Retail: The Ideal and the Reality**+

'Retail: The Ideal and the Reality' is a photo not only of

contrasts, but also of elements that tie the two depicted 'subjects'

together. You might have to view with discernment to see what

elements tie the man and the depicted woman together. Your

ratings,comments and critiques are invited and most welcome. (If

you rate harshly or very negatively, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment/Please share your superior photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography). Thanks! John!

Did anybody take a look at the positioning of the hands and the arms of the two subjects?

 

This is a photo that is not 'pretty' in terms of making one 'feel good' -- after all it's partly a photo of a grimy street and the gritty life of a street vendor.

 

Nevertheless, it's one of my better captures, I think, for reasons suggested above, despite mediocre ratings. Any thoughts?

 

John

The first thing that struck me was that they are both gazing in the same general direction in a listening mode,chin on hand, as though there is a third person outside the frame. But so many interpretations can be made. Perhaps they are both dreaming about the ideal - she is, after all, only selling the dream and not necessarily living it. She looks whistful; he looks more stessed, anxious about how much he's going to sell today. Maybe he's wishing he could buy that dress for his wife. We can only use our imagination to build a story and project our own feelings and attitudes about a supposed situation. Things certainly look pretty dire for him. I assume this is somewhere in eastern Europe or thereabouts. It's a reminder of the disparity in our world. Where is this John, and what's your story? I find it interesting that so many would rate this but not one left a comment. It doesn't strike me as the kind of image one could view so objectively.

If you remember the Henri Cartier-Bresson photo of a boy looking upward along a wall in Valencia, Spain, it was much commented on e.g., what WAS the little boy looking at?, and some commentators made considerable speculation about that early H C-B image.

 

Later, the photographer himself answered the question: The boy was playing with a ball and his upward gaze was just looking for the ball.

 

I once was in a beginning psychology class that used rats as subjects in so-called Skinner Boxes named after famous psychologist B.F. Skinner who studied rat behavior in these boxes (He even put his newborn child into such a box/cage until the shouts of disapproval from academics and otherwise caused him to stop the 'experiment'. The psych class was called 'rat psychology', and we were asked as a first experiment to describe what the rats did.

 

I was befuddled. The rat ran, sat, walked, here and there in the cage, and eventually learned to take a sip of a drop from a little dipper. I described it much as I have in this paragraph.

 

Other students glamorized their rat's behavior: e.g. "He went to the left side, thought it over, had a change of feeling, got excited, ran around in circles three times with happiness and joy, etc. etc. etc.

 

The point of the experiment was to learn to write as I did naturally: The rat walked, ran, sat, and did various other things -- anthropomorphizing them was something that was somewhat fruitless.

 

Likewise with the H C-B photo, a little bit. As we now know, Robert Capa talked H. C-B from calling himself a 'surrealist photographer' in exchange for adopting the term 'photojournalist'.

 

H C-B knew his photos were 'surreal' a quality my photos sometimes share and wrote about long before I discovered that fact about H C-B.

 

Sometimes photos are best just looked at speculatively or within their four corners for the viewer's 'subjective' feelings.

 

(This is no knock about your very good comment, by the way, just an introduction to another part of your/my viewpoint.)

 

In this case I caught the man (who didn't want to be photographed) as he twisted somewhat.

 

But in doing so, he adopted a pose that essentially mirrored somewhat the pose of the woman in the advertising poster behind him, right down to the wrist at shoulder level and twisted hand.

 

That for me was the element that tied the two figures together graphically, as well as both 'subjects' having crossed legs.

 

Additionally, the woman's legs are at the 'intersection' of the frame of the poster, whereas the man's legs are bounded by the frame of the boxes of his makeshift 'counter' for his wares.

 

Those are the things I found more identical about these two.

 

In contrast, he's sitting in barebones chair, wearing aging 'track and field' garments with 'athletic' shoes, and obviously is at the lowest end of the retail spectrum -- barely above barter-- with a spring-activated scale for measuring the weight of his vegetable wares - something that would be forbidden in most western countries (because of their unreliability).

 

While he looks anxious, worried and dressed for another time (track suits are very much out of favor everywhere), she is stylish, attractive and appears somewhat relaxed. He is obviously not well-heeled; she's dressed in casually glamorous clothings in an idealized setting/he in griminess.

 

I passed this scene several times later, and recognized it only by the poster and the griminess (that's a contruction site in the back with the bills posted, indicating change from big money' behind him across the 'street'). In passing this scene, I never did see him again, and only knew of the scene by the presence of the billboard (I passed after 'retail' hours, so don't know if he returned regularly, or whether to that specific site).

 

I do know that a 'street market' I visited on a previous visit was nowhere to be found, but there was 'new construction' nearby, and wondered if the 'street market' disappeared because of that, or I just couldn't find it.

 

Locals told me that housing prices in that city of 1 million (which I presently am not identifying and I'm also not dating this photo's time of taking)had 'skyrocketed', possibly further aggravating his financial predicament.

 

I think the contrast is captured in the caption and you really did sense the quiet desperation in the man's face - his way of life as a 'street retailer' may indeed be numbered when the building across the way is finished and the detritus is cleared up.

 

Plus he hadn't much to sell in the first place.

 

When I post a photograph like this, I look within the four corners of the photograph to see if it makes 'internal sense' no matter what the circumstances.

 

See for instance, my very misleading photograph from my 'Early B&W' folder entitled 'Prospective Ukrainian Brides Meet Potential American Suitors' or similar title, which suggests the 'prospective brides' are performing 'oral sex' on their potential suitors -- a quite defamatory photo if taken as true.

 

Of course, that photo was completely misleading as explained in comments and the caption to that photo.

 

This photo is meant to be viewed within its four corners, as that one was.

 

As a viewer, you cannot know that the huge, new building in the rear (covered by a fence with bills) may put this guy out of business. Those are 'extrinisic facts' outside of the photo, better suited for a photojournalism story.

 

You state: 'We can only use our imagination to build a story and project our own feelings and attitudes about a supposed situation.'

 

That is the essence of how I think almost any photo should be viewed . . . and all the 'speculations' about 'attitudes' and 'supposed situation' is VERY INTERESTING, but the main question is what is in the four corners of the photo, and I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

Despite this discursive analysis about photo rating/criticism/anlysis in general, I think your analysis and comment is most astute, recognizing as it did the difference between 'four corners' analysis and 'subjective feelings' projections. Very astute, (and much more brief than this discursion).

 

Hannah, the fact is I take a lot of photos and a lot of chances in taking photos (with a commensurate number of discards), just to try to 'nail' a photo such as this, often not knowing until review at a later time whether I've 'got it' or not, and I do like this one.

 

I suspect the reason there were no 'takers' on critique and only modest ratings is that this is not an easy photo to 'like' -- it's hardly aesthetic in a traditional view, and it depends a lot on an intellectual dialog between the viewer's eye and some considerable, educated analysis (in the viewer's mind), and more than a lingering look -- more on the lines of a class assignment along the lines of 'How does this photo succeed and/or fail, and what is it that it tries to portray?'

 

I think few photonetters are so interested in 'street photography', and not so many are capable or interested in making the analysis you have made so succinctly.

 

Kudos to you for an excellent comment.

 

In many ways this photo for me is very much a success -- one that never will be 'liked' or 'likable' but still a 'success' and one I like very much -- more so than many of my more popular images.

 

I'm glad you stopped by.

 

John

Have you bought a D2X or are you pulling our legs?

Well enough to know that I don't deal in B.S., now don't you? I still carry a D70 everywhere, but found it only has about 40,000 exposures built into its expectancy, unlike the fancier DXXXX Nikon series cameras (D2Hs and D2X) which are very similar, and at least the D2X and (I think) the D2Hs have shutters based on the 'gold standard' -- the Nikon F5, which I adore.

 

Plus, the D2X will take all those manual focus lenses provided you dial in the basic mm and f/stop information just once (per focal length combination) and I have camera bags full of such lenses (although almost all had been converted to electronic coupling -- a very expensive process).

 

Matrix metering works with manual focus lenses in 'A' (aperture preferred) mode which is my preferred mode of shooting -- something that disappeared with the Nikon F5 and F100, and which frequently caused me to reach into my bag for my N8008s and F90s cameras (I have several of each, just because of their ability to focus with manual focus lenses.)

 

Now, with the D2X you get to use those lenses with 'matrix metering' which vastly improves their usefulness and the camera's usefulness compared to the F5, the F100 and the D70!!!

Here, near Silicon Valley, sometimes such cameras become 'available' sooner than their announcements would lead one to expect because of pre-testing -- they have to be compatible with all sorts of electronic equipment, not least of which is all the CF cards that are out there with manufacturers' headquarters just over the nearby mountains.

;-)

 

John

Great image with message. Regards

John, thanks for your in-depth response. I always enjoy a lesson in social studies. Funny you should mention the crossed legs. When I first looked I thought hers were crossed, but I think her right leg is actually behind the scale. What 'appears' to be her right leg is actually the left, and what 'appears' to be the left leg is a shadow of the bench leg. That's why I dismissed the cross-legged point about the similarities and why I felt she looked so much more relaxed. It is quite possible I'm hallucinating and feel free to tell me I'm wrong. It does add an ironic twist though, doesn't it, that we should each see something different in the actual elements of the poster?

A great Crosley - melting foreground and background into a mindsplitting unity.

 

The question I ask myself is:

 

Does that depict an inherent contradiction or a neccessary complement? And it is not meant on men and women.

For the life of me, I really can't tell about the woman's pose now that you point out your view -- and without going back and inspecting that transparancy, I'll never know (as if that would resolve it). Of course it's of little importance in the universal scheme, since it's the 'appearance' that matters, this being photography and all . . .

 

Somehow this photo 'means' more to me than a more casual but maybe more polished photo that may have more 'charm' and appeal, and I think I got it 'right'.

 

Thanks for the very nice and attentive feedback.

 

John

Yes, Alexander, I do love the task of 'comparing and contrasting' the foreground and background into something that has meaning, both intellectually and photographically.

 

But your observation that it is a 'mindsplitting unity' leaves me floored and the further question you posed:

 

'Does that depict an inherent contradiction or a neccessary complement? And it is not meant on men and women.'

 

Is totally irresolvable in my mind and also mindnumbing to me. (I just take the photos).

 

Your analyses continue to be among the very best on Photo.net.

 

You are far too infrequent a visitor here.

 

John

From my perspective, some people could be critical about the technical attributes of this image. In other words, they could find the flaws. However, from an artistic street photogrpahy perspective there are no flaws. It is up to the viewer to decide which is most important.

I'll apply Photoshop CS's Shadow/Highlight filter to the man to see if the image can be improved. I had to 'enhance' the billboard which came out with 'digital haze' as it is getting to be known, by selecting and enhancing the contrast somewhat to bring it more to what I saw in real life (restorative work -- not creative work in Photoshop is what I allow myself).

 

As to the guy, and the use of shadow/highlight filter in Photoshop CS, that's elementary work any ages old darkroom tech would have allowed him/herself and which I simply overlooked -- your comment about deficiencies caused me to re-evaluate my posting for technical proficiency, and I think I can do better in a few days.

 

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

I regard this as one of my more fortuitous captures and worthy of further work.

 

John

This image has been reposted with shadows of the man lightened somewhat in Photoshop shadow/highlight adjustment. In the process, the man's image was 'sharpened' somewhat, as it turned out he was slightly moving in this low-speed capture, and had some 'motion blur' (not out of focus).

 

If you previously have viewed this iamge, you may need to 'refresh' your browser to view it as reposted.

 

John