Newly Renovated Rooms for Old Souls -- San Francisco Long Before Any Real Estate Boom

This is what near downtown San Francisco once looked like; a time

when I could ride the cable car to work without paying $5.00 one way

or waiting with hundreds of tourists only at one end or the other,

and the cable car gripmen practiced rhythmic chiming of bells for

their annual contest. Your ratings and critiques are invited and

most welcome. (If you rate harshly or very negatively, please honor

me by submitting a helpful and constructive critique/Please share

your superior knowledge to help improve my photography). (I probably

could have bought the whole hotel with 75 or so rooms and 8 or so

floors for $40.000 -- those were the days, but alas I made $135 a

week.)

You just don't see images like this every day. I really like the placement of the sign in relation to the men. It allows my eye to flow right into the image. The sense of time and place is strong in this shot. The only thing that I can find distracting is the reflection in the upper right of the image. Thanks for sharing this glimpse into the past.

 

- Randy

Randall, I found this old photo, show quality, in some boxes with a few others -- some worthy of posting -- others not.

 

It has a timeless quality about it, doesn't it, emblematic of another day, another time based on dress and building characteristics.

 

But isn't it just symbolic of what happens to the aged in our society at present -- their relatives shunt them off to nursing homes; this is a SRO (single room occupancy) hotel, so far as I can tell, renting out single rooms for long term -- often until they die, and they each had a hot plate and sink (for washing and nightime urination if truth be told, according to one present-day owner I heard speak), and a 'real' bathroom down the hall.

 

About the 'distracting' reflections, one is a passing bus rear end, but if you look carefully you will see a theater marquee and the word in Capital letters CREENS, making me believe this 'hotel' was located just off of Market Street -- San Francisco's then and now main drag.

 

I only then had a 'normal' lens with me, or I might have framed it differently, but those days a 'normal' 50 or 55 mm lens was about all that was necessary to make a good photograph.

 

It is, even today, despite so many 'street' photographer who employ very wide angle lenses, which have the ability to make a crowd appear to have separation between individuals and allow for 'close-up' shooting with very great depth of field, obviating the need to focus much in most normal light.

 

This one just 'had to be' posted, in this folder.

 

Come back again, your comment was a textbook example of a 'good Photo.net comment' and might even serve as a template or example for those who don't know how to comment, or do so clumsily.

 

Respectfully, (and I didn't look to see if or how you rated, as it is superfluous when you leave a comment such as this.)

 

John

I just love this photo. I knew from the thumbnail I was going to like this. Firstly the eye reads the "newly renovated" sign and then is drawn up and along the line of gentlemen who look like they require renovation themselves and then thirdly the eye moves over to the fascinating reflections - the telephone booth and the corner establishment. I found myself trying to read the cinema(?) sign - is it "sreens?" - and also liked the double reflection of the phone booth sign enabling us to read that normally or effectively unmirrored (is there such a word?)

 

What I like most though is that it fires my imagination making me wonder about the life going on at that time around that area, how it must have felt to be there in that utterly different era and what were the stories of these old boys. This makes it a truly interactive picture for me and the kind of thing I would enjoy on the wall. I simply cannot understand the low ratings, few comments and views so far, maybe it will do better in the long run (not that it really matters), it seems people enjoy mating insects and endless over(satu)rated vertical landscapes rather than wonderful street photography. Still there's no accounting for taste. I recently glanced upon a survey here in Britain where Cartier-Bresson came out as the favorate by quite some margin, so clearly people like street photography just not so much on photo.net. Actually come to think of it the survey was was conducted on the 'cognoscenti' such as other well known photographers, critics, artists etc.

 

ps I was looking for your reflection, are you there or am I imagining it?

 

Have you noticed your next photo posted will be your 500th? Congratulations in advance!

 

Best Regards,

 

Miles.

Sorry John, just noticed your comment on reflections and "screens." Too often I jump right in without reading what's above. Your accompanying description is most charming. Good photos and words make a great combination.

Miles, whenever I see your name, I know the critique will be thoughtful. And it needn't be congratulatory, as this one, but just helpful is also welcome, as I certainly am far from the best shooter on Photo.net.

 

When I posted this I was not sure if it would get extremely high ratings or very mediocre ratings, because it is a more complex photo, from another time and emblematic of a time, place and circumstance, but somewhat sombre, and obscure (as in camera obscura, meaning 'dark' as opposed to 'hard to read or understand').

 

It's easily understood, or course, but it's difficult to envision in thumbnail and many Photo.net viewer are new to photography and younger, not so interested in 'classical' 'street' photography, as I was from the first for reasons I still don't know, and I can't denigrate them for overlooking this more complex photo.

 

But I am somewhat proud of it, having found it in a box that I thought had been discarded carelessly by someone, along with others, some of which are mere 'snapshots, and a few others of which will be posted, as they are 'interesting' I think.

 

And, this photo is more of the genre of your 'street' photos, showing several planes or a foreground through background look, and drawing the viewer's eye through the photograph. See, for instance, my photograph 'Sweat Shop Girl', of a little girl, in front of a dimly lit sweatshop next door to San Francisco's financial district. Viewers continually click on that just to view the interior of the sweat shop, I am sure, as it has a continuing higher number of views than other photos, and it also draws the viewers' interest, as well as being more complex and telling a story.

 

Ratings in general are more interesting when one joins Photo.net and in general it also is interesting to 'reduce everything to a number' kind of like sports fans reduce baseball, basketball and American football to statistics. I once knew a man at Associated Press's photo library who was a virtual encyclopedia of every sports figure's statistics -- a true statistic afficionado, who also seemed to like the games, but truly he was more interested in the statistics than anything.

 

I am interested in photography, and the statistics are my encouragement. I like nice ratings (who doesn't), but I am not a slave to them, and will post lots of photos and just not request a critique if I think they will not be well received but I want to post them anyway, or I want to share them. People will look at them or not as they will, and many of those photos have an extraordinary number of views, and some were posted for critique and couldn't draw a single rating -- but grouped together in a folder draw a very large number of views and several of such folders are in the top 1,000 for the year.

 

Even this folder has 25 or so photos for which critique has never been requested, including my very best photograph now with over 30,000 views and a large number of critiques (also my highest scores on critiques, so the raters aren't always wrong, in my opinion.)

 

There is a general relationship between rating, particularly those who troll the portfolios and rate, and the general merit of photos, and I know that when I hit a portfolio to rate, I will choose those photos that 'speak to me' for rating, even if there may be some work that is stunning but more usual, and thus not particularly original though extraordinarily well-executed.

 

So, the ratings system is flawed, but it is helpful and keeps interest up, and the 'view' counter is also helpful, as it gives general feedback.

 

For myself, I look at 'groups of photographs' -- usually my last six posted -- to see the views and ratings, rather than any one particular photograph, to see if I am on a particular path and whether I want to keep on that path in posting, and that keeps me honest enough and unencumbered by the ratings trap. So if a photo gets 1,200 views, another get 3,000 views, but another gets 12,000 views and the rest get 4,000 views apiece, that all averages out. Same with ratings.

 

So, I post what I want, and just go take photos, often original photos, and in a variety of styles, pleasing myself and challenging myself. I just like to look through a viewfinder and find something new and different. That's all. And if I get something that's interesting and/or pleasing to me, I like to share (and see if anybody can pick up on what it is that caused my interest).

 

You are always welcome here, and I hope someday again we will meet. I am most happy I introduced you to this community; I feel that especially your 'street' shooting has a higher place and that as you develop it, you have many places to go because your best work not only is good, but it grows on one (me), and ultimately I think is publishable.

 

I don't know about your career or life plans, but if photography is in them, it should be encouraged -- including 'street' photography.

 

With warm wishes,

 

John (Crosley)