'The Break'

Instead of 'The Break' this might be called 'The Nag' because each time I saw

it, I wondered why it nagged at me, for despite having no great subject matter

or great story, it seemed a 'full photo' and one that kept piquing my interest.

I'm interested in your thoughts. Your ratings, critiques and observations are

invited and most welcome. If you rate or critique harshly 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 (This is on of those that gnaw at you and say 'Post Me', and you

just can't say why.)

That is one good thing about art in general, we make it up as we go. No subject matter needed here, we put our mind to work to enhance a piece.

However I would have to tell these guys to move, it appears they are in a pedestrial walkway.

For the better part of two weeks, I've been going through ten or twelve terabytes of worked up drives full of folders worked up photos (edited), many dupes of other folders, photo by photo, but in only one or two did I see this photo and each time it took my breath away, and worse, I didn't recognize it (a cardinal sin in my mind).

Now, I recognize it, from last fall.

You are right, these guys were interfering with the walkway, BUT the passageway is very, very wide and wide enough to accommodate their break and all the pedestrian passage that could be anticipated, even at a busy rush with thousands pass  by.  

It struck me that this was just 'the moment' and now I remember precisely the instant I took this photo -- and at the moment it didn't please, but confounded them, which I explained (('m an artist -- I take photos of people in all circumstances) which seemed to assuage them.  No sense in upsetting people needlessly.

Now I'm at rest.  I like the photo very much, and get this, IT'S A RULE OF THIRD PHOTO.

Much as I hate to say it, and there's really no such rule, this is enhanced by the 'thirds' inherent in it.  Can you see why?

It's all very subtle of course, and not figured out beforehand by me as I stuterstepped to take this during a walk by.

Best to you, tony.

john

John (Crosley)

RULE OF THIRDS? More of a guideline really. I think you have a story being told here John and it works well in B&W. My take on the image as a whole is the crop. The two passerby's with their back to the camera don't work with the story of the men sitting around on a break. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it....sweet street shot however you want to look at it.

I see the rule of third. The focal point being the man on the right corner. He is pulling out his sleeve to show something to the others, may be a healed injury. All others' attention is focused on him. Perhaps the story being told is of a past traumatic event that this guy experienced.

I would not crop out the woman walking by. I think she adds additional dynamics to the image, like a separation between two worlds, one that of the guy and his friends, and the busy outside world with no time to spare for chats.

I see 4's in the ratings. Wonder why.

That's exactly why when I came across this shot several times in those twelve terabytes of worked on photos and couldn't exactly remember this shot, it gnawed at me, because each time I looked it not only could I not remember it but I chastised myself not only for that, but for overlooking what I felt was a pretty good shot.

I like your crop, just as I like the original crop.

These guys were wary, as are many Ukrainians, of a guy my size with big, visible cameras and lenses prying into their affairs; decades of Soviet rule made this country and many others have cautious populations (something I work with and often break down, but not on a quick pass by where I'm trying for absolutely 'candid' as here).

And this is indeed 'candid', and for that, I really like it.

It's in fact, among my best street shots, and now I remember almost every step and remark made as I stepped out of the Metro, saw these guys, side stepped to set up my camera and planned my walk past them after setting my focus point and zoom angle (widest) as I only got one chance (for which they chided me or scolded me severely, which is somewhat unusual and with a group of men, it can be a little dangerous . . . . or at least FEEL dangerous even if not actually so).

So, I took my walk back and I believe I never to this week even looked at this shot, an error as it should have been posted long ago.

Personally I think the walking woman (women) frame these guys as does their 'hand truck', but your crop in mostly portrait orientation also works very well, attesting to the strength of the capture.

I will stick with my capture for now at least until some museum curator or gallerist says different, in part because I like the passerby contrast and framing, and emphasis on the partial blocking of the corridor (context) and partly because I like here (seldom otherwise) the subtle use of 'rule of thirds' which is (as I said) a misnomer, because there's no such rule, just a general, helpful guideline that works in some instances; here it seems to work well, and I'd keep it partly for that.

Thanks for going to great trouble to help me; it's in the great spirit of some of my finest critiques received here.  Thanks again.

john

John (Crosley)

I agree with your analysis of the narrative you see about the forearm of the gent, right, and the attention he's getting.  I just walked past once, snapped and continued walking (getting strong remarks as i did), but I hadn't wanted to break up this gathering and tried to do so as surreptitiously as I could.

I also like the women and their separation and their contrast, as well as their 'framing' of the men, which also is accomplished by the hand truck and the back chair's edge (steel tubes all), together with that marble wall -- all of which make a sort of 'room' in which the man are gathered -- their own private place in a very public corridor.

You are correct in seeing the 'rule of thirds' though it is indeed quite subtle'.

You wonder why you see 4s in the ratings, and that's partly because experienced critiquers often don't rate, and partly because this is a pretty good photo but way outside the boundaries of what is considered 'good' on Photo.net, though it would be well greeted in a gallery or, say, a book of work by some good street artist.  It's 'slice of life' and in my estimation, one of my best at that, but I usually try harder, and this just jumped out at me, long after taking, and to myself, I said, 'this really has it' and 'I'll post it, high or low ratings' just because it pleases me, and I want to share it and see what others see.

You see it, and so does the prior critic, and frankly, that's good enough for me.

Ratings be damned; the critiques mean so much more, especially by more experienced members.

Best to you and thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

S.B.

In the final analysis, this is not some earth shattering photo; it's a slice of life photo that depends on a 'look at one moment' captured, and its worth depends mostly (1) on the composition, (2) the narrative, and (3) the lighting, which here is pretty good side lighting under very harsh circumstances, captured at ISO 3200 but with a pretty good sensor on a very cheap (now) DSLR but with a pro lens.

I'm reminded that one of the great television shows of all time, 'Seinfeld', was constructed around several characters, and its central premise was 'Nothing' in the words of Seinfeld and of the characters themselves when they tried to pitch a 'Seinfeld-like show' [sort of an inside-joke] to a TV executive (Warren Littlefield of NBC supposedly), and were roundly rejected, because "who wants a TV show about 'nothing'."  "It's gotta be about 'something'".

Well, maybe not.

That show was about themes and mannerisms -- good stuff for comedy, and in 'street' photography it can be about subject, composition, lighting, candidness, a good narrative (sometimes) and capturing 'the moment', and this one I think has all that, either as originally captured or even in the proffered crop, above.

I regard it highly -- I almost dropped my drawers when I found it among my folders and didn't recognize it, but knew it was mine because of the style and the characters -- it had my signature, basically, and I knew I had captured 'the moment.

There's lots of 'moments' in lots of my photos (many poorly captured), but this is one of the better ones in my opinion, regardless of ratings.  Some of my poorer rated photos went on to become 'Crosley classics' as some aficionados call them.   Ratings works pretty darn well usually, but sometimes the system just falls apart on one or another individual photo -- but the final tally is not in yet.

I keep my own personal tally, and that's already in.

;~))

That was completed before posting.  (Nothing about that negates the value of the various excellent critiques I've received as they've enlightened me no end.)

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you John, for sharing with us these wonderful works.

I like your analogy with 'Seinfeld', out of nothingness appears a priceless moment of human interaction. The overall image is surely much greater than the sum of the individual components.

When I first got introduced to street photography, I was so excited seeing the old masters's works. Then I went into the field with a camera and realized how difficult it is to capture a successful image.

You works are a source of constant inspiration.

Best regards.

John, unless you depend financially on art critics, being at their mercy, it would be very satisfying for you to rely on your judgment and not on what others feel is acceptable. The act in itself to capture a moment of when hard working people take a break and exchange work place "stuff" is of real worth. Who cares about thirds, obstructing a passage way when you got a perfect shot.The original tells a whole story, no cropping necessary. Just great!

The 'Old Master' you refer to invariably must refer to Henri Cartier-Bresson, whose work I idolize (or idealize).  It's been my guide for 40+ some years since I met the man where friends/colleagues at Associated Press sent this 'new hire' to meet the old guy saying 'your photography reminds me (said one old Cartier-Bresson friend from China days) of his photographs".  [AP former 'China Hand, Jimmy White, from the next desk, a Cartier-Bresson friend/colleague]

And I hadn't a clue who Henri Cartier-Bresson was.  No one explained.

I guess they thought I'd figure it out.

So off I went to Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, site of San Francisco's most prestigious and largest museum.  It was full of photographs, but first outside, I met a nice guy at the entrance introduced to me as the photographer, told him I was just hired as an AP photographer, and he poo pooed the job, saying this was his exhibition and even he couldn't get work, and the profession was dying -- advising don't be a pro photogrpher (later I took his advice as I saw its wisdom).

I still had really no idea who the hell Henri Cartier-Bresson was, except he spoke pretty good English and apparently he was famous enough to get an exhibition in a prestigious museum.

Then I toured the museum; saw his fabulous work.

I fell in LOVE at that moment; it didn't matter that I spoke or not with the gentleman, just a little younger then than I am now.

He was giving up photography to paint and draw but telling nobody and using his tour of international museums and sale of prints (as low as a hundred of so dollars apiece) to finance his impending retirement, though he was an heir to one of France's great fortunes, apparently -- Cartier-Bresson sewing thread and accessories.

There was none of the cussedness he was famous for, but lots of the independence, but I only had a minute or so with this man I didn't know who he was or how much he counted among 'photojournalists'.  I didn't learn that until I toured his exhibition, then I wanted to buy all the photos -- at least those I understood.

I didn't understand them all; now I do, and I can feel myself standing in his shoes as he took many of them, so great is my experience now, but so lacking is my talent that I cannot hold a candle to the maitre (master).

I am applying for a large $ fellowship, and talked last night to a friend about which 14 or fewer of my half million or million photos to show in my application, and his critique was 'you crop too tightly' and photos I had sent him by e-mail lacked emotive power.

They were sent for tonalities, composition, etc., and also for surrealness (surreality), and not necessarily to MOVE anyone; but I have plenty of photos that'll do that too.

So, I have to think what photos I'll present; the prize is $25,000 to advance my career, and since it's geographically specific, I do have a chance, since it's not from a big state, and I'm well known now world wide among this visual arts/photo community.

I think this photo is hardly cropped too tightly and plan to e-mail it to him as a rebuttal to his 'too tight cropping' remark', or at least as a statement that I take 'all kinds' of photos, some for texture, some for tonalities, some for idiosyncrasies, some for emotive power and some have everything -- some very few, and those are the prizes of course.

If you have any favorites in my portfolio -- earth shattering, prize-winning favorites, please send me a URL so I can have a look-see at what you think I should lead with.  I only get one chance a year and it's coming up in about 9 to 16 days.  Fellowship recipients also may get more money for curating/cataloging and/or exhibition, if I read correctly.

I was greatly inspired by Cartier-Bresson's book 'The World of Henri Cartier-Bresson' which sat on my bedside for 35 or so years, and which I looked at from time to time, even during long periods when I took no or few photographs -0- I kept learning from the greatly aging gent's work.

I'm glad my work is a source of inspiration to you; just as that aging Chicago nanny who apparently just went crazy at the end (and started out just a little crazy anyway) has proved in her photography (Virginia Maier) to be an inspiration to me.  I recommend a good look at her work; held in various hands, so one book or look is not enough, and there are films (videos) or her work and retrospective looks at her life.  I feel she was an undiscovered giant; found only by happenstance.

I'd like to be one-tenth as good as her.

I keep trying though.

Although I thought I was 'sui generis' and perhaps I am, I found I have also been inspired by others, from ancient art through the Abstract Expressionists, to the Modernists, etc. in art and through the entire history of photography.  Stieglitz had a thing or two to teach as did Steichen, and so forth; there are a huge number of fabulous photographers today, including some great 'street' photographers (a term not invented or used during Cartier-Bresson's working years and I heard the word first when I joined Photo.net).

Many of these names I had no knowledge of during the vast part of my career taking photos, as I came through a journalism background and seldom ventured outside of my own photo cocoon, though I did read photo books and viewed photos but never really studied until much, much later.  I thought it was good enough to have worked with Pulitzer greats; one mentored me at the start -- helped get AP to hire me in fact, in San Francisco (Sal  Vader).

Now I see a place for some of my work, and some of my work is 'classic' or 'old fashioned' in many ways, though I shoot in a variety of genres; street is just my favorite.

(I do great landscapes, but so can almost anybody with a good eye, a car, or hiking boots, strong legs, and a 4-oz camera these days -- I try to do what others can't.  Anybody who can stand with a modern camera on a vista can take a great landscape -- I try to take a great photo on a street or a Metro coach -- that's much harder -- Metro coaches jerk, are dark, not everybody appreciates what you're doing and sometimes there are harsh stares, and so forth and on the street anything can happen -- and I often shoot in the gloaming or even by lowest light frequently after dark or underground.

I'm glad to think in your eyes I succeed sometimes.

john

John (Crosley)

(and thanks so much for the flattering comment!)

'A perfect shot'

Frankly when I saw this as I wrote above, I almost fell out of my drawers. (pants).

I knew it was good.

I just had never seen it before; I had taken something else on the download and failed to review the rest of the photos and usually on my Metro ride back to where I lodge, I review all captures, but this time I had not; there is no digitally edited version of this or its color brethren (that one is great too).

So, I just about jumped out of my pants when I first saw this a few days ago, then set about wondering 'who was this great photographer who took this and what decade did he take it in'?, but I knew it was me, but had NO recollectoin of the shot which is greatly unusual for me.

I took no notice of critics, rules of thirds, or fourths or fifths, or anything else.

This one as noted in the 'request for critique' just 'nagged at me'.

I wondered if it would be seen to have any value to anybody else or was I just hallucinating.

I KNEW I would post it for review, critique and rating.  And I wondered.

I have got 6s even recently on work I wondered why such a high score.

I have got low 4s on other work I felt very worthwhile.  

But all in all, the rating system over time works pretty well; just take a look from day to day; the good stuff's at the top and the bad stuff's at the bottom, for individual photos.

Photo artists in galleries, however, might find their work at the bottom.

I have things well in perspective, in that regard.  Cartier-Bresson photos long ago posted surreptitiously by a member as his (he almost got kicked out for doing so), got very low scores in a time of generous ratings.

Now ratings are much more tough, but who cares.

I know in my mind and always did this was my private gem, but with such photos I like to pick them apart.

I love critiques that point out that the rightmost man was demonstrating a probably formerly injured and healed arm to the others (I missed that).

I found a 'rule of thirds' application, but that's because I poo poo the 'rule of thirds' routinely, and thought it deserved a fair chance once I did actually find it useful.  It allowed me to defend a 'no crop' decision' with reason as well as with my gut and my heart.

However, the crop specified above, is a pretty good suggestion, too.

I have to admit, I didn't give much thought to posting; I just did it.

I do things like that.

I'm no belly button gazer.

I take a photo.

I look at them, often briefly except when processing, and this required almost no processing and then only when I found it a few days ago.

So, there was posting, and I did that, complete with trepidation, but also knew in my heart exactly what you just told me.

;~)

If I could take such photos one a month for all the months I've been taking photos since I joined Photo.net and only such photos, I'd be a very happy guy.

And likely my work would be less diluted by lesser work.

But then again, sometimes I very much like what others may see as my 'lesser work' for personal reasons, and so it stays.

Until a museum or gallery says otherwise.

Even then, they may get a fight.

Thank you both so very much.

john

John (Crosley)

!!!!

!!!!!

That was my thought when I saw this months later for the first time.

How could I let something like this just go unnoticed while I was looking for some other shot on the same download and just passed this one by?

I LOVE your taste in my work (and I love your work too).

Highest regards and best wishes.

john

John (Crosley)

The Metro entrance is directly opposite the wall, at a right angle to it, and I exited it.  If I'd taken a photo, it would have been at a right angle to the wall and barely possible given the number of passersby; I'd have had to wait for an opportunity thus blowing my cover and giving up a chance of candidness.

Also, it meant that I would get not the best angle for composition.

Instead, I exited right, wheeled back away from these guys, having identified them as likely suibjects, and knowing they were very aware of their surroundings and guys, they'd likely put up a fuss if I tried to capture them with camera held high for more than one frame and thus change what they were doing and stare into the camera which was anathema.

I also wanted a diagonal in my frame, so the best way to do that was to walk along with pedestrian traffic past these guys,  raise my camera/lens and fire one shot.  That resulted in a near perfect capture.  I had preset my focus point and my zoom; my ISO already was set, and the camera automatically exposed for conditions which were quite dark, but lighting was really good, if dim.

This is a 'composed' shot, though I had no idea they were talking about this guy's arm; I just recognized that they were in a pretty good position for good composition and a candid capture.  It's interesting to me, that I can remember all, now that I recognize where I took this photo (it appears similar to another well traveled place causing me initially some confusion, as the walls at the other place are similarly long and made of granite).

All's well that ends well, thank goodness.

I've screwed up so many good photos; it'd be a shame to take a good one and lose it because I forgot to review, but then again, I'm still looking (and posting to good reviews) photos taken in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that required image editing that then was not available, for instance shots made in NEF (raw) that could not then be processed (what was I thinking, shooting in NEF (raw)?  Of course, I just made a mistake, but those captures are pretty good, and because of the variability built into 'raw', even the less precisely captured exposures can be 'fixed' pretty well -- so ratings and looks have turned out pretty good for those old photos when posted.

Also, some old photos were slightly shaky.

Adobe Photoshop has a new 'sharpening' feature called 'shake reduction' but it does not have to have camera or operator 'shake' -- just any kind of debilitating blur, and sometimes it almost magically can 'cure' the photo if one does not inspect with a microscope and it's not horribly wrong.

I've saved several photos that were very promising but blurry and unpostable or unprintable because of blurs, through using Photoshop's shake reduction tool under the sharpen menu under Photoshop CC 2014.  

I long wondered if one day a 'tool' or plug-in would become available to rescue those photos, and surprisingly Adobe made it part of Photoshop's main toolbox.

I'm ever grateful.

john

John (Crosley)