Thrift Shop (Please View Large -- Locate Shop Owner in Back)

Please examine this "street photo" of a thrift shop -- and locate

the owner, customer and mannequin in the rear before rating. Your

ratings and comments are most welcome. This photo is full frame and

entirely unmanipulated. (Please honor me with a helpful and

constructive comment if you give a harsh or negative ratings/Please

share your superior knowledge to help improve my photography.)

Thanks and Enjoy! John ;~))

Good image, out of the "norm" trap in which photo.net is being buried.

Your comment is very much appreciated. If you have the time, a rating would also be appreciated. I have long felt that raters had a hard time with photos that had to be viewed "large" because they are first presented in a "thumbnail" instead of, say, a museum wall. It appears, to me, to be an inherent problem with Photo.net's format and probably irremediable for this type of photograph. John ;~)

JF has made a good comment about a potential norm trap. I think every major hub for the purpose of exchange will find itself pushed somewhere like that. On the other hand John Crosley's Thrift Shop is a norm breaker. The thrift shop subject itself is one reason for that. JC has portrayed it from an angle as if the viewer is coming in to the place. Therefore the whole place is visible but the viewer is confused. Just as in an actual thrift shop. There is action as a customer is moving, there is another customer in the back unnoticing and the owner behind the mannequin. Very documentary like and another good piece of work.

Hulki, another wonderful comment. Yours always seem to be right on, and when they make recommendations, I always listen to them. In this case, the photograph actually was taken through the front door glass window! One reason is that as a photographer (and even as a newsman) I always was concerned about disturbing people -- particularly so as a 'street photographer'. In this case, there probably was a bell rigged to the door, and opening the door would have caused the man in the right rear to turn around, and almost certainly would have destroyed this image opportunity. I have long considered this image one of my finest and most interesting photos, but the medium of PN does NOT show it off well. The process of shooting through the front door glass may have contributed to the distortions apparent at the fringes -- they didn't come from the lens alone. John

That "customer in the back, unnoticing" actually is a mannequin, far right, with a fur on her shoulders. But you couldn't tell that from this photo, because she's in shadows and because of distortion from shooting this through the storefront door window. It's exactly the mysteriousness of the surroundings, and the fact that your eye must wander around this vastly complicated photo that makes it so hard to present first in "thumbnail" size, and have anybody "get it". It's a favorite of mine, but to "get it" it MUST be Viewed LARGE. Does anybody have a problem with presenting photos that should be "viewed large" to be presented properly, for rating and critique, in a forum like this, as I think the forum, by its nature, inherently is biased against capturing views and allowing viewers to understand images such as this. What do you think?

For those of you who rated 6s and 7s, thank you so much. This is a "special" photo for me, and it involves some work to view it and understand it; something that some are unwilling to do, plus it's not to everyone's taste -- aesthetically or otherwise. When Administration fulfills its suggestion of periodically restoring ratings to rater's identity, I want to be able to thank you each personally. I was against divorcing rater identity from rating, as I felt it destroyed some of the "community" of Photo.net and felt that ratings also were for the members, not just for Photo of the Week and Administration purposes. Nevertheless, I have posted a temporary portfolio soon to be taken down and there are photos in there that it is clear many are not very fond of but I like, and I intend to post them permamently -- after all, it's my work and I'm showcasing it, and ratings are only numbers in the end, and I do shoot for myself primarily. I also am interested in communication, and the ratings often tell me how good a job I am doing in that regard, and the ability to identify the raters with the rating allow me to know how effectively I am doing that. J

This is so nostalgic for me. My great-grand Mother had a used furniture and curio shop at 1346 Pine during prohibition. I am staring at an old photograph of it right now. I know the smell and the look of these places in San Francisco since before I was born I think. It?s because I?ve looked at my Mom?s photographs since I was little and now I can't tell the difference between the actual memory and the image remembered from the photographs. I just found your portfolios and am enjoying them very much. More later. Thank you for posting these.

When I get a comment so meaningful as yours, it means I've captured the "essence" that I sought, and I consider it higher than any 7/7 that I could get. Thank you so much. Please enjoy my photographs. More to come in B&W Portfolio II. John.

Thrift shop fan, and been browsing around your work - great stuff! - too much to take in in one sitting in fact. Found your work via the thread on site fedback - posting there gets you noticed too but often not as you would desire ...lol

 

While sunsets and flowers have their charm on the trp its so nice to see some work with beef! something to look at and ponder ... not a rater nowadays - the comments are ultimately of way more value here imho, but am sure once you get your subscription in order there will be plenty of opps for those should you so wish.

 

fwiw - i generally dont like captions but yours are most readworthy.

You have been most charming to say the things you have said about my photographs and especially to make your note about "beef". I like taking photos of "pretty" things also, but strangely found when I did so, I couldn't pull a rating for my soul, even though to me such photos were wonderful. Maybe I didn't boost the saturation enough . . . ;-) (I don't do such things at all.) I happen to like to "capture" nature, rather than enhance it although don't look down my nose at those who do. I am just too busy taking "good" photos with photo opportunities springing up all around me to be busy manipulating them in some digital or other darkroom. That's if you belong to an art department of some ad agency, are tethered to a photo studio, or if you take or display only a few images and must "make do" in my view-- but it's only my view. John. Come on by anytime and flatter me any way you wish. And thanks for the nice mention about the captions -- it had never until yesterday been an issue, when i was informed they were 'trite' and 'pedantic'. Go figure. Gracias. ;-)) J

I've been browsing the French magazine 'Photo' dedicated to Henri Cartier-Bresson composed entirely of Magnum images of his entire life both of him, and of his images, and I think if one put this image smack in the middle of that text . . . . well . . . . it's the same uncanniness that mainly led me to put down my photographic career aspirations when I saw his huge traveling exhibition in San Francisco three decades ago -- about the time this photo was taken. John

This photo is dedicated to the memory of Henri Cartier-Bresson. I think he would have appreciated this one, as much or more than any of the photos in my portfolio. John

Attached is a detail of the three figures in the center - the owner, the mannequin head and the customer, all in the distant center (in case you didn't click on this 'large').

 

John

Wow... what can one say about this one. It's just simply wonderful, everything is sucking my eyes right into the face of the owner. Absolutely the first thing I saw, then as you take a step back you can see all the interesting details. Wandering thrift stores is a calling :) I think this is my favorite so far. I have a few more to go in the 3's presentation :)

Not so many wander through the 'Threes' Presentation, but it's interesting, isn't it?

 

And this photo really 'sucks you in' for sure.

 

The only problem with this photo is it must be shown 'real large' --- maybe huge in a gallary with people walking by, to have the real impact it should have because the shop owner is so small in the scheme of things.

 

I think presented 'large' it may be one of my very most interesting works; it violates much of my theme of 'simplicity' which pervade my photography (but who needs 'rules'?)

 

;-))

 

John

This image is so rich! I love images of interiors that cause you to search out the details for insights into the inhabitant's lives. This image has to be one of the best I've ever seen for this.

This interior is so 'busy' on first browse, it hardly seems 'worth the effort'.

 

However, it has a way of greatly rewarding the patient viewer.

 

And in case the viewer misses the point entirely, there is an inset in comments of the shop owner, customer and mannequin head, just for good measure.

 

Thanks for the very nice comment. It is one of my very favorite photos; although from an early time -- very long ago -- it has remained a favorite.

 

I took it through a closed door window -- hence some distortion. But the lens was set up against the window with my hand around the lens, barring extraneous light/reflections and shielded by a huge circular lens hood, also flush to the glass door front.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)