'The Metro Parallelogram'

'The shapes inside the Metro car align with the graphic head outside the

Metro car to create the outline of a parallelogram. 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. (contrast in original to preserve skin tones).

Thanks! Enjoy! john

the picture itself is pretty terrific---unusually so, in fact---but what taints the experience is the patronizing assumption viewers are unable to decipher visual clues and patterns.  

Thanks for the laudatory remark.

However, not every member or reviewer has a loving cup next to their name indicating they show a photo of the week as you have (one) and I (two).

Photo.net and especially its critics on these pages is comprised largely of the newer members and of those many are rank amateurs.

There's nothing patronizing about giving clues -- many people need them; your surmise to the contrary notwithstanding.  I look at the overall picture when, when posting, not from from some aerie.

john

John (Crosley)

The balloon has two black markings about where eyes would be, if it is seen as a stand-in for a head.

Did you notice that?  

It's such happy coincidences that can make a review of a good capture into something very pleasing for the photographer.

john

John (Crosley)

John,

In big cities people are constantly bombarded with images and public transport is no exception.  This "happy" coincidence with a spooky humanoid reflection that seems to be looking at an inflated yellow balloon and a pensive kid on one side of the balloon and perhaps his distracted mother on the other side is a very intriguing scene indeed. There is certainly a story there and that's up to the viewers imagination.  Your photograph is technically very good and well composed considering your spontaneity and fleeting of context. Well done and all the best.  Bachir 

More than you know, I appreciate and am thankful for your comments.

They show appreciation for my capture of this one very fleeting moment I foresaw and worked so hard to save for posterity.

One note:  The face in the window is not a reflection but part of an advertisement visible to those on the platform directly outside, as the train was in a station, hence no 'motion blur' in this high ISO and very stopped down view.

Thanks for letting me know your views; it's very appreciated.

john

John (Crosley)

John… I get the obligation to educate the rank amateur, but your shot being unambiguous, in your face void of nuance or hidden meaning, directives seem unnecessary if not over the top.  However, as veteran photographer, I totally understand your urge to teach.     

I think you vastly overestimate the ability of many on this service to 'understand' what you consider a photo without ambiguity and for them to see it for its geometrical core.

While many critique participants may indeed drill such a photo to its core, many other members of Photo.net are without necessary sight and/or skills to do so, in my experience.

In any case, I feel an obligaion at times to educate, if only to avoid misunderstanding.

I do not think you speak for all when you say something is without nuance or unambiguous -- for many the 'success' or'appeal' of this photo might indeed be murky or lacking entirely without my cues, in my view of long experience.

But that's my view, however well earned.

john

John (Crosley)

I see no room for improvement (I am really trying to find something wrong with it, but can't). This is a great shot, no matter how you slice it. Thanks John.

Maybe I'm too much a perfectionist.

I post some wonderful shots nobody seems to appreciate.

This one I can see numerous ways to improve, but it's growing on me.

It's a delight that somehow it has 'caught on'.  

Just when I begin to think the Photo.net audience is selling my work short, something as unusual as this 'catches on' and renews my faith.

And for the critic who said I was losing my touch:  Bleaaahhhhhh!  heh heh heh heh!

[inside joke]

Thanks Paul for needed encouragement.

john

John (Crosley)

John, I must confess that I noticed diagonals in this picture rather than a parallelogram. I'd be very interested if you could elaborate further. I find your commentary on some of your photographs to be most instructive, for example The Lost Luggage.

Best regards,

Songtsen (a Rank Amateur)

The main purpose of a caption (title) is to focus attention on the photo - in other words to get people to regard the photo and a minor purpose may be in some way to explain the photo, but that's not required.

If this photo does not define a perfect parallelogram by connecting the round figures (heads and balloon) then it comes close, and this is where some 'literary/photography license' should come into effect, I think.  Captions are not the place for literalists looking for mathematical proofs, but for clues for where to look in a photo to 'see' or 'look' for certain things.  I think it did work in your case -- connect the round figures (heads and balloon) and see what you get, and see if it doesn't come close to a parallelogram (diamond shape).  Parallelograms are comprised of just those shapes you name plus two sides being parallel to the opposite sides, and in doing this one must define imaginary lines between the shapes -- something those who examine my photos commonly are asked to do.

Does that help?

I'm glad you connected this photo with that of the luggage and rectangles in Los Angeles Airport -- 'The Lost Luggage' or some other name I captioned it.  You see the caption can change from instance to instance, but the photo does not, as the caption is basically 'ad hoc' while it's truly the photo that counts.

Captions, in my case, are sometimes used to explain photos to those who are not first rate or experienced in photo analysis, to 'get them started' on the road to better analysis . . . . . and are sometimes resented by those with much more experience, but bully for them -- they don't have to be insulted, but rather can understand that this is a sharing site with many beginners who can use an extra boost in interpretation.

Thanks for your helpful comment.

john

John (Crosley)

Pardon me for misspelling your name above.  The editing window closed before I could correct it.  I apologize.

john

John (Crosley)

John, I can appreciate the effort that must have gone into creating this photograph. I was, perhaps naively, looking for some 'hidden' geometry, as in the photo of the couple and the luggage trolleys. In that particular case, the symmetry of the couple's postures was quite striking but the 'hidden structure' would have escaped my notice without the benefit of your commentary. I look forward to exploring more of your portfolio, particularly the insightful comments which you have generously shared.

Sometimes the geometrie (geometry which Cartier-Bresson in French used as a substitute for the word 'composition' many times) is harder to spot and other times it's far more apparent.

A critic, above, felt I was 'gilding the lilly' by even pointing out what he though was obvious, even though the faces and balloon do not form a perfect parallelogram, but only approach one.

I dissent, respectfully.

I think maybe now, you may agree, though I can't be 100% sure.

The LA lost luggage photo was a superb example of everything being at right angles throughout with those angles everywhere, and though many viewers may have felt something about that photo resonated with them, I feared that for very many they wouldn't have recognized why, so I undertook to try to explain.

Was it superfluous?  Perhaps, but then 'sujperfluity does not vitiate' a 'maxim of legal jurisprudence' which simply says too much evidence, proof or argument does not invalidate a point.  If there's too much, it never turns negative, just disregard it  (not always true of presentations before juries, however, as they have 'feelings' and can be collectively offended.)

Better to say too much to make a point than not enough and not make the point.

(Ask 100 lawyers what that phrase means, and I'll bet 99% won't have the faintest idea what it means, I think, especially the younger ones without appellate court experience, or more recent graduates -- say to the last 10 or 15 years.)

I thank you for your interest - I think you'll learn fast.

john

John (Crosley)