'Evolution'

'Evolution' is a candid photo that best should be

classified 'street' and is just another example of my multiple

genres and styles. No information about this capture is provided as

it probably should stand on its own, except to note that this was

spotted in passing, and captured. Your ratings and critiques are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically,

please submit a helpful and constructive comment/Please share your

superior knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy!

John

I like it!

Actually, I publish a fish series on a site, and fish is very harshly welcomed there, unfortunately... I got a lot of un-understanding, moquery and so on, but still prefer to go on my way (with fish). I even published there the "This is a film" lyrics (Arizona Dream), to explain...

Yours is great!

Thank you!

Excellent composition . I think it's a " fine art " category photo . Beautiful

I didn't mean to publish a photo of 'fish' per se. This for me is an example of the highest form of 'street art' that I can achieve with the framing, the balance of white and black and the mass of black, right and the more transparent mass of blackness/grayness of the fish radiograph, left and slightly upper.

 

This is not an accolade to fish at all, (although I am happy you love to photograph 'fish'), but my attempt to create the best photograph I can, and this is one of my best of the best, whether the raters agree or not.

 

This is a 'juxtaposition' photograph, or the sort that I take more routinely, contrasting the fish skeleton seen through a radiograph with the bystander walking by, with both faces especially contrasted (and note they both have a 'tail' ;-)

 

Greetings to you this a.m.

 

John

Thanks for the accolade.

 

Yes, 'Fine Art' is something I would consider for this photograph.

 

 

A certain number of my 'street photographs' would fall into that category, I think, and probably this maybe the most.

 

I keep stretching myself, and I'm glad you recognized that.

 

I keep trying to surprise people, especially those who try to categorize me as 'the guy who . . . (insert stereotype about type of photography or level of performance).

 

I have a whole series of these, but only this one will be posted, I think (why spoil a good thing?)

 

John

I frankly can't do much better than this.

 

I've done different sort of work within the 'street genre', and my first posted photo -- entirely different -- is absolutely my best ever -- a once in a lifetime shot full of irony, which never was posted for critique and might have stood a chance for Photo of the Week if I had known how to request a critique in my 'wet behind the ears' status as a new contributor then, two years ago.

 

This one, from the moment before it was captured, even the moment it was conceived in my mind, was an outstanding photograph in my mind, hands down.

 

My only goal was to take it, record it on media, and do service to my idea.

 

In one sense, many of my lesser photos are much more successful -- with lesser material, I was able to make 'something out of nothing' -- essentially to make 'gold (or maybe silver) from dross'.

 

; - )) introspectively

 

John

This is not a 'sandwich' or a multiple exposure. It is a single capture; a 'street photo' if you will.

 

And, although it was taken in 'color', and the tones were not completely B&W, they so closely approximated B&W and silhouette that essentially, and with few exceptions, the view on the camera viewing screen looked quite similar to this, and only some minor touchup work in Photoshop was necessary -- to clear out some splotchy areas on the wall behind the fish radiograph and part of its frame which showed (part didn't, making for an uneven photo), and to eliminate all detail in the woman, right, who was essentially already in profile/silhouette in black anyway.

 

So contrast was heightened a little on her to enhance her 'blackness/silhouette characteristics,' while the fish radiograph was inversely selected to avoid heightening its contrast, which was about perfect, in varying shades of gray for counterpoint.

 

I have not yet posted a multiple exposure photo on Photo.net and have no intention of doing so; life is too rich, and I have too much fun capturing reality.

 

John

Nice one. Just enough detail in the silhouette of the woman to sell the image. Nicely seen.

I couldn't believe how tired I was as I got off a plane from Kiev, to Frankfurt to San Francisco, carrying maybe 100 pounds of camera bags through the concourse, at SFO, and then came across one of their wonderful (truly wonderful) concourse exhibits, this one on the sea, and this particular part being made up of radiographs (x-rays) of fish, probably enlarged and posted on the walls with 'show' lighting next to a 'people mover' conveyor belt.

 

So, on a conveyor belt the opposite direction, dirty and tired as midnight approached, and not having taken more than 20 photos in the previous 36 hours in three countries, there I saw it: A chance at taking the best photos of the year for me.

 

I took some from my conveyor/people mover and then just got off and did it over again, -- getting back on the people mover. Then I just got off and planted myself in front (and far across from) the various radiographs, as likely subjects moved past, keeping distance so they would not know they were being photographed in 'detail'. The partially-shown frame edges were eliminated using the stamp tool, a cloning device.

 

This is just one of about five really good photographs, and perhaps the best, in part because her front top teeth are showing (her mandible, in anatomical terms).

 

It's funny, because of the way the radiographs were lighted with exhibition lighting, and consequently the silhouette appearance (mostly) of each person moving by on the people mover, the natural choice was to complete the silhouette in Photoshop (and to eliminate some partially-shown frame edges, seen mainly because they cast shadows, and to do that by adjusting the contrast after first converting to monochrome in channel mixer in Photoshop by checking the box for monochrome (for those who don't know how to do it) and adjusting the color sliders to 'taste'.

 

I personally think this is one of the finest photographs I have ever taken.

 

Period.

 

Perhaps I should have placed a 'frame' around it, but then with the handrail at the bottom (nice touch, hunh?) what color would the frame be -- black, white or gray?

 

Anyone want to show me this with a 'frame' or choice of 'frames' colors around it? And then teach me how to make a frame; as you can see, I have never placed a 'frame' around a photograph, being happy to show my photos without frames, especially since Brian has given us a neutral gray background.

 

There's something 'pure' in showing photographs without frames, but a good frame can help 'contain' a photo such as this without natural, well-seen borders.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(any takers?)

I regularly take juxtaposition photos. I have written a 'Presentation' on the subject -- I think Photo.net's largest with well over 300 photos, perhaps over 350 photos at this writing, with the photo captions and text still growing -- an organic text.

 

So, when I came across these fish radiographs mounted on a wall next to a 'people mover' that was empty, it was only a matter of recognizing that it would be seconds or minutes before I would be almost 'forced' to take the inevitable juxtaposition photo.

 

And since these radiograph photos were about skeletons and skeletons are about both history and death and reveals evolutionary origins, it was only natural to place a present-day, live, person in juxtaposition with the radiographs.

 

And since fish were the ultimate predecessors of humans, placing a human figure (which is the ultimate subject of a 'people mover' was a 'natural'), and so the title 'Evolution' was a 'natural' -- just about handed to me on a silver platter.

 

In fact, with my new-found alertness to juxtapositions, it was as though this whole setup were made just for my passing by: a series of 'classic photos' just waiting to be taken, all set up and lighted with instantly available subjects. All required was a photographer and a good camera.

 

I almost drooled when I came upon this setup with its numerous radiographs (some partially obscured, however, behind glass exhibition cases); it was almost too easily 'seen', at least by me.

 

Addendum: However, the figure placement, I think, is my highest art, something I will take credit for, and not at all accidental or something that occurred randomly as I took great care about when to press the shutter and took into account in doing that the relative 'mass'/blackness of the twin subjects.

 

I chose the passerby subject in advance, and for her, the opening of the mouth with upper teeth showing was a plus.

 

John (Crosley)

This is a full frame capture, allowing only for some very slight trimming due to a small amount rotation to bring horizontals and verticals into skew and trimming of excess caused by that process.

 

As a consequence, this is an example of exact in-camera framing in the field, under rigorous time and subject constraints.

 

I once took combat and then riot photographs (not much of the former) and there were no do-overs or re-adjustments of lights or lighting.

 

If you screwed up, it was a final screwup.

 

And when, several years later, I ended up as a photo editor at Associated Press in New York reviewing film sent in from the photographers in Viet Nam (who succeeded), there were occasional examples of vastly blown exposures or underexposed film and, yes, sometimes a photographer simply failed to place the film holes over the sprockets properly and a roll of film shipped in by air (not developed in Viet Nam) would be developed and would turn out to be completely dark, the result of never having been exposed to light -- the film had never been advanced on the takeup reel due to faulty loading.

 

This occurred with some of the world's greatest photographers, even Pulitzer winners, though I don't have a list.

 

We all put pants on one leg at a time no matter what fame we might have gained (thank God).

 

John (Crosley)

Another JC classic here.

 

The simplicity is effective in thumbnail form with two large elements and no distracting background. Enlarged it does not disappoint. In fact if this were wall sized in some gallery it would be a real showstopper. You've just "GOT IT" John and however hard you tried you couldn't prevent yourself from taking photos this good.

 

All the best,

 

Miles.

Miles,

 

I get the impression you like this photo.

 

I simply don't know where it (the ability to make all these photos) comes from.

 

I spent the last two days (yes, two days, with no airplanes intervening) photographing (1) Hollywood and L.A. during the daytime from my car; (2) Las Vegas at night with one 'classic' I think and (3) Bryce Canyon, Utah at sunup after photographing some predawn and dawn deer and antelope (no sleep) -- later the magnificence of Bryce Canyon itself from the rims at 8,100 feet high and much higher (with a fisheye lens no less).

 

I'm on a roll.

 

I still don't know where I get it.

 

I'm just interested in stuff, have astonishing reflexes now well-developed and now have proper equipment. The world just seems to be exploding around me with interesting images. Where do they all come from?

 

(I see, said the formerly blind man.)

 

It helps to be able to write a catchy caption, though.

 

John (Crosley)

Dear John, I like this photograph a lot. I am sure the ability to take good pictures comes from hard work, dedication, sensisitivity and a well trained artistic eye...there is probably little luck in it. Hundreds of people would have walked past this exhibit and think " Hmm.. interesting!!" and that would be the end of that. Kindest regards.

I think you have analyzed it correctly -- I give little thought when I walk past such things these days, spy a potential photo, suddenly drop everything, my photo instincts just take over, and I literally reverse course camera(s) in hand, as I did here, (several times).

 

It is instinctive, but it helps to keep practicing over and over again and to keep varying your subjects, as I assuredly do (as anyone looking at my portfolio and folders can easily figure out.)

 

Thanks for the kind and flattering comment.

 

John (Crosley)