'In the Flesh'

WOW-WOW, joking of the best: made me smiling ... BR JV

Different people define themselves in different ways; this woman

defines herself by her huge bosom, which she describes as a '36K'

together with her 'sexual image'. I define the photo by presenting her

self-view and that of her reactive 'onlooker'. Your ratings, critiques

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

very critically, or with to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to

help improve my photography.

Some men like 'em large, some like 'em small, and some like 'em all.

Some women confuse large breasts with sexuality, just as some men do, and this woman aims at such an audience.

She was happy to pose; he happened to be nearby, and I caught him 'just so'.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

The guy's facial expression is great. Well captured.

I told this woman who was exhibiting her large bosom that I was almost destined to take a photo of her and her bust, inquiring about its size (36K).

She started to pose, and obviously had little experience, but I told her I just don't take photos of women with bikini or bra tops (this is a 'top'), alone.  I wanted her 'man' with her.  I told her I wanted a 'world class' and 'interesting' photo.  She hadn't a clue how to help me produce one.

He dutifully agreed to pose with her, but stood beside her and some distance away, like for a family snapshot, side by side.  I said 'please get behind her' and 'up close'.  After some coaxing he did so. The expression, however is his. My art is knowing when to press the shutter, and how NOT to take a bad photo (two people standing side by side as they were wont to have me take it).

I took my photo (several in fact) and was quite satisfied.  This is one of my first of the day and my best.

Thanks for the supportive comment.

john

John (Crosley)

As to Point of View, I looked like I was praying to Mt. Bosom there in front of lots of people, but few seemed to care.

My depth of field was set at f 16, as I anticipated that it would be a possible problem but that meant a shutter speed of about 1/6th second, indoors with my super wide angle zoom set at 12 mm.

Skin tones in color were good at relatively high ISO, on my Nikon D7000, but it's hard to convert D7000 captures to black and white; I'm glad you approve of the conversion.

And of course, the guy's face was priceless -- it's his expression, which was fleeting and my skill was to press the shutter when I saw it, as I didn't post the expression.

The whole thing took only about two and a half minutes from first meeting to last frame.

I'm a speed photographer - I'd be out of business in a studio.

People would equate my speed with carelessness and refuse to pay me.

I'd be taking a photo, arrange the pose, take the photo, say 'that's done',  it'd all be over in a matter of minutes, and clients would feel cheated.

Thanks for a well thought out and concisely written but hearty comment.

;~))

john

John  (Crosley)

Eye poppin hilarious!

In too many ways, maybe, for some :-) It gives me a big grin on the face, for sure.

Skillful you are and in more ways than one.To convince your main subject to pose is one thing but to get her man to join in is the first feat,all this to the view of the surely amazed onlookers and in crowded quaters and on a subject matter most would consider delicate .The POV supposes a kneeling position as you note and I like that although the eyes are at the same level,your timing caught them when they were focused differently....hers on you,his on hers.Bravo for your power of approach,your quick thinking and for a most excellent image.I am borrowing this on(another) for my Favorites.

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

Your critique helps me ignore the influenza and bronchitis I had when I took this.  Even I laughed (though briefly with the body aches) when I snapped the shutter, and when I worked it up it was first choice among many though it was one of the very first shots that day.  Sometimes first is best.

Your critique makes me feel justified in the effort and makes me feel GREAT.

john

John (Crosley)

In your face (in too many ways for some I am sure, for I watched the scores come in, and sometimes averages dipped into the low 4's indicating individual ratings of 2 and 3 or even lower).

But I think humor is just too little understood and employed on this 'serious' site, and although I take some very serious photos, I also have a 'fun' 'side, and an 'in your face' side as well, which I know you are familiar with.

I'm happy to provide you with a smile today.  Come back if you ever need another; I'm not pulling this photo as I consider it -- it's one of my better ones, however some may think it's 'vulgar'.

 It is 'vulgar' in the strict sense of the word, but much of the world is 'vulgar' and to not photograph 'vulgar' people or thinks forecloses much of what can be photographed.  The trick is to photograph such things well, as with all else. ;~))

You and your critiques are always welcome here.

john

John (Crosley)

It all happened so quickly, I don't think onlookers had time to be amazed, but if they were, 'who cares?'  I photograph for my audience here, not to worry about silly people who have no idea what I'm doing who may be nearby (unless they're the constabulary).

I thank you for your analysis, which is spot on and on which I won't comment further.

I'm happy to learn this will find a place in your 'favorites' folder.  Merci, mon ami.

john

John (Crosley)

I think some raters believe that because I take photos of 'vernacular' which sometimes includes 'vulgar' photos, that somehow they project that I also am a vulgar person and therefore my photography also 'endorses' somehow the subjects that I portray.  'The photos are 'bad' I think they reason because they are repellent'.  I think if they're affected by my photos in such a way, the photos have succeeded well, even if repellent.

Photography is not just meant to be a 'feel good' craft or art.  It's not bad to feel a little edgy or uneasy, even if some have a good laugh.  One can both laugh and cry at a look at our US culture, and still be a good American and not necessarily be a proponent of vulgarity.

People with such ideas, are not familiar with my feelings about 'social commentary'.  I feel that the way to comment is to feel free to take the photo regardless of ratings, and from day one, on Photo.net, I have been mostly immune from ratings and ratings games that then were common.

I am not in a popularity contest to make the 'most beautiful' photo, but sometimes would like to be known as the photographer who makes 'the most interesting photo' and sometimes the 'most meaningful photo' (not this one of course), but I do believe this one is interesting, and its subject represents a broad swath of American culture.

It now should be apparent it's not a taste I share, although I see and enjoy the humor as I'm not entirely judgmental.  So, I you harshly judge the subjects of this photo and think it represents my feelings, perhaps you should re-evaluate.

If given a chance to take a photo of child television star Honey Boo Boo and her mother side by side, you bet I'd jump at a chance, and maybe they'd not like how they were depicted, or more likely they really might like it, but not for reasons of innate beauty, and they'd probably miss entirely the commentary I predict such a photo would show.

Consider this 'commentary' when you evaluate please, not a paen to large breasts, which is a subject I am little interested in except as good photographic fodder (though I am quite heterosexual, as most will discern).

john

John (Crosley)

Hope you don't mind coming back on what's written. That's a good point about vulgarity. Yes, this photo is vulgar in the strict sense of the word. That's exactly why it's funny too.

For many people, vulgarity needs to be condemned, and implies a (negative) value statement. People like to feel themselves above the vulgarity, and frown upon things as this photo. Fine. Great. None of all that looking down and frowning will make vulgarity go away, or make it less real, less amusing, less serious, less happening and less in your face. This photo is as realistic and real-world as a carefully crafted landscape photo. So, let's lighten up, there is nothing wrong with vulgar things, as long as you recognise them for what they are (and aren't); as long as you don't take it all too seriously.

This photo is a good laugh, and captured right to show that exact intent. If you look at this photo, and frown, and feel you are better than what this photo depicts, you might just be taking yourself a bit too seriously.

WOW!

What a SMASHING GREAT COMMENT.

This one comment deserves to be enshrined in the all-time great comments that I've received and maybe in all of the comments ever made on Photo.net

You might consider sending a link of this comment to John Perry, whom I think might enjoy what you have written.

Wouter, I have enjoyed your comment enormously.

Step to the head of the class -- you have outdone all those who tout themselves as 'philosophers' with your pithy reasoning.

Thanks ever so.

john

John (Crosley)

With a 12mm lens she could have been flat chested for all anyone knows and come out about like this. Was there a point other than wide angle illusion that you were trying to make?

At 36K, this woman is far closer to 'mountainous' than flat-chested as you suggest she might be.  Perhaps you should have read the comments above, or familiarized yourself with US bra sizes before commenting.

As to 'distortion', if you were standing there, this is approximately what you would have seen,  a camera just gives permission to capture the view, whereas sticking a head in there might get one arrested!

There is precious little 'distortion' as opposed to true depiction of reality, however uncomfortable appearing it may look to you.

john

John (Crosley)

This is great, John. Not only is the scene wonderful with the extravagant woman, her blossom and the man's face popping up over her shoulder, but your choice of angle and the composition of the walls  and not least the EXIT sign behind is hilarious. Masterly work, John.

I politely asked this woman what letter or letters of the alphabet best described her 'endowment', and she proudly said 36K.

I replied 'What?' expecting to hear double D, triple D or quadruple D and not even knowing 'K' existed.

But K?

Obviously she defined herself by her bosom.

So that became a challenge, to define this woman by her bosom in a way that did justice to the way she saw herself, yet not be too hackneyed or vulgar and to do it with my unique style.

After all 'tits' have been photographed in almost every way possible.

Maybe I found just one more way; at least I have tried.

I made a scene and a story from just one photo, and it all happened within a few seconds or at most two minutes.

That includes other photos similar but not with this 'je ne sais quoi' where you see this man's expression which is unique to this photo.

It's the expression which I think uplifts this photo.

The other things -- the framing and the exit sign -- also are things I work into my photography even before I start.

Thanks for your show of appreciation . . . . I drove over a thousand miles to take at least one good photo the one day I went to this event, and I had the flu while driving (but safely I hasten to add).  The driving was miserable, but it's all forgotten with just one really memorable capture.

I'm back to good health, and I have a trophy.

Just think, for this man, she's probably his 'trophy wife'.

I am a documentarian of society, including its tastes and mores, from time to time. 

That job does not have to be without humour.

;~)))))

john

John (Crosley)

definitly a crosley photograph and that is not a compliment.

You finally have revealed your stripes.

You mean all crosley photographs fall into the same category as this?

john

John (Crosley))

No, I do not mean that.

Holy Moly - look at that man's face! Hysterically funny! I love it!

Now I just have to make some comments regarding the other comments. Yes, it is vulgar and that is precisely why it is so funny... kind of like that British comedy show Benny Hill (I think that is his name) that is so stereotypically vulgar that one cannot possibly be offended!

36K - wow, that must be painful (emotionally as well as physically) but I could go into a whole book on that (and I won't)! I am not going to divulge my size but I am busty and that has brought me emotional and physical pain at times. I think often busty women are seen as vulgar or "cheap" when we fill out our sweaters. I have actually had men stop their cars so I could walk in front of them... now you tell me who is vulgar! A smaller chested woman does not get the comments fuller chested women do and they are taken more seriously. I have even read here on PN, some comments that smaller chested women photograph better... oh really? A small chested woman would not give you the results you got here! If she is flaunting it like you said to the point where she finds her identity in her size then it is because she has learned to do so in order to adapt - kind of like the comedian who has learned to make fun of himself before the others do. If she is proud of herself I hope she is because she has embraced herself for who she is and not because she is masking her pain from abuse.

Wonderful photo; humor aside, it can have more to it than meets the eye. Thank you for sharing. :)

What a great comment.

That's one of the reasons -- as I explained to a man browsing my portfolio last night instead of doing the work he came to a restaurant to do -- that I try to take 'interesting photos'.

As he went through photo after photo instead of designing his computer chip (which is the reason he had left his family that night -- so he could work in peace undistracted by family obligations, using a restaurant Wi-Fi -- I mocked him just a little, good naturedly, for 'getting hooked' on my photos instead of doing his work. 

All in good fun, of course, and for me tremendously flattering, because even in a Benny Hill 'vulgar' photo like this (as some might characterize it), there may be true worth, and for you it certainly has caused you to share some fresh and valuable insights.

Bravo for doing so - you have complimented me and my photography far more than I ever could have wished.

Thank you so much.

This is why I take photos and post them here -- just for the sometimes very insightful comments like yours that occasionally enlighten me.

(oh, and I disregard size.  I happen to prefer these things well shaped and toned if I'm going to look at them and/or photograph them, no matter what size, than choose based solely on large size.  Small can be very beautiful, and even very small.)

See, for instance, photos of Rita, this portfolio, a smallish 'B' cup, I think (I didn't ask) but for my eye, 'perfect'.  Also, see Nina, also this portfolio, not of great size at all, but size is not my denominator -- even if it is for some men.

What matters is that everything 'fits together' and make a good photograph or the breast enhances the woman rather than takes all the attention from her . . . . it's no fun looking at a woman just to view her large breasts, later having a hard look at the rest of her and find her 'not really to one's liking' and as a result feeling somehow tricked or trapped by 'having been forced by biology to view' - as men frequently are victims of their biology. 

How else to explain it? 

But without that, where would those young'uns come from?

;~))))

(Your comment truly is superb -- feel free to add more from time to time as you feel moved; your comments are highly valued here). 

john

John (Crosley)