'Hero of Battle of Stalingrad'

They had huge, warm winter coats; the German soldiers burned theirs to

lighten their load for what they felt would be an immediate withdrawal which

never came. Housewives and farm women kept these heroic soldiers

defending their Soviet homeland well fed, while the starving, cold Germans

relied on overstretched supply lines through hostile territory, in the middle of

an extremely harsh winter, and thus this man, a soldier and officer, became

a decorated hero during the decisive 'Battle of Stalingrad' - and now, at 86,

with a paltry pension, this 'hero' still can recount his role in that decisive

world historical battle. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited

and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make an

observation, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! john

A bit too young to be an 'officer" at Stalingrad.

Perhaps he was a soldier at the time and became an officer later. His 'Hero' status would have guaranteed it.

I like this portrait, and the inner framing of it. I see another pair of eyes in the distance... nice depth.

Meir, Let's assume he was 17 at the time of the Battle of Stalingrad.  He might not then have been an officer, but later arose to the rank of officer, even high officer.

That's leaving aside the concept of 'field promotion'.  I saw his papers, and they seemed 'legitimate'.  It's something the old time vets carry around -- photostats of their legitimate documents, in case of disputes. maybe for bragging rights, or just to plead their case in front of officials (formerly), for Stalingrad heroes still are accorded some respect, though it's falling out of the collective consciousness in Ukraine, possibly less so in Russia, but that's currently outside my ken.

I saw his officer papers, but that doesn't mean he was an officer at Stalingrad -- many years later he may have been made an officer.  In any case, I am certain he was a 'hero' -- he had a certificate of his commendation(s) in his vest pocket -- something that also is 'common' among the old timers, though it's getting very rare, as the old timers are getting to be the 'once upon a timers' as they die off.

Think of this as a photo of a historical figure -- a Soviet grunt who fought in one of the most horrific and world historical battles of WWII and kept his life, then lived to a ripe old age, and seems to have lived it well (with all his marbles, too, I might add).

john

John (Crosley)

Well said comment; I was making the point and you posted before me.

Also well made comment about the 'eyes' from the twin lights, distant.  I hadn't noticed that; I am indeed lucky to have your eyes critiquing my photos. 

Thank you for that.

john

John (Crosley)

I'm hardly a Soviet sympathizer of as was stated over and over in the United States as I was growing up and a more youthful man, a 'Comsymp' (Communist sympathizer).  In fact, there are a large group of people in the United States who for political purposes still seem to believe that Communism still exists in Russia, Ukraine, etc., and that the Soviet Union never dissolved Christmas eve 1991.

But it did fall apart then, and news reports today suggest that in Russia where I have not been in some time 110 individuals own 35% of all the wealth of all that vast country's wealth. -- which the news reporters define as an oligarchy.  

I do not make political points here on this, a photo site, except as it relates to the photos I post, and expressly disclaim 'taking sides' in the war of East vs. West, Russia vs. Ukraine, NATO vs. the Russian sphere of influence.  

That's for others to debate.

I just take photos of individuals and how their lives are affected by their surroundings day to day, and sometimes those things were politically related decades ago, which defines my interest here in things political.  

I don't go to political rallies, news events, don't photograph celebrities or politicians, and if someone says to me 'I'm a celebrity' or 'I'm a politician' I'm likely to avoid taking their photograph unless I'm invited to take their photo, as I'm NOT INTERESTED in trading on others' celebrity or meddling in political affairs.

I'm interested in celebrating the 'common man', but not in the Communist or communist (small 'c') way.  I'm interested in finding subjects among the people I encounter day to day, as they have the stories to tell just by their behavior and mien.

I have a photo of Richard Nixon in my portfolio, reaching around me, touching me (taken from camera held  by me overhead) and it's a very, very good photo, but I then took it on my way to work for Associated Press, age 22 or 23, in San Francisco.)  I'm no longer interested in fighting my way through crowds, unless it's to get a photo of smiling youths, which I did last year, and that's become one of my all-time most favorite photos (by me and viewers).

I have no interest in Communism as a political philosophy; it was bankrupt.  I studied it in University when I attended Columbia, and knew it was destined to fail from its history and its distortions through implementation in the Soviet Union instead of England where Marx though it would 'take off' and for which he designed it.  Marx also studied at Columbia, as did Obama, and that's the only nexus between the three of us.  Also, so did Garry Winogrand, as well as the beat poets, Allen Ginsburg, and the group of the young poets that formed the 'beat' generation who gathered around and with Ginsburg. (See the new Ginsburg movie.)

I'm interested in how Ukraine and Russia both handle the transformation from Communism as it existed under the Soviets to Capitalism, but only as it is reflected through the people of those countries, and have no suggestions or opinions what is best for either country; the citizens of both should have a say, but I'm a foreigner in both and have no right to impose any view I might have or form on them or in these pages even express a viewpoint.

These pages and comments are dedicated to the 'art' of photography and related subjects that arise.  

I like photographing in Ukraine in part because mostly it's safe and also because much life is lead on the 'street', which for a 'street' photographer is nirvana.

Also, for an American with its almost universally Anglo citizens, photos taken in Ukraine don't say in particular 'Ukraine' or any other country to a viewer in America, the UK or most parts of Europe unless one looks at signs written in Cyrllic as a giveaway; in other words, the photos are often very nearly universal in a sense-- at least for those who live in countries with predominantly Anglo faces.  (of course photos taken in America with its huge mix of races and ethnicities are not reproducible anywhere else, I think, and I also like to take photos in the USA, particularly in the heavily ethnic areas of major cities, LA being one.)

john

John (Crosley)

"Perhaps he was a soldier at the time and became an officer later...". Perhaps yes or perhaps no. From the photo how could you know?

I think your suggestion excluded that possibility; Rajat was pointing out that as a viable possibility based the statement I posted in my request.

john

John (Crosley)

(A bit wonkish response)

I watched this man climbing from the train level to the exit level (upper level) of a Metro station at the end of the line where they have shops at the upper level in addition to entrance/exit and when I saw his wonderful face, I just stood in front of him as he trudged up the steps and pointed at him and held my camera up with one hand.

I said in rudimentary Russian, 'You have a great face, and I am a portrait artist; I'd like to take your portrait, and I don't charge - it's free, and I'll do a great job.' (but using far less words, because that exaggerates my rudimentary command of Russian.

Some people run or say 'go away' or 'get outta here' when I do such things, but old people get little attention, and this guy had a story, and he knew that he was deserving of attention, and like many old people, and in a public place, he knew he was safe. 

I took a few photos as he wanted, showing his credentials with his award for meritorious service; indicating he was a genuine war hero, then, when he though I was done and as he was writing his battalion, etc., info down, I stopped him to 'take a few more shots' 'just for fun' as I am a hoodoshnik' (artist), and 'just for fun' and this is what came out, vastly underdifferentiated under flat lighting, but helped greatly by 'contrast' accentuation and other controls in Photoshop CC, which I am finally learning to handle relatively well, but still not using 'layers' with no plane ever to use layers.

I am so used to destructive editing and 'getting it right the first time' that I see little reason to use layers to fiddle forever with this or that layer underneath -- in that time I can just redo what I've done before -- I can do what I do so fast, now.

If you saw this without work, you'd say 'nice capture, and turn to the next photo without stopping, but with some work it had/has great potential, and I knew that.

Also, in editing in camnera, I found in NEF some formerly hidden (from me) controls for editing sharpness, contrast, brightness, and other things in in-camera editing of raw captures, so even when editing on the Metro my raw captures I can make them look pretty stunning, and give myself a leg up when it comes to actual image editing (Photoshopping).

I find that 'having a theory of the photo editing' is very valuable in finding how to tackle a photo.

Prior, I'd just delve into a photo and 'see how it would look with this or that edit and often surprise myself, and I still do that; and I've found some wondrous things just by doing that, but more and more, I have a 'theory of the photo' and strive to apply it, not to achieve a foregone result, but to process by a method to achieve a result by a certain method (apply more contrast, more sharpening, maybe reduce blur with their new tool for reducing camera blur under the sharpness command and salvage otherwise unsalvageable photos), and for my 'street' and 'portrait photos (of men particularly) I rely heavily on the 'clarity' filter in Adobe Camera raw to bring out the 'grit, but for women, I do just the opposite when emphasizing their femininity.

I have it down to a given set of commands.  Sometimes, I'll use the camera adjustment filter to minimize distortion, but sometimes when applied, it will exclude important parts of my capture, so I have to know my capture and my theory of what the photo should look like before I apply 'distortion correction' by applying camera/lens distortion correction'.

I also am learning to 'select' with the 'loop' selection tool, certain areas, for additional treatment, and with Photoshop CC, you can have access to the Adobe raw tools at any time by going to filters and accessing those adjustments, instead of being as before confined to the 'raw' filters at the outset, then having to abandon them forever.  It's no longer 'now or never' with Adobe Photoshop CC, a wonderful addition. 

Even with a 'theory of the photo', almost always it's a theory of how to go about processing a particular photo, particularly a portrait and especially a color portrait taken under mixed lighting sources (say light of one color temperature coming from the left, another color temperature coming from the ceiling or otherwise overehead, and from another or more than one additional direction, one or more different light sources with different color temperatures.

Very seldom, but occasionally, those color temperature, without much correction, other than reducing their saturation/vividness, will harmonize, but more than often the best solution outside of a week's work in Photoshop, is to convert to Black and White, and work with grayscale.

It is possible to 'select' portions of color, minute part by minute part, and adjust colors, if necessary, but that's extremely tedious and prone to error.  Only the most important photos probably should be deserving of such treatment.

Sergio O., if you saw this photo, you'd have said 'good capture', I'm sure, but gone on without rating or comment.  It's the image editing, that made this an above average photo -- for some a head turner.

I'm not known for Photoshop skills, even after almost ten years here, and am reduced to learning Photoshop out of necessity, and can handle what formerly was TOO TEDIOUS, by use of its new QUICK SELECTION tool, which is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- largely unheralded, but which has resulted in my ability to edit better my images with little or no extra work and make them far, far more professional without sending them out to an extra-patient photoshopper who is skillful with the pen tool (the pro Photoshopper's former tool of choice).

I realize you hardly expected this response to your brief once-sentence blurb of recognizition, but many who follow my work must be wondering how John all of a sudden got much better . . . and this is the explanation.

John is still impatient, but Photoshop caught up to John with new, fast tools, and John can do these tools fast and efficiently, still destructively, AND John now has enough experience that he now has a 'theory of how to tackle each photo'.

Sometimes it doesn't work, and John has to start again on the same photo, sometimes days or weeks later, but the result often is pretty good these days, and my average score has jumped.

I'm taking the same old photos, too.

They just look better.

At least some of them.

Others can't be improved at all; they're cut and dried and only contrast/sharpness/brightness etc., is called for, and that's it.

Nobody will ever notice the difference.

Maybe no one has even now with these more complex photos.

I have.

It's a good feeling.

Sergio, I'm happy this photo caught your eye; a year ago, I couldn't have made it do that so easily.  This time I KNEW I could. It's largely the tools for this impatient guy's post processing which formerly I would have foregone.

Thanks for the recognition.

john

John (Crosley)

John knows my point of contention. We have been through it many times.

:>}

There is no real moderator for photo comments officially, so unofficially since so many of my photos draw extensive commentary, I am self-appointed moderator to keep thing 'orderly' in the discussion.

That way no one can hijack it, wander too far off on a tangent, or misconstrue something without being hauled back on point (generally).

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

I have no concerns whether this gentleman was or was not an officer at the time in question.  And although helpful background information may include the fact that he is Russian, it has little to do with the elements of the image.  

To me, the darker tonality on the left side of the frame renders this man's overall appearance even more dramatic than if you had lightened it somewhat.  This goes hand in hand with our having just a tiny peek at the white of his right eye. 

Age clearly has left its marks on this man's face.  The bag(s) under his eye(s) give him at least in a metaphorical sense the appearance of a wizened raccoon.  In turn, some of the lines on his face evidence not only his age but the hardships he has endured.

Hopefully, you have shown this image to the subject.  He has the right to know that it has faithfully captured both his outward appearance and his persona.

My best,

michael

I have very little doubt I'll never see this man again. I only saw him through a happenstance at a very busy place; one I go to rarely, haven't been to for quite some time, and doubt he passes through there with any frequency, so the chances of our seeing each other are almost infinitesimal.

If I were to see him, I would dote over him, as I did at our first meeting, as I am impressed to meet a piece of living history who could tell me to my rudimentary understanding what it was like to be at a place I only had read in histories, just like the woman 'Nina', captured several years before, seeming to weep at the recollection of Stalingrad's famous battle.

I would (if I could) now tell him that I (and now others like you) think this portrait is one of my very best ever, and that I have been lauded for my treatment of his image, as I promised him I would try.

Better, in addition to this one, I keep getting better, as judged by passersby and old friends who are used to viewing my captures 'on the street' and thus have become part of my informal 'entourage' of followers, who know me by my first name 'John' and that I carry a camera and show them my captures, and am completely democratic about whom I'll show my good and worst to.

If I could, I'd give my friend here, a photo keepsake to show him how wonderful he looks and how statesmanlike as a 'hero', which is important to him, and exactly what I promised him when we first met.

Thanks for making the critical points; I had a second look to confirm the points you made to ensure that in doing other portraits and similar, I'll try to keep those points in mind.

Best to you and thanks for taking the time to let me know your (favorable) thoughts.

john

John (Crosley)

creio poderia tentar alguma ferramenta como desenho...talvez, abraços.

I'm a little befuddled by Google's translation or your comment if translated correctly.

Here's the translation:  'Believe could try a tool such as drawing ... maybe hugs'

Maybe hugs?  You aren't sure?  

That's not the point however.

I'm unsure about this 'tool', or about 'drawing' in general.  I'm not an artist, at least a 'freehand' artist, or even an artist who uses 'tools' other than a camera.  At any other art (other than music as a child where I once was pretty prodigious, now all lost), I'm a total failure.  I appreciate art . . . . sometimes.

Sometimes I even understand it, which can be a major accomplishment even to state -- as 'understanding' and 'art' may be oxymoronic like 'giant' and 'shrimp' which you can get at an 'Outback Steakhouse' or a 'Sizzler' or 'Denny's' Restaurant.

Put it this way; I attempt to 'understand 'art; that which is 'understandable (to me), and at least make an effort.

But I CANNOT CREATE ART, much as the maitre, Cartier-Bresson who dreamed of becoming a film producer and spent time as an assistant documentary director under Jean Renoir failed in all but one effort at film-making because he 'lacked imagination'. His 'art' relied on others to supply situations, which he was a master at recognizing, then transferring to a medium which others could see.

His genius was in capturing the moment when things fell into harmony then preserving them, like insects that fell in to pitch that became trapped for all time in amber.

I attempt the same thing in a much lesser way.

Cartier-Bresson's only film 'success' at all was when he worked for the Allies after the end of World War II, when he filmed the repatriation of all the displaced persons after the war's end, and it was called 'Le Retour' ('The Retour'), which was watchable, but not spectacular.  He made no money from it, and it is in the public domain.  It was his first and last directorial effort in which he was full director, and interestingly, he did not do the cinematography -- he left that to others trained in the craft and at the same time took still photos with his Leica.

I also 'lack imagination', but unllike Cartier-Bresson who lusted to be 'known' as an artist and who gave up photography in his early/mid '60s to devote to his 'art', never turning back to photography and hardly even acknowledging it for the rest of his life, I have no such predelictions . . . . I'll take photos until it no longer interests me, and then 'nothing' along art's path, other than collecting things that interest me, but I doubt that I'll ever give up photography.

It just is my major analgesic, my spiritual solace, my social interface, and my perverse way of looking at the world and 'making sense' of life's odd little moments and diverse personalities, then attempting over my photographic lifetime in my 'body of work' which is now forming to create some sort of legacy - 'my view' of man.

There was a thread recently where someone was told that the use of the word 'ugly was demeaning, but I feel that much of modern art strives to avoid beauty in its entirety, and in fact, the word 'beauty' and 'art' in the post-modern sense seldom intersect and may in fact be somewhat oxymoronish.

But I see beauty in what others see as life's 'ugliness'.  I see 'harmony' in life's disharmony; in life's odd little moments, in people's dishevelment and odd moments I see LIFE in capital letters.

It is that LIFE I seek to capture in so many of my photos.

It's a never-ending quest so long as I am capable of using a camera and have good enough eyesight and other physical capabilities, AND the interest AND an interested audience, now or can foresee one later - even past my lifetime.

But Miguel, please tell me what you mean by 'tool' for drawing?

I'm completely baffled in relationship to this particular photo and myself.

Maybe it's a mistranslation? if so, can you make a better one, or somehow explain in light of the above?

I'd be most appreciative.

john

John (Crosley)

I apologize for inadvertently adding the middle initial 'L' to your name above, and would have fixed it clandestinely but the editing window was closed.

It's your name, and there's no excuse for my misspelling it or getting it wrong; my apologies again.

john

John (Crosley)

First of all, bless you for approaching this man, inquiring about his story and then sharing it with us. Old people are far too often over-looked and not respected in this society which puts false value on youth. Isn't it said that youth is wasted on the youth? If I only knew then what I know now? I am not trying to insult the young, there are brilliant and well raised ones out there (I have a few myself), but the elderly are rich with life experience and valuable perspective from which we as a society benefit when we give them the attention they deserve. Wonderful image; his eyes are full of stories. Thank you for sharing. :)

Trisha,

You humble me.

Thank you so much for reasons you explained so well.

john

John (Crosley)