'I LOVE My Dog'

'I LOVE My Dog' seems to mean different things to different viewers.

I'm interested in your 'take' on this image. Your rating 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 knowledge to help improve my photography).

Thanks! Enjoy! John

John, I've come to recognize your style without seeing your name. My immediate reaction before reading your comment was: what is going on here? Is he picking the dog up to carry him across the road, or to put him at the curb to do his 'business'. Or is he just feeling the need to give the dog a reassuring cuddle. I reckon he's spotted the friendly photographer and has asked you to take a portrait shot of the two of them, and I look forward to the results. Whatever the case, I'm glad to see he's a responsible doggie daddy and has his plastic bag at the ready.

John Fante published a book named "The dog who loved men", well, this is the man who loves dog. And, yes, my take is that he's fu**ing his dog. But maybe it's me being a pervert :)

 

The photo is funny, bad for that cadaver-colored pole coming out from the back, but I think this is the case where you need to accept compromises to take the shot.

John, your sense of humour is refreshing and mischievous.

 

It's not easy to make people laugh out aloud with a photo but I'm sure that's what's occurred here more than just a few times. I actually think your work is often quite 'commercial' and I mean that in the best possible and respectful way.

 

You are the master of the good caption by the way.

 

Regards,

 

Miles.

Hanna,

 

This shot of this poor guy actually was picking up his dog to give him a hug from the rear just like this but without looking sideways as I was stopped at the light he was also stopped for as he waited to cross the street and he spontaneously hugged his dog, picking him up, mysterously from the rear.

 

The first frame didn't show his face; the second (here) showed him staring blankly, and the third showed him as he spied my photographing him through my open (right) car window.

 

Not much chance to frame this catch, but what a wonderful opportunity to catch a man in a candid moment.

 

(Nice of you to notice the pooper bag in his back pocket - I hadn't noticed it.)

 

I didn't know my 'style' showed through so much -- maybe it's my 'puckish' sense of candid humor (or just the willingness to post the candid moment.)

 

John (Crosley)

I saw the movies 'The Man Who Loved Women' in the English and French versions and like the French version better (I actually LIKE French films, like 'A Very Long Engagement' which was very, very good and had a heroine who limped).

 

Well, this is a man who loved his dog, but in this case, it's platonically, and no, he's not engaged in street 'relations' with his dog, and no I'm not 'fu**ing with you.

 

Thanks for commenting.

 

John

Miles, the significance or the double - 'entendre' if you will, of this one escaped me, until I showed it to someone and they said 'oh the guy screwing the dog? and I had to rethink my entire photograph, as I had seen it unfold and it was entirely nonsexual. But the viewer had seen it with fresh eyes and had opened my eyes to what I should have seen -- and perhaps had seen inchoately.

 

In any case, I did see the 'sexual' or the 'love' aspect of it and the confusion between the two even if not the 'overtly sexual' look of it - just the bizarre grasp, which grabbed me and which I in turned grabbed with my lens.

 

Thanks for your kudo about my captions; I put some thought into them; one has to walk a fine line with a photo like this.

 

;~)

 

John

(My best to you, by the way)

 

 

Perhaps the photo evokes the question "Does my Dog love me?" The canine doesn't look particularly excited about the encounter. Nice quick capture, and the plastic bag in the pocket does add nice balance. Cheers.

And the plastic bag in the pocket keeps this from being more, shall we say, pornographic? It's more clear that he's just taking his dog for a walk. For the life of me, some people see this is a bestiality shot and I didn't see that until just before I posted that, when somebody remarked on it, and of course then I understood it was more than a little ambiguous. Funny about such things, hunh?

 

John

I thought this may amuse: it's a guy from my hometown (not me I hasten to add)

 

Extract from the Yorkshire Evening Post:

 

"A drunk who claimed he had been raped by a dog was yesterday jailed for 12 months by a judge. Martin Hoyle, 45, was arrested by police after a passing motorist and his girlfriend found a Staffordshire bull terrier, called Badger, having sex with him at the side of a road in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire.

 

Prosecutor Ben Crosland said the couple had stopped to help because they thought Hoyle was being attacked by the animal. But when they got closer they saw that he had his trousers round his ankles, was down on all fours and the dog was straddling him from behind.

 

"The defendant mumbled something about the dog having taken a liking to him," said Mr Crosland. "The couple were extremely offended and sickened by what they saw." Another passing motorist contacted the police and Hoyle was arrested as he walked with the dog down the road.

 

Hoyle, of East view, Marsh, Huddersfield, told police "I can't help it if the dog took a liking to me. He tried to rape me."

 

He repeated the ra pe allegation at the police station and added "The dog pulled my trousers down." Hoyle, who has had a long-standing alcohol problem, was jailed for 12 months after he admitted committing an act which outraged public decency.

 

His barrister said Hoyle had no memory of the incident because of his drunken state, but was now very remorseful and incredibly embarrassed.

 

Jailing him, Judge Alistair McCallum told Hoyle "Never before in my time at the bar or on the bench have I ever had to deal with somebody who voluntarily allowed himself to be buggered by a dog on the public highway. Frankly it is beyond most of our comprehension. It is an absolutely disgusting thing for members of the public to have to witness

No comment.

 

That story speaks for itself.

 

Or I'm just speechless.

 

I just took a photo, I thought, of a guy very affectionately hugging his dog.

 

John

If I had 'drawn back' and left more area around the margins (which I couldn't since I was shooting from a driver's seat through the right passenger window), I could have left more of the lamp/light pole to which traffic signs might have been affixed.

 

To that pole might have been affixed a sign: 'Do Not Enter!'

 

That might even have been accomplished by Photoshop (for posting in the comments section only, of course, since I don't post 'gimmicks' for portfolio photos).

 

;~))

 

John

That would be just too funny John.

Very funny! Picture & title & comments above!

I just re-read all the comments and had a big belly laugh.

 

It's been a while since I took and posted this shot, but it still is a show-stopper for people browsing my photos.

 

(I watch them do that from time to time, and it's amazing how each person will pick out entirely different photos from others; but some photos appeal to everybody . . . . )

 

This is one of them that appeals just to some people (others pretend to ignore it.)

 

Thanks for giving me a chance to re-read the wonderful comments -- and the story quoted by Ben A. above.

 

Who said Photo.net was humourless?

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

Notice the low number of ratings and the very low ratings, yet this photo is unique; I doubt if another one exists.

 

And it's very well viewed, despite such low ratings.

 

There's a lesson there.

 

Ignore the ratings for certain photos -- ones that people vote 'against' because it offends them for some reason or they are not the ones who will jump ahead to click on that particular photo because it has some special 'charm' -- as I think this one has.

 

With the new re-ordering software, I may put it at the head of its folder . . . .

 

Heh, heh, heh, (and I thought of that before you posted your remark -- just after I found out about the new photo re-ordering software Patrick H. has just given all us members > go to Options under 'folder' and look for the 're-order photos' command and watch what happens to the photos; then click and drag a single photo throughout your folder. It's bound to keep me busy for a week or so, with some 950 photos or so posted.

 

My thanks to you for your post.

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for your replies!!! Also thank you for the tip of rearranging photos in folders! Whenever I was uploading new pictures from my computer, I was thinking which one to choose, in order to have a greater impact over the visitors. If you post many many photos (as you have, for example), grouped (or not) in different folders, people tend to have patience to view mostly the first ones from the top. The interest in watching them decreases while scrolling down the mouse. Isn't it?

 

I've learned this lesson too, as I'm not so old on this site: not to bother about the low ratings! I've seen masterpieces here rated with 3/3 by many dumb annonimous visitors. That's why I took the courrage to rate your picture with my signature. It seems so far to be the only one. If you want me to explain my rating, please ask. I'm eager to discuss on photographic matters. I decided to rate no more annonimously, no pictures on pn. I prefer to take the responsability of my opinion.

 

I discovered real artists of image here, to whom I'm thankfully for the opportunity to learn something great. And you are one of them...

 

Best regards,

 

Mirona

Don't get carried away with re-ordering your photos; the point is to keep taking more and better photos and making sure they appear at the top (front) of your folder so people will know it's new material.

 

Return visitors and raters will tend to look for 'new' stuff after one visit, so it's best to have a protocol for placing new photos that visitors will understand, and what is more 'understandable' than the old way (which has been incorporated into the new re-ordering software after an initial misstep).

 

And of course, ratings mean something, and overall they're pretty good, but there are numerous exceptions.

 

Long ago, someone posted secretly under his folder some photos of Henri Cartier-Bresson and they got very poor rates!

 

Now, he almost got kicked off of Photo.net, but he made a very good point.

 

The 'master of street photography' and probably its 'inventor' would have been low-rated on this service.

 

I keep that in mind and also mine the wealth of photo magazines which are available in the US in various bookstores such as Borders and Barnes and Noble -- just pick up a stack that might sell for $100 and buy a container of orange juice or a cup of coffee and go to the cafe and read them.

 

You can get quite an education reading B&W Magazine, Lenswork, and many others.

 

I read a bunch of them, and instead of buying 'important literature' which I wouldn't read anyway, I just pick up a pile of those magazines and view them.

 

They all contain a wealth of photography that would never be shown on Photo.net.

 

From the outset my vision was beyond Photo.net; but I was unwilling to say so for fear of being considered too 'egotistical,' but my dreams and ambitions are bearing fruit - I'm being encouraged for gallery representation and toward publication. And I have a heavyweight or two in my corner -- one is the master printer for the late Helmut Newton (maybe I should write 'former master printer) and numerous others, including Sally Mann, Time Magazine's named 'Photographer of the Year 2001 (I think, or perhaps it was 2003 -- I can't find an immediate reference tonight).

 

Also a printer for at least one movie star photographer so famous I won't name that person for fear the blogs and expose magazines will be tipped off.

 

He is just stupendous in his ability to see; and he imparts some of that to me about my own images (my dream come true. . . . ).

 

You have to be for now your own best photo editor, so it is best to understand your own work not only in the fishbowl of Photo.net but also within the larger world of photography and art.

 

I always was aware my photography was an 'odd' thing for Photo.net and initially it (and me) were not particularly popular.

 

I think my willingness to comment on my own work and reply to inquiries of members have helped me to become more popular (at least among some, with some others I think a little jealous -- but of what, I'm truly unsure, as I don't poach on anybody's territory).

 

Just take good, interesting photos, and you'll do well; and don't copy anybody else's photos or style -- sure, learn from them, but don't copy them or try to become them.

 

Your hope is in creating and developing your own 'voice' to communicate with your viewers, and it helps to have a 'coherent' voice.

 

John Peri who is famous here for shooting 'glamour' also shoots 'children' but doesn't post most of that work for fear of confusing the two.

 

I shoot in a variety of genres, but don't post any glamour work I do for fear it will 'take away' from what I consider my 'strong points'. Any photo of a naked or partially clothed woman will be seen by many as reason enough to click on a photo, whereas one needs more motivation to click on my photos.

 

Nudity = views, and many rates, but not always high rates as there is a protest vote.

 

Learn what you do well and you feel good at and do that, and keep experimenting until you know you don't want to take other styles/genres of photographs.

 

If you take interesting photos, you'll be successful. Most people are 'curious' by nature when they see 'interesting' photos.

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I love the photos you stumble upon. Always refreshing to stop by.

 cg

I love 'em too.

Imagine being stopped at a traffic signal (light) seeing this guy pick up his dog's rear end so affectionately, having time to use power controls to roll down the passenger side window, then use a camera with an 80-200 mm f 2.8 lens to capture the moment, all the while leaning over the empty passenger seat AND waiting for the light to change.

Ya gotta be quick, but a moment like this is a treasure to be savored, again and again.

I was sad one day to hear someone refer this photo as the one in which the guy is *ucking his dog.  I didn't see it that way at all, though now I can of course.

To each his/her own, |I guess.  I saw it as a moment of great (and rarely shown) affection for man and beast -- definitely not something you'd find n a vintage Danish hard core movie.

My best to you, and thanks for the comment for this 'oldie but goodie'.

I guess it's got perpetual life, which is the whole point of capturing these moments.  Which means that it never really will be old at all, but will endure in its youth - the man always will be embracing his dog no matter when you look at this photo,and doing so in the most loving and selfless way.

For so long as this photo exists.

That's the purpose of preserving these moments.

john

John (Crosley)