'Character'

'Character' is not something you are necessarily born with, but is

probably something you acquire as you weather the insults of life.

This woman, nearing the end of her life, shows her priceless

character and good humor despite's life's many insults -- one of

which I later may point out. 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

In my view, the larger this is viewed, the better.

I am overwhelmed by this woman's expression, but it does not seem to show all that well in thumbnail or smaller view.

Double-click to view the 'larger' edition, and see if the 'larger' version of this photo doesn't show it off better, would you?

It does to me.

john

John (Crosley)

Her joi de vivre communicates in this excellent portrait... and reflects your own great 'people' skills.

I think this one in particular requires very little comment.  Thanks for the personal compliment.  I hugged her when I finished taking her portrait; some people forget that women die much older than the men they outlive and that old women often haven't been hugged in the longest time by a man, and as I did, I whispered in her ear in Russian/Ukrainian that her face was beautiful (kraciva litso) and that she should be proud to have such a beautiful face.

I've seen this woman off and on for six or so years and always been refused a photo, but this time prevailed (she agreed to be a model). 

I think NO ONE has seen this particular look, ever.

Really!

I feel she brought it out just for me!

In part because I always previously respected her turndowns until finally she relented and said 'yes' (on the most minimal conditions which I met).

I've most proud of this, no matter if it's 'usual' or not.  Ref:  previous photo and discussion with Meir S. and ref. 'Brassai's work'.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

Interesting portrait!

I am absolutely SURE you have seen and passed this elderly woman by during your walks through central Kyiv.

I am equally sure that in six or so years I never before saw this expression, and those about her during that time probably never saw that expression until THE MOMENT she decided to allow me to photograph her after years of politely asking as I strolled by, time after polite time, always previously greeted with a 'nyet' and often hands over her face (or my lens). 

This is the exception . . . and what an exception she was hiding all that time, just to be brought out for that special occasion - which is why I hugged her (in thanks).

It's this sort of intermittent  positive reinforcement that makes me continue to believe in what I do and to continue to dream that in almost everyone I deem worthy of asking eventually at some weak moment even those who say 'no' will relent and say 'OK, just this once,' and when I take one photo, I usually take four to forty more. (This was one of five and all five were really good!)

Best to you, Svetlana, and best health to you also.

john

John (Crosley)

You have given this photo of mine the ultimate compliment.

'Interesting'

I strive for that in everything I do.

Who wants to look at dull, lifeless photos, no matter how good technically they are.

I want something that people want to look at and will remember for some special quality.

Germans mark their wines with special qualities 'mit pradicat'-- a sort of official seal of quality that you'll see on certain wine labels, and it's official.

I'd like to be able to mark my photos the same way -- 'interesting - officially' as determined by 'say' Svetlana Korolyova or some other fine critic, say Rajat Poddar. . . . or even the entire Photo.net community.

Maybe there could even be some higher standard for the most interesting photos, 'THE MOST INTERESTING PHOTOS' as a real guarantee of interesting photographic quality.  

For instance, index John Crosley (me) on FLICKR.com and see what you see, and view the entire lot (about 130 specially picked street photos, color and black and white, in 'slideshow' and see if they aren't really the 'best of the best' or at least very, very interesting which is why they're there.

(I can't double post photo6s.  Post from a portfolio here, then post again in a second portfolio and call it 'best of the best' -- it would break the rules here, or I might do it.

john

John (Crosley)

What is the difference in their taking?

Once gets the impression (I don't know if it's true), that Fred G. spends some considerable time with most of his subjects getting to know them and establishing rapport with them, and it's reflected in the product.

John Crosley (me), on the other hand, often gets from a fraction of a second to no more than a few minutes to take photos, often 'catching someone's fancy by taking one interesting photo or two,' then letting the subject review the photo (or that subject's friends enough to interest the subject), then taking in no more than a minute or at most five, a series of photos almost as fast as the shutter will click and my upper body will move, (and I can keep their attention, because since I often interrupted them, they often are involved in other things they see as more important than cooperating with the photographer, although some times I have their full cooperation, depending on circumstances.)

I'm a master of the one-second portrait to the two-minute portrait, but then again, maybe Fred G. is also, but it just doesn't look that way.

I'll let him weigh in on that.

john

John (Crosley)

My portraits are all over the place in terms of time spent. I usually do have a planned meeting with my subjects so in that sense our way of photographing obviously does differ. It's more rare that I happen to run into a subject, though that's happened as well. In terms of time spent, however, it really does vary. Strangely, it's sometimes the first picture I take of someone, before I've been able to get to know them terribly well, that is the best. I liken it photographically to love at first sight. My subjects are mostly strangers to the extent that I am meeting most of them for the first time, whether through mutual friends and acquaintances or over the Internet or from someone having been directed to my web site or PN pages.

But, yes, I do spend at least a couple of hours with most of my subjects and do try to connect with them as we spend more time together.

Regarding this photo, I don't want to get terribly psychological or philosophical (though I often can't help myself) but I'd like to address it from a perspective near and dear to my own heart. First off, it's interesting that you use the expression the "insults" of age. As I age myself, and I still have my father alive at age 89 and a few of his friends from an era long gone by, I just see it as natural evolution and not an insult. Character we agree on. I think we can see more character as time goes by and there IS more character because there's more life experience. I just see what other people refer to as insults or ravages of time as a beauty of a different sort.

The philosophy or psychology would come in here. I see this as having been shot in a somewhat confrontational manner. And I mean that visually speaking. I don't think of you as a terribly confrontational guy. This is an in-your-face close-up, made even more so by the sharp focus on her and the blurred background which is included as more of a sliver than an encompassing environment. The lighting translates as somewhat harsh and unforgiving and the processing (and sharpening?) adds to the sense of harshness (even if just in a simple conversion). The woman has a lovely expression of calm and depth and trust which the taking of the photo, to be honest, makes me work hard to appreciate, though it is obviously being conveyed by a photographer who was in tune with the right expressive moment. This more blatant and confrontational approach to the shooting, I think, does bring out insults of time more than, for example, experience of time or beauty of time.

I hope some of this makes sense to you.

I should have started out by thanking you for bringing me into the conversation and notifying me that it was taking place. The chance to talk about this stuff with each other is one of the great features of PN, our dialogues about photos being a feature that is of invaluable consequence to me and others. Your encouraging of this sort of camaraderie and photographic dialogue is very important and much appreciated.

It all makes complete sense.

I thought that after posting three portrait-like photos in a row, since your forte is portraiture, and you are a master of evaluation and expression, this is a discussion to which your contributions would be invaluable.

I was right.

True, I didn't take her into my lens's figurative 'bosom' 'though at the end I hugged her, long and slow (imagine her delight -- an older woman being hugged by a man after A L L   T H O S E   Y E A R S).

So, in a sense I did bring her 'into my figurative bosom if you don't mind the metaphor.

And I don't mind the expression 'in-your-face,' for that's exactly what it is, completely with contrast enhancement and sharpening, but not so much as you'd imagine, as the change from color to black and white, plus the early evening capture enhanced her lines remarkably well, which was just what the doctor ordered for this particular expression, and I made the most of it.

You're a master (not in your own way or any other modifier).

Just 'you're a master'.

You belong in this conversation; in fact your presence makes this a conversation, whether or not anyone else participates.

Thanks for accepting my invitation.

john

John (Crosley)

Her eyes are vacant, null, void of anything. Her skin tone is too ashy and wrinkles too dramatic! You have succeeded in making this woman look more like an old  caricature ... than a woman who has lived a long life that we should embrace. 

To me her expression is warm, loving and full of lilfe 'joie de vivre' is how one member above, expressed it.

You may take issue with the post processing; and you may say it makes her look like a caricature, but in fact the original, unprocessed photo also looks exactly like a caricature.  This treatment just exaggerates certain of those aspects; and you may like or dislike them as you please, for certainly not everyone is going to love such a treatment, and you are within your rights to hate it or intensely dislike it.

I happen to like the treatment, and I also can think of ten or twelve different ways that her portrait could be treated differently, but not so much this particular pose with her eyes caught in mid blink like here. You did understand that they are caught blinking here, didn't you?  Or did you?

That's part of the special appeal of this photo, and why she has a special expression you will probably never see otherwise, but at the same time look at her furrowed brow -- it was made for emphasis, so I emphasized it somewhat.

I respect your right to criticize -- even to dislike -- but I like what I like, even if it is outside my usual bounds.

john

John (Crosley)

I think there's a place for taste and judgment and a place for insight in looking at photos. At least I like to approach both from a standpoint of my own taste, since that's so important in aesthetic reactions, but I like to separate that from a more non-judgmental analysis or assessment of what I'm seeing.

Looking at my post above, what I tried to convey was that this photo does more emphasize and bias (and I don't use the word "bias" negatively, I use it as I would perspective or disposition) the "ravages" or, as John put it, "insults" of time. It's actually quite telling and enlightening that John's photo shows exactly what he says, which means there's a certain in-tuneness operating that I find a powerful thing in the hands of a good photographer. 

Then there's the matter of taste or preference. As I also said above, I prefer to see aging more as a matter of evolution and a new kind of beauty. But that's my perspective and bias. Many people I know who are aging find it ravaging and insulting, so who am I to tell them to see aging otherwise? So, yes, while I understand this photo (or at least feel as if I do) and appreciate it for what it is, there is an aspect of it that turns me off. I can live with that. And I have a feeling John can as well. Believe me, I'm the first to admit that many of my own photos would turn a lot of people off for a variety of reasons, and I can even see and admit to some degree of exploitation in my own photos. How could we make a photo of someone without exploiting them to some degree?

In fact, I would be concerned if I was making the type of photos that DIDN'T turn a bunch of people off, because then I'd feel I was boring and not taking stands and making commitments. Photography, at its best, is often controversial. But I think it's really important to try to adopt the viewpoint of the photographer in understanding his work and then make our personal judgments about what we think of it. That way, we are able to appreciate something while at the same time disliking it or even disapproving of it.

Hear!  Hear!

Well written sir.

When I use the word 'insults' to denote what occurs with time's passages, I do not necessarily mean that in a pejorative sense.  One day I saw two young children on a Metro who had such flawless white skin, one could have used the pre-teen boy and girl each as examplars for the most flawless white skin in the world - really!  

Excellent remark.  

(I wrote a one-hour reply, but the 'spammer' block prevented posting, and I could not unblock my reply, so I let it go, sorry to say, since I did not copy anything and wrote everything freehand).

john

John (Crosley)

On the woman's left shoulder is a light mark.

It is a cockroach.

The woman is poor.

Even Jackie Kennedy Onassis who lived on Park Avenue in the Ritziest neighborhood of New York City had cockroaches, one of the world's hardiest animals.

This woman, inadvertently had a cockroach perched on her shoulder, barely visible here, and something I didn't feel heretofore to comment on.

Now that comments are in, ratings are almost done, I now feel free to make the comment; the woman had almost no money (but more after I shook her hand and passed some small amount of cash to her.)

In general, I don't pay 'models' to pose; I just hand out cash and walk by or have an assistant when available pay when they can't be associated with me, the photographer, in order to keep me from being identified as a 'soft touch'.

I don't want to get a reputation on the street as 'paying for photos' or else every photo I took, someone would want a dollar or $10 for, and with one million to two million photos, almost all worthless, that would prevent me from engaging in my craft of photographing strangers.

I depend on my personality, and for 'gratuities' those go to the truly needy.  This woman, however, was needy and got a small stipend.  I didn't pay for the cockroach, and I didn't clone it out; I believe in verisimilitude.

john

John (Crosley)