color -- then and now Morning Scene (Kiev)

A Ukrainian Man leaves his 'garage' after locking it before the day

begins and returns to his Mercedes to drive away outside of Kiev in

the early morning. Note the colorful, but rudimentary 'garages',

newfound in a culture that for over 70 years reserved cars for the

ministers and other Party officials. Now they're available to

anyone with money and beginning to choke the streets. Your ratings

and critiques are most welcome. Please submit a helpful and

construtive comment if you rate harshly or very negatively/Please

share your superior knowledge to help advance my art. Thanks.

Enjoy! ;~)) John.

This one is photojournalism John. It can be used to talk about the social issues in Kiev. For my part, I find it interesting that everyone has a locked and seperate garage. The place seems like a parking lot but then why have seperate garages? Since they are all painted differently and without a particular order - they were most probably built/comissioned by each car owner. So why not have a common lot out in the open then? Is this a thievery rampant issue? Or is this a social-psyche guard against what you own - a sort of prized posession ultimate ownership mindset? And the contrast John, the guy's got a Mercedes but the places looks so shabby. In fact the colors in this sense are ironic. And your choice of photographing the scene over rooftops has placed the me (the viewer) in a strictly third person point-of-view. This way I am tempted to approach the scene as an outsider with personal (biased?) judgments. Perhaps you have felt an outsider in the city too..

I once was a journalist and its instincts are in me, but I became a journalist because of my photography, not a photographer because of the journalist. Photography of this sort preceded and caused me to become a journalist long ago.

 

As to the social aspects, car ownership was generally forbidden in the U.S.S.R., except for various top ministers. The 'state' owned everything and 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability' except that some were more privileged than others -- especially if there were influential relatives, wives, family, friends who were cultivated, and on the other hand, a neighbor who envied your apartment might turn you into the KGB (state police) and you might 'disappear' into a gulag (prison camp) and then never reappear, ever. The neighbor would get your apartment (and relief from living in a shared, cramped room with relatives) as a 'reward'.

 

When the Ukraine, Russia and the remaing republics of the U.S.S.R. became separate states in about 1991 when the U.S.S.R. fell apart, private ownership became possible, but there was no tradition of private ownership.

 

So, some people, often 'criminals' became very rich very fast. Why 'criminals'? Anybody who did 'business' in the former U.S.S.R. was automatically a 'criminal' and subject to imprisonment. If caught doing business in the U.S.S.R., they were imprisoned with the run of the mill criminals.

 

The 'business criminals' had to work with other 'criminals', and they formed alliances, and those alliances stayed after the fall of the U.S.S.R. There were rewards in taking cheaply from the citizens, the distributions of 'state property' that was to be given the 'citizens', who suffered much privation.

 

The property could be purchased for pennies on the dollar, or simply stolen and billionaries were created.

 

Friendships or criminality created various monopolies in business and a few clever ones became fabulously rich overnight. (A few others in Russia ended up with their cars bombed if they refused niggardly buyout offers by former partners.) There were no anti-monopoly laws, because previously there had been no business at all.

 

So, owning a Mercedes was a sign of having 'arrived' as were 'jeeps' which were the generic name for Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) which are coveted very much in Russia (I don't know about Ukraine).

 

There is little municipal planning, as everything is growing like 'topsy' where it grows and everything is subject to some 'corruption' or influence peddling. Growth is where there is money and money fuels everything for the rich -- money seems to cut red tape for the rich; even for the traffic cops -- on my last taxi ride, according to my driver who was stopped and came back muttering about $10 dollars fine for 'nothing' before he had even started to drive.

 

So, yes, I barely speak a few words of Russian and am an outsider in Kiev. My hotel/motel overlooked this garage set in Borispol, suburb outside of Kiev, where I bought breakfast for about $1.27, and it was good (if greasy), and the nice room was cheap -- quite different than Kiev proper, and finally the taxi ride to the airport for the ride home was $3, instead of the $15.00 to get there from the airport. Contrasts abound.

 

And, notice in this photo, taken from an outside walkway, that the garages form a triangle.

 

I waited for the figure of the man to be outlined by the whiteness of the garage next to the one he locked, for good silhouette.

 

This photo is far more complicated than raters give credit for, but that's what this site is about, and no fault to the rating sytem.

 

I live for a thoughtful comment like yours -- it brightened my day.

 

Thank you.

 

John

Back in 1995 when I was in the third year of studying international relations, I had a teacher named Paul Kubicek. He was an American citizen of Polish descent that was teaching us in Istanbul for a period of several years. In one of his classes, we used to argue whether it would be the Eastern European states or the Latin American ones to grow faster and to get better in the next 10 years.

 

We were actually split. Some said that the recent developments (at the time) in LatAm with market economy and democracy was an important base to start from. Others were convinced that LatAm had relatively weak founations for stability whereas the East Europeans with their high education level and proximity to Europe could surpass within the time frame.

 

10 years later and through lots of ups and downs in my region -- I am convinced that for all its worth "the people" matter the most. Of course "a system" is inevitable and "a superstructure" in this or that form will prevail. But it is only with properly educated people who have some common sense and operate in a "conductive" superstructure that societies achieve stable growth and betterment. I actually know litte about Ukraine but I've seen that "with a little help" East Europeans could do it to a degree. And now I believe that I should help my environment to be more like that than LatAm.

 

Thanks a lot for stimulating my thought process. It is a wonderful experience to combine this exercise with visual delight.

I'm convinced that a stable legal and social structure is the key. China does not have a highly educated populace yet look at its rate of growth. It's 'normalized' everything. Where Eastern Europe may shine is in the level of entrepreneurship that might come from the former 'criminal' sector (businessmen who were suppressed under Soviets), but they have VERY bad habits and use wrong means to further their goals under the governments of Ukraine, Russia, and the former Soviet Republics. (other, Satellite states are different).

 

The satellite states are bound to thrive with their proximity to Europe, but Russians and Ukrainians muse that it will be another 40 years -- old habits , drinking culture, poor infrastructure, etc. die hard.

 

One good note: The government of Ukraine has seen its poor road from Odessa to Kiev is a disaster and thrown its soldiers and military headlong into finishing soon a superhighway between the two and there are literally thousands of pieces of heavy equipment and thousands of soldiers along the route -- with a promise essentially economically to unify the country, much as the Interstate Highway System unified America.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary.

 

John

Looking back, I think this photo is very highly underrated -- no blame or upset, just that its symmetry and the silhouetted figure of the man, I think, are worthy of higher rating than the mid 4s, but I hear that mainly new members rate photos, and what do most really know about rating anyway?

 

Anonymous ratings have been a 'mixed bag', bringing fewer headaches to the Administration, but with fewer experienced members and subscribers doing the rating, the rating falls on the less experienced and (by definition) the less able (on average) -- complaints of mate-rating, etc., by established members/subscribers notwithstanding.

 

Anyway, I think the rating process is 'curious' but one shouldn't live for 'high ratings' as some agency and assignment photographers take photos that wouldn't even get a '4' on this site, and they're prize-winners and make a good living from their craft. This site excels in showcasing photos that do well in 'thumbnail first' presentation, and therefore which have compressed elements such as strong composition and heavy Photoshopping, which seems essential for web presentation when a photo is competing for views with say, 1,600 in the 'average' daily upload of new photos.

 

But images don't usually live in 'galleries' such as Photo.net's, and sometimes an image must first be viewed 'large' where only a small detail can make it outstanding, and that detail may not even show (or be noticed) on thumbnail and the people who might rate it highly won't click on it in the first place.

 

Reflections on rating, in the New Year.

 

John

 

The need for the extensive explanation of the mysterious Mercedes makes this a failure as a photo. It communicates nothing. It is a 'nice' composition, but it has no real meaning. Simply put, there is no context.

 

You claim to be a journalist. Journalism is about context, content, detail, not mystery.

 

Your 'Early Black and White' photo, "I'm so happy...." is great, and has context, as so many of the others from that era also have, but a lot of the later work is, well, I don't know how to describe it. Just let me say that you can do better.

Sometimes photos don't need to communicate anything.

 

When was the last time you got a communication from a sunset or a photo of a beautiful mountain, or for that matter from a 'street photo'.

 

I can do different, but this is a pretty good damn photo, because of its use of geometry and placement and the mention of the Mercedes is merely incidental -- it is the small triangle he is standing in that frames him with the multi-color buildings that is the photo (without regard to the Mercedes), plus catching him in mid-stride, forward leaning (it takes some skill) with a light background to silhouette him.

 

Don't sell this photo short on aesthetics.

 

Photos don't always have to have meaning and the mere mention of a political-social context for this photo is a distraction that you have leaned too heavily on in your interpretation: concentrate on the photo, not the commentary.

 

Later:

 

I've been through your folders and portfolio -- you've got some wonderful things - glance in my top rated photos gallery and you might recognize Jumbo. I don't think he has any 'social commentary' other than the absurdity of life and its incongruities, but that's enough for me. Great photo well taken.

 

Why don't you search out for meaningless photos, one that is titled 'Circles and Arrows' -- I love that photo and it has passed by without comment -- you are entitled to hate it, but would you have 'seen' it?

 

(with good humor)

 

John

I was glancing through photos of Henri Cartier-Bresson and noticed that he sometimes liked just to 'catch' someone in a position of light and dark -- just an outline (since he worked primarily in black and white) (although he also dabbled in color and cinematography, though not well and tried to destroy some color work).

 

So, my critic above, who thinks this is not my 'best' work or somehow not 'strong' should look at the attached work of H C-B and others from the Magnum photography agency site, some found in his books and otherwise. H C-B didn't always take 'great' photos as a browse of ALL his photographs available will show, though his photographs in books almost all are . . . . but he took photos many of which are more on the order of this one . . . (but I'm not really comparing myself or this photograph to the master . . . merely suggesting that there is more to this photograph and its posting than might appear to my critic above (who takes wonderful photos himself).

 

John

I'm suggesting my photo is more a 'minor chord' or a few notes to the 'major chord' of the photograph posted above, as my style differs, and I have much to learn from the master . . . but I wouldn't withdraw the posting of this photograph.

 

John

While I agree that the very best photographs are those that stand in need of nothing, if we disqualify those that benefit from some explanation, there will be a lot fewer photographs to enjoy. If we stipulate that some explanation is OK, the rest is just placing the line. For me, this shot is on the acceptable side of the line, especially if I think of it in terms of a travel shot, where it and accompanying text work together to illustrate a place I will never see.

John, I enjoyed seeing this shot and reading the commentary. A detail of the shot I particularly like is how he's in mid-stride, leaning forwards, clearly implying his motion. So maybe it's a diminished chord, needing only its context for resolution.

A diminished chord is all this photo ever was intended to be . . . and all the explication is just surplusage . . . my 'comments' are more of a 'free for all' and a place for 'discussion' among photographers and friends (oftentimes they overlap, I find), and the photographs offer a free platform for the discussions that often accompany them. You didn't need to know about how to park a Mercedes in Kiev to appreciate this 'minor' photograph and the small triangle it encompasses, and its early, pre-dawn colors with its man in motion -- that is just surplusage, but interesting surplusage -- I think one of the reason people feel they can visit these pages and not feel disappointed (with one notable exception, above).

 

John

 

No comment goes unnoticed or disregarded here, unless it's absurd, and Ian's above, was not. Ian somehow suggested that I was not taking photos up to my 'old standard' and he was simply disregarding that I am now taking a different type of photograph -- not the photographs of a 22-year-old with great mobility but those of a far older man with a bad knee, feet and so on, who often uses a zoom telephoto and needs to zero in on the subject.

 

A Leica carried with a wide angle will result in one sort of photo while a Nikon with a telephoto will result in another sort - it's almost a corollary (regardless of actual brand) (substitute rangefinder and SLR for brand names).

 

And I've shown to myself that I can replicate the 'styles' of older years simply by using a prime lens or a wide angle lens and taking 'contextual' photographs 'at will' -- just place a prime lens on a camera and try to include the whole scene. Sometimes I do that with a scene using a telephoto at 'prime lens' setting, then zoom in for a closer examination.

 

What Ian M. was criticizing above was not my photographic ability, I think, but that he is disappointed I was not posting photos like he thought I was taking in a previous time.

 

But I was taking then as now photos like this also sometime for 'stock photo, and now am taking photos 'contextual' photos like I was taking then -- but they are simply rare because such contextual photos must be exquisite to meet my requirements.

 

Perhaps Ian didn't look at my photo of two workers, one with jackhammer, both bent over near/in Bangkok, or the man under the Coca-Cola poster, both figures (poster figure and man underneath) with corollary smikles, which I think favorably compares with anything of Cartier-Bresson (viewers seen to like it 55,000 views worth in B&W and Color -- about my second most viewed photo), as well as the tatooed man, all taken in a day or so in Bangkok where I was looking for 'contextual' photos.

 

I have differing styles and can turn them on or off as I choose or as I feel the 'context' requires for its best explication.

 

I think it must be easy to be an 'expert' in one field and have no other way to take photos -- and thus be pigeon-holed.

 

When I practiced law I had a variety of expertises, but thus could not hold myself out as a 'specialist' as I did not 'specialize' since I had numerous 'expertises' -- from oil and gas price' law, tort law, Social Security claims, real property (first in class with a prize), contracts (second in class), and so forth, ever searching for new expertise, to keep it interesting.

 

It's the same with photography -- there's so much to learn - so little time.

 

Ian is one of the best photographers on Photo.net and I value his opinion highly, but he overstepped, possibly without knowing it or knowing the reason why.

 

All it takes to take photos of the sort he praises is to put a pair of shoes on, throw down my crutches (hallelujah Lord!), get out there awalking, fix a 50 mm or wide angle lens on my camera with some B&W Tri-X film and go shooting away.

 

He'd never know the difference one decade to the next, except I'm more accomplished now and much more versatile.

 

John (Crosley)

Ian, for you I took up the challenge (self-imposed) and reverted to the 'old' style for part of a day. Here is the result. Hope you 'like' it; it's up to MY standards.

 

Best,

 

John