'The Show (Front) and the Reality (Rear)'

Commerce is about creating desire and turning it into sales and

currency in a hopefully never ending cycle. Here, the clearly

outdated but wonderful, stylish and maybe even famous photo right,

is the 'hook' to bring women into the shop, where the older woman,

pouring over her accounts, rear, is the snare, set to transform

women customers' desires to be like the woman in the photo into

sales for her shop to feed herself and her loved ones. 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

For maximum depth of field in close quarters, please note the unusual photo exposure data:

Hi ISO,  probably 1600 or 3200 and HAND HELD AT EXACTLY 1/3 OF A SECOND without bracing and aperture f10.

Truthfully.

Results were bracketed from a smaller aperture, and the aperture was narrowed to get an acceptable degree of sharpness from near (front) to far (rear of shop). and f10 was the only exposure  that worked and still could be hand held, though in extremis. (Try that one at home, let alone 'in the field'_ with a subject moving about who will shield herself if she finds you've been photographing her (She had shielded herself on other forays, same circumstances; here I caught her unawares).

Lens was V.R. at about 18 mm.

john

John (Crosley)

of significant social significance; bravo on the concept... majority of women contrasted with minority eye candy.... so important that i wish it were more explicit in the photograph itself that this is the front and "inside" of a shop being contrasted; realism. i imagine there must have been significant difficulties with a more realistic shot. this creative rendition you've chosen is interesting however, and important. i just wish the message spoke more in the picture rather than in the picture's description.  with respect and regard, John.... ;-} dp

Thanks for encouragement on the 'concept' even if the 'concept' doesn't show so well.

Frankly there could be no better photo made from this circumstance -- this was absolutely the best.

This shop, such as it is, was on a pathway or pedestrian walkway -- very narrow -- and I practically had my back against the opposing wall to get the woman with hat sign in the photo at all.

They can't all be perfect; the 'concept' came to me later, this came to me as just a 'photo' with no concept at all except the juxtaposition of the beauty with the hat and the hard-working older woman inside the shop doing something and looking pretty well fed (notice the mannequin on the desk next to the shopkeeper?)

In any case, I like the photo, and the story, it's an attempt; and maybe I created too many expectations, and oversold my own photo and should have let others work out their own stories.

Thanks Donna for helpful insight.

john

John (Crosley)

i totally understand that unsurmountable circumstances made it very difficult to design a conceptual meaning, John, (i hate when that happens, lol), however it's a credit to your inner self's artistic integrity that you tried to do something significant with the inspiration that grabbed you here despite the circumstances (i luv when that happens, lol). i think you're exactly right that viewers will have their own very different subjective interpretations of this photograph. some may see it simply as a juxtaposition of two very different types of woman and their different lives (this interpretation is the interesting concept that i imagined was your intent), some will see it as Marilyn mocking the lowly shop woman (the recurring motif in literature, examples like Pygmalian or My Fair Lady or on and on where the shop girl needs to be rescued and made glamourous rather than loved and respected for her self), and some will see it as the shop woman mocking Marilyn because she works with hats, maybe even makes hats, whereby Marilyn only wears them in what many believe was a vacant and tragic career. another thought, John, is that Marilyn has been posterized/photographed ad nauseum... so a photo of that hat shopkeeper sans Marilyn, for me, is a more interesting document of a woman than Marilyn could ever be. 

so this picture could have been expressed many ways, but i hope i've contributed something to respecting yours for the provocative creation it is, John. ;-} dp

That you could have so many interesting, worthy and disparate thoughts about this photo and still do it justice tells me that perhaps I should have posted it without direction, and that your initial criticism was correct.

I have no problem with acknowledging correct criticism -- despite detractors who sometimes have suggested I am thin skinned about criticism -- in reality, the truth is the truth, and here just the content of your second post proves your point (already acknowledged by me) so well.

I agree entirely with the many potential theses posited in your second post on how this photo could be interpreted by viewers, and you have come closer than most to boxing the compass (covering all angles in sailor's vernacular).

I do like the photo, and perhaps my heavy-handed request for critique contributed to lower than expected rates -- it just didn't live up to expectations that I helped raise and the photo didn't fulfill them, when if I had just left it alone, viewers' minds wandering might have found the strengths (multiple) in this photo that makes it (in my mind) quite worthy.

For in reality, in my mind, it is a very strong photo, and I do live by juxtapositions -- or at least I make a good part of what I do creating and/or recognizing good juxtapositions.

A juxtaposition is, after all, merely a contrast.  If you think about it, a contrast is a way of making something more clear.  If you look at the issue of 'sharpening' or the 'unsharp mask' which are very closely related' both use the idea of creating a juxtaposition between light and dark and manipulating that so the viewers' eye makes a colorable illusion of a line contrast that is sharper than it really is, by manipulating light and dark at the juxtaposition or demarkation of the areas of light and dark.

Thus 'juxtaposition' is at the heart of a major part of digital photography, and even was used somewhat during analog (film) photography (an unsharp mask was indeed from film days something that was physical and could be held in hands or otherwise and was not a computer device, at least originally).

So, the juxtaposition has a dear place in my photographic lexicon right down to the first roll of film I shot and from then right through to the present.  I haven't even really changed styles in 'street' since that first roll.

(You can see if in my folders if you scroll down -- one representative photo from my first roll -- three men on three benches on a Staten Island Ferry Boat, one reclining (sleeping?) and all three benches supporting the upper deck with poles -- a study in threes, and all the men of the 'street' though on a boat.)

It's really surprising how on my first real roll of film from my first camera how my style came out fully formed, and really hasn't changed to this day, though I have much fuller command of the idiom and also a variety of other genres I couldn't then have hoped to have handled at all, e.g., landscapes, nudes, architecture, portraits,and so forth.

And then I was far from prolific, but today I shot 556 photos (a few of them really worthy, and I do that day after day when I'm well enough to shoot).

I'm backed up by months and even years and am going over and finding good stuff from six or seven years ago still . . . . sometimes things are stunning I find which I just passed over and didn't recognize, and now I look at those things and say 'I did that?' 

'Then?'

'Wow!'

It happens regularly.

I'm also working on a book of my early captures from when I was in my early '20s, when I produced very little, but pretty damn worthy stuff.

I would hope to publish it, it's really publishable.  I just gave up my photo ambitions when I met Cartier-Bresson and saw his work (I didn't even know who he was, but I saw his work and it was stunning).  I didn't even introduce myself or say 'I'm a photographer, and lucky thing, he railed at 'new talent' and excoriated those brought to him for his 'endorsement' which almost never came, and likely he would have read me the riot act and told me to take up some other profession, (which I did).

But he's dead, and I'm still taking photos.

Someday, I'll be dead, but I hope to take hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more worthy photos before that happens and maybe get better known.

And have my work live on.

God willing

Inshallah!

As the Muslims say.

Thanks Donna.

john

John (Crosley)

Interesting contrast between the left and right parts of the shot!

I think you take a lot of photos at low light, high ISO. Thefore, I suggest you invest in a monopod.

I passed this shop three times before I found this lady, the shopowner engrossed in her books, which is the position I envisoined. Other times she was with customers or not properly framed.

I happen to like this one; it fills the frame and seems interesting, which are two of my requirements for a photo for me to like.  (a frame can be filled with 'emptiness' mostly too, if the photo is about 'isolation' -- no requirement that a photo be crammed with detail, only that the elements all be there and there be no wasted space.

Thanks for stopping by; I hope your health is better.

john

John (Crosley)

I do indeed take lots of photos at high iso and low light, -- consider my latitude for instance, the month, and also that many photos are taken indoors or even in the Metro which is not well lighted.

However consider the problems attendant with carrying a monopod.  People assume it's some sort of weapon, especially police, or that you're a professional.  It takes time to set up and during that time, all spontaneity is lost; it's best for landscapes, not people shots like this.

Also consider the fact that this photo is quite sharp, yet is taken at 1/3 second and f10 hand held.  Why do I need a monopod when I can hand hold like that? 

I hand hold like a champion some times, as here.  It couldn't be much sharper with a monopod, but I'd never have got the shot with a monopod.

Traveling with a monopod through an airport and airport security is a nightmare; all the security people think it's a weapon and have to have a demonstration, and another demonstration, then a conference, and then another conference.

It ain't worth it.  Tripods are more clearcut, but monopods, never.

So, I think your advice was meant to be helpful and taken as such, but frankly, I haven't got the hands to carry a monopod, a laptop and a camera or two and still have the hands to take photos. 

Monopods are expendable in my type of photography.   When I become a landscaper or engaged in stdio work, it'll be different entirely.

Thanks for tossing in your advice; it's been considered before. I've had lots of monopods, but they just rusted, never got used, were heavy, and were an impediment.  I shoot quickly (often in a second or less) and a monopod is strictly counter intuitive for that kind of shooting. 

It'd be fine if I went night shooting for night scenery on the street and they didn't make high ISO cameras as they do, but they do now, and those cameras make some rather high quality images from high ISO settings.

john

John (Crosley)

Aside from the statement you are making with your photo this is still a great image. I am always delighted to see my favorite actress making an appearance in some way in another's photographs because even without saying so or stating the obvious, the contrast is always seen. Great image! Thank you for sharing. :)

I'm very glad you enjoyed this particular photo.  I worked hard to perfect this, making several trips through a narrow corridor over weeks' time to get this exact capture.

Bless you; I like your comments very much.

john

John (Crosley)