magazine article featuring Wyeth's 'new' 'secret' (or so it was said) model, Helga Tesdorff, a woman so secret supposedly even Wyeth's wife didn't know about her, and there were rumors he and she (Tesdorff) were lovers.

But as it turned out, this woman was known apparently to Wyeth's wife, and if they were lovers (Tesdorff and Wyeth) that was not a big surprise, but perhaps they weren't at all and it was a hoax designed to hype the gallery sale value of the paintings by generating 'interest' and making it a big story (which it was 'at the time' as I recall vividly).

There was much publicity hyping the uncovering (literally) of the Tesdorff 'secret model' paintings of Wyeth's, and the informed speculation at the time was that the hype was 'cooked up' by Wyeth, his wife and others in his camp and that included Tesdorff the model. 

Does anyone know for sure? 

Yes, but not me. 

I read about it it in magazines, art magazines and elsewhere, and some of those featured Christina's World' prominently in the same article(s) hence (for this non art aficionado) there was some confusion with the painting of Christina's world featuring the crippled Christina Olson and the new, secret model, Helga Tesdorff -- understandable I think for someone who didn't care much for who Wyeth was, but did appreciate the 'Christina's World' painting.

I thank you for helping me overcome that confusion and for clarifying the fact of the mixed up name here.

However, be sure, there was no 'yarn' and nobody was 'passed out'. 

Maybe you were too intent on 'scoring points' with your computer keyboard than with actually trying to find the truth amid a mixed up name,and so far as I can tell that's the only thing that got mixed up.

But for clarifying that, I thank you.

Except for the confusion of names (Helga for Christina), the rest is basically true of my own recollection based on various accounts, and was published at the time as 'news' and as 'critique' with the suggestion Wyeth had played a clever hoax on the art world in introducing his works of Helga Tesdorff to the art world as 'secret' when in fact the works were of anything but a 'secret model' and instead she was well known to intimates, including wifey.

Wikipedia takes the point that she was in fact 'secret' but in affairs of such a nature, Wikipedia is hardly a good source.  Anybody, including you and me, can 'edit' Wikipedia., I recall.

Wyeth had a little tongue in cheek, and it is suggested would have relished a good punk on the art establishment, and this might have been it.

As to my use of the word 'Christina', that is wrong.  As to the story - no yarn.  I freehanded what I wrote without using references, and got it almost 100% right, but that one fact infected the rest of what I wrote.

I lived through that period and read the continuing saga of Wyeth and his 'secret model' as daily and weekly news for some time . . . . and much is still fresh . . . . including the critic's scold that it was all a big send-up (hoax).

I tend to believe the Helga Tesdorff 'secret model' thing was a publicity hoax, from a tongue-in-cheek Wyeth, as payback for living under the art world's microscope for what had already been decades and in order to boost gallery sale prices of his paintings of Helga the so-called 'secret model'.

You got one point, Meir, but really, no cigar except for 'strong attitude'.

john

John (Crosley)

"A rose by any other name is still a  rose". As Parker said to Grace in 'Avatar'; John, "I enjoy our little talks".