Jump to content
© © 2011 John Crosley/Crosley Trust, All rights reserved, No reproduction or other use without prior express prior written permission from copyright holder

'The Bus Stop (IV)' (B&W ed.) (rev. ed.)


johncrosley

Artist: © 2011 John Crosley/Crosley Trust, All Rights Reserved, No Reproduction or Other Use Without Prior Express Written Permission of Copyright Holder; Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows;full frame, content aware fill for bottom after rotation created loss of content at base. (see discussion)

Copyright

© © 2011 John Crosley/Crosley Trust, All rights reserved, No reproduction or other use without prior express prior written permission from copyright holder
  • Like 1

From the category:

Street

· 124,944 images
  • 124,944 images
  • 442,913 image comments


Recommended Comments

There are several stories playing out simultaneously at this 'bus stop',

set somewhere in Southern California, one late afternoon -- a part of my

very small series on 'bus stops' world wide. Your ratings, critiques and

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

critically or just 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

Link to comment

There is a lot going on in this scene.  And it works very well.  There is no need to explain anything verbally.  It is all there in the image.

 

One minor suggestion.  The image is tilting to the right.  You can straighten it in Photoshop.  The slight crop would not ruin the image.

Link to comment

Thank you for the compliment about the disparate activities 'working well' together and not needing explanation.  That's why I gave minimal introduction.

At first blush this seems to have an issue with rotation, but it may be due partly to barrel distortion from my lens as well.

Take a look at the leftmost display window frame -- it's perfectly vertical while the frame to its right appears to be tilting rightward.

I may have a go with this photo with Photoshop CS5 in raw and use the lens distortion adjustment feature for this particular lens and focal length to determine how much of this is due to my own rotational issues and how much is due to distortion from the lens giving the rightmost part of the photo some appearance of a rightward tilt. 

I am not avoiding responsibility, but with that purely vertical line in the photo from the window frame, it appears there may be less rotational issues in this photo than you imagined, though there may be such an issue.

I don't want to overcorrect, though I do think a correction may be in order and thank you for spotting it.

Thank you for a thoughtful and helpful critique.

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I came across this in a review of older, unreviewed photos taken on my way to an 'event' in Las Vegas.  I had just seen 'something' and stuck my lens out my driver side window while stopped in traffic who knows where as I drove out of the LA Basin -- I suppose I could find the place again because of the merchant signs but otherwise haven't the slightest idea of where this was taken, but a vivid recollection of taking the photo, as I only had less than two or three seconds to take it.

Just roll down the window (electrically), frame, autofocus (predetermined before I raised my camera as was shutter speed and aperture, since I had previsualized the scene and made appropriate adjustments before raising my camera, then I pointed and shot.

Then lowered my camera, traffic started in front of me almost immediately, and I just drove on.  I don't think there's a second shot at all, unlike much of my other work as I drive toward the second and subsequent shots, hoping for something better.

I do remember hesitating a moment to get the girl taking the photo of the boy smooching her or nudging her with his nose, right . . . . as I felt that was important to the photo -- to get as much 'action' as possible in this photo.

The more I view this photo, the more I like it, and the more I place it among my best'.

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Isn't that the theme of this whole photo?

The word 'Optical?'

The word in the window indicating services inside?

The woman with her camera phone taking an (optical) photo of her boyfriend smooching her?

The sightless man seated just a little father from others, as others don't want to 'crowd' him -- after all he can't see them, and no one wants to be seen as being rude to a blind man.

The woman, left, with her very opaque sunglasses?

The bus stop wind protector  with fluorocarbon etching to make a pattern, making it semi-transparent - meaning one can only partly 'see' through it.

I have in my 'Color, Then to Now' folder a 'Bus Stop' photo, taken outside a hospital, also featuring a blind man, and in that photo the blind man, standing, with his white cane, is given very wide berth in the otherwise pretty well crowded bus stop.  Perhaps its universal in the developed world (Western world) that no one wants to be seen giving hindrance to the blind - and both men in both photos are men, somewhat aging.

It's an interesting comparison between the two photos.

Here is the URL of the large version of the other photo, from the folder 'Color, Then to Now' (notice how everyone studiously ignores the blind man, standing?)

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=toolbar-instant&hl=en&ion=1&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GPCK_enUS423US423

Perhaps the French, as many white Americans were taught 'It's not polite to stare'.  Many African Americans, at least in times past, had a much different view about looking at others directly -- looking individuals in the eye, for instance -- even or especially strangers.  They would look strangers in the eye in times recently past, and often it was unnerving, especially to middle and upper class white persons or European extraction who were taught to avoid direct eye contact as a point of politeness, and many feared instinctively black men in particular those with no money because of crime statistics, prejudice, and myriad other reasons, including just the clash of the cultures that the ethnicities represented -- at one time (the differences now seem to be disappearing or now to be more settled along socio-economic lines than along racial lines, if my view is correct.

In any case, as to blind men, these two photos seem to show, blind men are not something to be stared at (at least if the photos are representative.  The French photos suggest that the French avert their eyes when presented with an obviously blind person standing in their midst -- whether out of fear, politesse, or what I cannot fathom.

Me, I take photos of EVERYONE  -- sighted, blind, and of all ethnicities, colors, ages, etc. -- in short humankind and document their interactions when I can.

;~))

I think that's one main reason why people look at my photos. 

Is that why you look at them?

john

John (Crosley)

 

Link to comment

That's a heck of an endorsement.

Thanks for letting me know.

I like it very much and more so every day.

I didn't think about it much when I first saw it, but it has grown on me.

Sometimes my photography (and life) is like that.

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

And yours, 'Asher Lev' has been challenged as a 'bot account' or fictitious account -- a doppelganger for a member, and there never has been a reply defending against those now years-long challenges

This photo is marked as (B&W ed.) implying for those language and grammatically challenged that there is (1) another edition and (2) that edition is color.

As usual, your comment adds nothing constructive but amounts merely to 'sniping', which is unwelcome.

John (Crosley)

Member, Photo.net

 

Link to comment

Thanks to a recommendation by Alex Shishin, above, a careful examination was made, and ONE of the issues, rotation, was tackled, and the photo was very slightly rotated.

In the process the blocked up blacks on the jacket of the man being photographed were slightly unblocked -- and a little sharpening was added that was not available when this photo was worked up a year ago or more, as I used a plug-in I did not then have or know how to use then.

To me, the overall effect appears pleasing and not distracting.  If anyone knows how to use the 'content aware fill' tool to add an extra quarter of an inch to the canvass at the bottom, I could use step by step instructions, as I have never tried such a thing as extending a canvass, and I think the photo could use just a little more room toward the bottom that was trimmed in the rotation -- just  to bring it back to what I saw in the viewfinder.

I understand studio photographers use a short or narrow background and use some Photoshop tools to extend their background very tall and/or wide or both to give the sense of a much greater studio,rather than buying and using larger backdrops or using a larger studio, now that they have the use of CS5 Photoshop's Content Aware Fill to create the illusion of a larger backdrop/studio.

Any instructions, step by step, anyone?

I'd just like it for the exercise, even if I don't do it.

Some day it may save a photograph.

I do know how to use Content Aware fill, but don't know how to extend the photo or its canvas (or how to cut and paste the photo onto a bigger canvass or even to create a bigger canvass.  I'm an admitted Photoshop dunderhead, and not unhappy about that; I'd prefer to shoot and live without changing my captures, but every once in a while, I'd like to see what Photoshop can offer. . . . .

Thanks . . . .

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Photo.net has at least three servers last I heard, and they update at different times, also last I heard. 

This photo is not yet updated that I can upload the rotated version as I write this, but in time, in a few hours or a few days if you refresh your browser (if you have viewed this before), you should be able to see the updated, rotated and unblocked blacks version.

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

The photo certainly tells many stories. A terrific capture of a moment in time. Great use of light and shadow. Love the contrast between the “graininess” of the backround and the sharpness of the bus stop. It really grabs the eye ! Great photo !

Link to comment

I wondered at first about the tilt mentioned in the first comment; things became clear as I read on and saw the (original) image you later uploaded.

There is such a lot in this photo. Of what we see and what we cannot. Of course the four characters grab attention at once. The lady on the extreme left seems uninterested in the 'affair' of the young couple; borne out in her facial expression. The interesting person is the lady in the centre. She's visually impaired, perhaps after a cataract operation going by the type of glass she's wearing and carrying a white stick (do you have the different sticks in US for visually challenged, deaf and blind etc?). However, it is possible that she can see and those are just sunglasses. She has a curious look on her face (amused?) and is the one potentially keeping an eye on the couple. The couple can see, of course, but at the moment, they see little but their own world. Hence they are somewhat 'blind' to what is around them at that time.

The two shadows flanking the scene are also of interest. I like their presence, but am not sure how to interprete them best. The 'Optical' sign at the back completes the photo, especially if you, like me, believe that this is a photo about visual elements.

Note: After submitting the review, I looked up and read the bits you mentioned. I see we are in agreement.

Link to comment

Thank you for the compliments.

You have added to the critique(s) here, by noting well the difference between foreground sharpness and 'graininess' of the background caused by the etched glass windscreen separator.

Well done!

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Every once in a while, I get such a wonderful critique that there is little to say, and thus I just incorporate that critique into my response -- and ask viewers to read it as though it embodies my thoughts entirely.

Samrat, you are one of the most able writers of critiques on this service -- at least for photos of mine. 

As to various different 'sticks' for the blind, deaf, mute, etc., I am unknowledgeable.

I just don't now -- you are an MD, and have better sources about that than I, though I am sure a Wikipedia search can clear that up straightaway.

;~))

This is a 'rich' photo, though, isn't it?

john


John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I took this photo on a 'flyer'.

It was just an 'odd shot' I decided to take.

My car air conditioner was not working properly, my window was open or should have been opened, a camera was on luggage next to me as I drove to Las Vegas on an unknown route through the larger Eastern LA Basin which means that except for overhead signs and a general sense of direction, I might as well have been lost.

But I was trapped in traffic, I have a habit of keeping a camera and tele lens on the seat next to me, with ISO set for the outdoor conditions and with a focus point preselected and able to be changed in a second.

I saw this, briefly framed it, waited a fraction of a second for the girl, right to try to photograph her boy, also right, then pushed the shutter.

I then drove ahead and basically forgot about this capture.

A while ago I came across this, but decided to post it in color as it looked good in color, so color it was.

Recently, when perusing again, I decided to see what it looked like in black and white and was quite overwhelmed -- it looked really good reduced to monochrome.

That's how this photo came to be here and why it will probably go into the folder with my very best photos, large views or not.

john

John (Crosley)

 

Link to comment

Hi John,

 

Love the photograph. Like many great shots, the more one studies the image, the more one gets out of it.

 

I am by no means an expert in Photoshop but I noticed that nobody has answered your query about enlarging the canvas. Here are the steps I took;

  1. Open image in Photoshop(!).
  2. Click Image/Canvas Size (there is a keyboard shortcut ALT-CTRL-C on a PC)
  3. In the dialogue box one will see the current dimensions of the image/canvas. The drop down boxes allow changing the units displayed for Width and Height.
  4. Change this unit to pixels for height (and note width changes units too). This step is optional - I find it easier to work in pixels for this operation. Perhaps if you wanted to add a one inch clear border around the image, then units of inches would be more appropriate.
  5. Given that the requirement was to add some space at the bottom of the image, we only need to change the height of the image.
    Perhaps an extra 200 pixels... As long as you add more than you need it's trivial to crop later the extra space you didn't edit. So change the height value from 471 pixels to 671 pixels.
  6. This next step is perhaps the least intuitive part, though playing around with the Anchor setting it's easy to get the idea. The anchor defaults to 9 boxes in a 3x3 array.
    The centre box (this represents your image) is blank and expansion arrows point away equally in all directions. The arrows represent how the canvas will grow based on the changes you made in step 5.
    So, in it's default setting, the image will grow (or shrink) in equal amounts to the left, the right, the top and the bottom. In our case (we've added 200 pixels to the image height and nothing to the width) this would produce 100 pixels above the existing image and the same below.
    We want all the extra pixels below, so we need to alter the Anchor settings appropriately. If you click on the up arrow in the Anchor box (the second box on the top row) this moves the box representing the image (relative to the new canvas) to the middle of the top row and there are no longer expansion arrows pointing above the image. The arrows now indicate that expansion will occur to the left, the right and the bottom.
    Since we did not alter the width setting there will be no left or right expansion and the full height expansion will happen below the image.
  7. Click OK and hey presto the canvas has increased 200 pixel below the existing image.

 

It reads more complicated than it is. I'm sure a couple of minutes fiddling and you'll have this off pat.

 

Hope it helps.

Adey

Link to comment

Sorry for slowness in replying - my Internet supplier was not working properly, so I could not open my account easily or reply easily.

Your advice is wonderful.

It may be a while before I can use it, but I will use it and I am certain others who read these comments will find it useful too.

I KNOW many others read these comments, and you may also want to link to this comment if others find a need for this advice; it'll help them and save you trouble in replying.

When I discovered a slight rotation problem, then fixed it, I had to trim the bottom, especially and ordinarily that would be it, but with CS5's 'content aware fill' I thought I'd give it a try to add something to the front to restore its original aspect ratio to make it look as I'd seen it -- nothing more.

I generally seldom crop and generally do not clone, but I thought I'd give it a try this time.  Who knows, I may like it.

Some elaborate burn and dodge cutouts were used by analog darkroom techs for printing purposes, and that was manipulation of the highest order -- see James Nachtwey's darkroom tech in 'War Photographer and the cutout he makes for burning in a sky and background the giant cutout he makes.

If he can do that,  can I use 'content aware fill?' I dont' know.

I'll give it a try, perhaps.

Thanks ever so  much for such clear instructions.

john

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

John - it was a pleasure.

 

I get so much out of your photographs and commentary that giving just a little in return is the least I can do.

 

Thanks for the reference to James Nachtwey. Very Interesting.

 

Adey

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...