'Working at Home'

Papers in piles, a body bend over in concentration, and seeming oblivion to what's

going on around her seem best to describe this worker who is working at a home

instead of going into a traditional office. Your ratings, critiques and observations are

invited and most welcome. If you rate or critique harshly 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

I often said, I could work from home if I didn't have to be productive, too many distractions.

I do like your light source, nice, cascading

Excellent picture!

 

All the best!!!

Thanks for the nice compliment.

 

I hadn't thought in terms of 'cascading light' but it  describes it well.   I'll add that term to my vocabulary.  I particularly like side light, don't you?

Best regards and thanks.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

The best, most wonderful part of this photo is it's entirely candid.  I saw this scene, went and grabbed a camera, stood as the subject remained in concentration, took a couple of photos, and life went on, unperturbed.

 

A moment (of beauty to me) caught and enshrined.

 

Thanks for your fine compliment; I treasure that.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Good shot, John with strong tones and a composition that isn't afraid to be a little messy and disordered - discarded paper on the floor, other fragments chopped off or jammed into corners here and there, mirroring the reality of the situation, I'm sure. I've noticed the there is a lack of interest in "street shooting" on pn lately and more on technique - often an over-cooked meal - at least to me. Raw and immediate images are becoming rarer. The pictures aren't as stimulating as they used to be and neither are the comments. It seems we have become Facebook and twitterized. I have to say I don't look forward to my daily visits to pn as much as I did in the past.

When I first came to Photo.net, there was almost no 'street' photography at all, and I vowed, almost singlehandedly to change that.  I think in the interim I accomplished that goal, even if it is now disapearing.  I used to call it Photoshop net and it's returning to its roots. I do minimal Photoshopping, and then mostly to sharpen or adjust contrast, etc.

 

What 'passed for' street photography was (in my opinion) almost anything but.

 

I've given my best to Photo.net, and do my best to uphold standards; my focus is on higher standards than on Photo.net.  

 

For instance Graciela Iturbide, Salvador Salgado, and some other famous photographers got their starts by winning the W.  Eugene Smith prize given to one 'humanistic' photographer annually with a deadline tomorrow night (the 31st in case your calendar is different than mine), and the prize this year is $30,000 with some extra money available besides.

 

I'm entering, and to do so, I just chose photos posted on Photo.net for the main part with a topic relating to the dignity of Ukraine's oppressed people and how they're trying to move foward and still keep their dignity despite war, poverty, corruption and world record inflation eating at fixed incomes.

 

I've got plenty of photos to prove my talent and easy proof of an ongoing project, which I'll narrow somewhat to the poorer citizens and/or basic necessities.  

 

I've got the 40 photos already chosen and labeled and the CV just about writes itself.  It hardly matters to me whether or not Photo.net is promoting or deriding 'street' or documentary/humanistic photograhy.  I note rates for this went from a 5.00 to a 4.5 in one rate, but that's just life on the new Photo.net; I know the worth of my photos, and it's not measured in Photo.net rates, especially under the new rating regime. 

 

Whether it's measured in a single $30,000 grant is another thing, but last year there were only 200 entrants -- two years ago an American/Ukrainian won with photos almost identical to mine at Ukraine's Maidan (which is why there was no sense in my entering last year -- two years of Ukraine winners in a row would just not be acceptable, I'm sure.  Two in three years will be a hard sell).

 

But I'm dogged, I'm stubborn, and I'm determined to find a viewer market for my 'humanistic' photos of Ukraine beyond the Photo.net fishbowl, which I've always insisted was a 'testing ground' just to measure the relative worth of this or that photo, but not to be relied on.

 

As a result, I've got a YUUUUGE body of work, just about to be submitted but within the 40 photo max limit -- only the best, and that's excluding all color which could fill a whole application limit of 40 photos, and all my other work from other nations.

 

The 40 B&W photos'll form the basis of my proposed project.   The submitted photos are to show my worth as a photographer with some from my 11-year project.

 

Twitter, Linked In, Facebook and the other Social Networks have their place and value, and I don't ignore them, but seldom use them unless I have another commercial use that is not photo related.

 

Or just to say 'hello' to very old friends who wonder 'what's John up to?' on Facebook.

 

Otherwise, I value your posts and others like you far more than you ever might guess.

 

Your posts keep me honest and hard-working; I strive to please the few good critics who really matter to me whose opinions have true value, as yours does.  I'll keep it up, too, winning that huge grant or not.  

 

Best to you my friend.

 

Wish me luck.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Since this  is a candid, and it's at home, must be someone you know :)  Many things could be told about this image, but, suffice it to say that it is an intriguing slice of modern life. She certainly dresses well for her  home office ....G

Notice I didn't say 'whose' home.

 

Fact is she was working at a 'home' but was also to meet a 'boss' that day, hence the dressup.

 

Don't read anything into any knowledge of her; other than I happened to be at the same place she was, but it did make a good photo, right?

 

No sleuthing really needed; I have no woman in my life presently.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

What attracts me most in this photo is the pose of the legs. There is something fleeting, tentative, uncertain to it. While the rest of her pose is closed, and the chaos on the couch something of a wall, she seems completely beyond our reach as viewers, somewhere else. Which would render her invulnerable, at least to us. But not the pose of the legs, there is just this shimmer of vulnerability. Which makes us maybe more of invaders, rather than distant viewers.

A nice play, in my mind (and in my view).

Your is a very thoughtful and original analysis that is truly deserving.  I'll leave it without comment and show my approval in so doing.  

 

Best wishes, and thanks.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

John,

I was just teasing about the "home" thing. We always enjoy your photos. They do portray unique subjects- and your frequent back stories are very helpful.

Ruud Albers used to  post daily street photos, but of a generally different theme

than yours.

It is obvious that you are among the few "serious" photographers that post on pn and we amateurs appreciate that you share your work with us. I don't think PN promotes or not any particular genre of photos, but the viewership  may respond more to one type than another. I (G) can't take seriously the number ratings-sometimes they are unfathomable. It would always be useful if someone rates low that they would give a reason- but, some folks just seem to enjoy rating low. I put more weight on comments, where someone cares enough to take the time to write.

Anyway, thanks and good luck!

It's been a number of years since articles were written in sociology journals about the savage behavior on-line of Photo.net participants, especially in the Leica forum.

 

A good case could be made for similar articles (and perhaps they were written) about the bane of Photo.net -- mate rating, where groups of photographers would form bands of friends and rate their own photos and downrate those they perceived as 'nonfriendly'.

 

I didn't want to get involved in any of those shenanigans, and when a group came along that was devoted to resurrecting downrated but worthy photos by having an otherwise anonymous 'gang' of high-minded and ethical photographers who really knew little about each other and did nothing more than 'nominate a photo for attention' singled out a photo by this group of less than 10 of the best writers on Photo.net, if any of us felt the photo worthy, we wrote a critique (and rated where we felt appropriate).  This often was enough to rescue good photos the mate raters often had sunk.  We didn't communicate otherwise.

 

Raters and their rates then were known, so if someone was 'on-line' and you knew they often gave '2's or '3's, you didn't post your photo when they were on-line, but strangely because I didn't participate and didn't complain even those perpetually low-raters seldom rated my photos low (for them) and often gave me low but among their highest ratings (in other words, honest ratings).  They may often have been protesting the system, but I was not part of it.  That's a major reason -- being accused of mate-rating -- that I just don't rate.  

 

Also, it's very hard to rate apples, kumquats and balls of yarn with new cars and knitting needles.

 

At that time there were almost no 'street' photos on Photo.net and those that did got mostly terrible ratings, but not mine, because no one ganged up on my photos, I posted 'interesting photos' and moreover, my responses were 'interesting' and instead of the murky or one-word acknowledgements most members rated gave that might acknowlege a rate or comment, I wrote and wrote -- usually intelligently and often wittily.

 

My comments on street shooting may be legendary, and excerpted would easily make a book with addition of simple rewriting, and for that matter many comments are specially copyrighted besides the site's copyright.  I will write that book; it's on my near-term horizon.

 

Just read the nearly 19,000 comments under my photos then the 200 pages of comments under my portfolio with my replies and you'll see I have a lot to say about 'how' to shoot street.

 

People and members often viewed my photos just for the chance to read what I wrote, and gratefully, my talent withstood the test of time and hopefully improved -- though my highest rated photo of the last two years or so was taken in 2005 with a D70 at night at ISO 1500!

 

It had a fault of shakiness, but new Photoshop features allowed me to minimize that so it could now be posted, and it has shot to the top of my rating list for the last several years.

 

Ratings have trended sharply downward, but who cares?  Kumquats, knitting yarn and balls of socks do not very well get rated together just as landscapes and 'street' photos do not rate together very well.

 

I'm glad to have viewers, and so many, many comments and aficionados like yourselves (G) and (V), who like my work and take time to tell me so.

 

It's for guys like you I shoot for and maybe soon contests, grants and galleries . . . . I 'm thinking big time.  It may never happen, if only for the lack of funds to pay entry fees.

 

But I shoot as though there are crowds milling around inspecting my work and thinking 'Is his work good; does it belong here, in this gallery; should we buy a copy?  Would this be considered good in 100 years.'  And often the answer is 'yes' so I keep on shooting, buoyed on by such wonderful comments as yours.

 

My very best thanks and wonderful wishes to you both.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)