Kiosk Seller, Moscow (and her alter ego)

This woman, left, is a kiosk seller at Moscow's famous Exhibition

Park, a commercial and park center, on a weekend, and she is

overseen by a distant billboard image of a beautiful woman -- a

woman who looks like she might have in former times before she aged

(she liked this image very, very much). Your ratings and comments

are invited and very welcome. If you rate harshly or very

negatively, please honor me by leaving a helpful and constructive

comment/Please share your superior knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Great portrait !!! No comments, just beautiful.

Thanks.

 

I took an initial portrait of this woman, background billboard similar to this, but not so polished.

 

This woman was busy selling on a Saturday, surrounded by customers and I was standing quite far off with a 80~200 mm zoom fully extended, and not wanting to lose the 'perfect' shot to her irritation, I approached her and illuminated my digital screen, showed her my 'almost' shot, and indicated I wanted to take more.

 

She was delighted that I would try for better and went about her business. Thirty-seven frames later, after crowds of women inundated her and interfered with all the shots, I got this one as she completed a transaction with two women. She was NOT posing, just tolerating me, for which I was very thankful. The Muscovites were very tolerant of me and my cameras.

 

Thanks Again.

 

John (Crosley)

Totally wonderful composition. The focus on her face is perhaps a little soft, but great photo!

As to softness, look at the weave of her cloth/knit cap. I usually choose at least a f 5.6 for a daylight outdoor portrait, but don't have either the EXIF data or the focus point data (which is retained) so I can tell you where my focus point was.

 

However, most portrait artists choose soft focus for portraits and it is difficult to sharpen portraits of faces because it accentuates blemishes and creates the appearance of splotchiness.

 

I tend to just go with what I shoot, and keep in mind that this woman was not still -- she was moving, talking and selling -- a totally moving subject.

 

And it took a total of 38 photos before I was happy with just one.

 

(She saw and approved the idea after just one frame which I showed her and was very tolerant of having her photo being taken -- nice woman who 'got' the concept of the shot and liked it.)

 

John

Thanks for your response John. I should have clarified that I meant for my taste of course. I think many portrait photographers apply the soft-focus look after the capture, which enables a bit more freedom in selectivity, though sometimes the in-camera effect is best. I agree that soft focus is nice for skin, but here I was thinking it might be nice to have her eye a bit sharper, mainly. It also works fine as is though - it was just a very minor point of taste, and certainly the detail in her beanie is nice. I really think it's a great shot.

Thanks for the clarification. It's something of a miracle, sometimes, to get a decent 'street portrait' in focus under very cloudy winter skies in Northern climes such as the very far north Moscow Russia and it's perennially very thick thousands of feet of cloud cover.

 

That cloud cover does diffuse the light and diffuse light does allow for more 'even lighting' for a very happy effect, but it also makes for very low lighting levels, causing the portrait photographer to go for high ISO and if not, then for the very highest aperture.

 

But I do not like the highest aperture any more, for environmental portraits, since usually there is some part of the face left in blur -- as you complain here, and when a subject is moving and there is auto-focus (or even manual focus), focusing is problematic. With auto-focus, one has to manipulate the focus points quickly, an almost impossible feat, or one has to manipulate the frame to place the focus point over a likely place one wants in focus such as an eyeball (and imagine here trying to place a focus point over this woman's eyeball, within her eyelid cover and above her eyelid bottom (I set my focus point -- adjustable -- at too large a size for such a minute practice without resetting focus point size -- something that is possible with the D2X or the D200, but difficult to do 'on the fly'.

 

And although I had 38 shots, it was in a matter of less than five minutes and she might have changed where she stood at any minute, destroying the juxtaposition, for though she liked it, she needed to sell her goods more than she needed me to make a good photo, which she would never see printed or on the Internet.

 

So, getting an eyeball of a sideways face, 'in focus' is problematic and the only way to do so with care is to use a higher aperture, say f 5.6 or higher and I used, I recall f 5.6, but still wasn't able to capture the eyeball sharp enough to satisfy you.

 

(If I had foreseen this as a problem or if I were delivering to a commercial client, I would have selected the eye using the magnetic selection tool -- probably -- and then selectively sharpened the eyeball. I still could do that now, but won't; this is a finished product, but you have taught me something for future photo processing for posting.

 

I'd be very grateful if, from time to time, you'd look over other photos of mine as I post them and give me similar critiques -- not too not picky, but clear criticism that helps me become a better photographer -- things that a commercial client might pick up on and say 'why did this XXXXXX problem develop, I thought you were a 'good' photographer who knew his craft but you allowed 'YYYYYY' to happen in something you delivered to us.

 

(It's my way of saying that you have made a valuable criticism which I have taken seriously, as I refine my craft.)

 

John (Crosley)

Julie, the sharpness of the eyes is an essential part of the juxtaposition here.

 

This is a photo about juxtaposition: Sharpness versus diffuseness or 'blur'. Age versus youth. A 'full figure' versus slenderness. Fading, mature beauty on the verge of older age versus the glow of youth. And sharpness of focus versus soft focus on the distant focused face [and EYE(S)]

 

So, since the soft-focused eyes of the distant billboard ad are important, so is the sharpness of the kiosk vendor's eyes, and perhaps I should have taken more care to ensure the vendor's eyes were sharp -- to the point of selecting them and sharpening them selectively to ensure the juxtaposition, even to the point of being a little nit-picky.

 

So if part of this juxtaposition is sharpness versus out-of-focus, I should have taken more care to ensure eye sharpness of the contrasting subject -- the kiosk vendor.

 

I'm a-learnin, slowly, but surely.

 

John

 

Because of the OOF (out of focus) distant billboard female face, dominating two-thirds of this capture, it seems that the full power of this photo is best seen from a distance or even when it's in thumbnail and, like an impressionist painting, when one examines it from close up, it fails to have the same power (of juxtaposition at least) as it does as a whole, although the woman's face, left, bears close scrutiny by itself, with a blurry face, right, of the photomodel on the billboard just shown fuzzy.

 

So, this photo shows in more than one way, one closeup and one from a distance and one's opinion may vary depending on how one views it.

 

(I had no choice because of lighting and subject movement of opening up my lens more to bring the distant billboard face more into sharp focus.)

 

John (Crosley)

I like this contrast of old and young dear John!

Biliana

Biliana, I am glad my photos have lightened your life and your humours, if only for a few moments.

 

They are as I see life; maybe looking through a camera has influenced my view on life a little; who knows?

 

John

As for your images of aging women against larger-than-life beauties, age is real, youth, and beauty, are artificial. If one is getting old, like me, much truth is to be found in this message. Unlike these women, however, I had no beauty to lose, nor did I ever depend on it...one of the advantages of being born male.

On a different note, graphic rather than literary, thinking about negative spaces, which you brought up with regard to the toga-ed street performer...I wonder what negative space we have here. Two-thirds of the image contain a blurred background, a blurred face of young loveliness. I generally don't think of a large, unbroken space as 'negative', but why not? As a matter of fact, I think that is why I like this a little better than your other old/young ladies. You are quite right about the size of the image and the viewing distance, and I think it has a lot to do with what I was just saying. I admire you for getting this just right, something I seem to do only by pure accident.

Final thought: Perhaps a two-dimensional image that changes its character, in terms of depth, is really three-deminsonal.

Ransford,

 

You have explored, in a verbal way, the complexity of this image, as I did as I moved left and right, forward and back, dodging shopppers she served, all with the final goal of achieving this image, and after 38 efforts, I finally made it (with her cooperation, since I showed a 'test' shot to her, so she didn't try to hide -- she saw what I was 'driving' at, and approved).

 

I was particularly interested in this statement, among your several, interesting and 'right on' analyses: 'Perhaps a two-dimensional image that changes its character, in terms of depth, is really three-deminsonal' and this is he ideal image for that, as when the viewer 'pulls back' the out-of-focus background image seems more in focus and this image becomes more of two portraits rather than an in-focus and an out-of-focus and an in-focus image -- essentially two images, depending on one's distance from the image.

 

Of course, this would be no secret to the 'Impressionist' painters and other artists, and it's a fairly common artistic trick today and considered in the mainstream of painting's bag of 'tricks'.

 

One thing that's not so apparent to many is its probable truth; This woman, left, probably looked like the photomodel, right, when she was younger, and thus this image as a certai poignancy to someone who is famliar with present-day Russian (and Ukrainian) politics/sociology/society, that would sneak past others not so familiar, and it's a somewhat hurtful reminder that in Russia beautiful women age very young (while in America, they begin to bloom at 35 in many cases. In that respect, the two societies are fundamentally different. Just as the young American bride in her 30s is considering having children, the Russian/Ukrainian woman is ready to become a grandmother (yes, it's true) and probably is divorced and long single.

 

John (Crosley)

I suppose some must have commented on the following observation. In drawing and painting, the artist ordinarily views the work much closer than its intended viewing distance, while in photography, the artist commonly frames the picture in a small, often tiny, window. This explains why Ansel Adams walked around with frames and why a painter is constantly walking back from the work (and sometimes turning it upside down, something I find useful on the monitor). As always, the media impose limits on the artist...probably a good thing, as long as we have enough freedom to express our vision. Digital imagery has the best of both worlds; you can instantly look up close, get far away, add a frame, change the color balance, etc. And as we get higher and higher resolutions, the 'framing' becomes less of an issue because we can severely crop our photos (I know that is blasphemy for some photographers). So I think we are now at an exciting point where experienced photographers and painters can meld their experiences into the new medium, let's call it 'digital.' Ten years from now, digital artists will have grown up on this medium and know nothing else (and probably be ignorant of and show disdain for traditional media). Imagine, for example, what will happen if a Picasso, worse a Warhol, gets a hold of digital (I apologize if you are a fan of these esthetic assassins).

BTW, the more I look at the kiosk seller, the better she looks. As for young American women (six daughters, from 18 to 38), most have postponed adulthood indefinitely, lovely and irresponsible ('Girls just want to have fun.')

Ransford, God help me, but I never looked 'upside down' at or through a viewfinder, but now I've been made aware of the possibility, I'll probably feel I have to try it, and it'll probably make my work better -- but it certainly was not possible in the middle of an 'exhibition park' on a busy weekend day full of people, handholding my camera (and I use a tripod very seldom).

 

The appearance of this photograph owes as much to the lack of a tripod by yours truly at the time (or some suitable post or other prop for bracing my camera) resulting in my having to use a slightly higher shutter speed to 'capture' the talking woman, left, as she engaged in sales work with her customers, and try to portray the woman's photo, right, with some sort of 'clarity' -- and if I'd had a tripod, I would have tried for a smaller stop -- but question -- would that have improved the photo -- showing the rearward women in greater sharpness (or even possible if I had a high enough shutter speed to stop the lips of the woman seller, left?)

 

No one will ever know, probably, although you're pretty intelligent, and you may have ideas.

 

I never paid much attention to painting, painterly things (other than great works of art exhibited) and never took a photo course -- not even photography basics or camera basics, let alone a composition course -- whatever I have I came across inchoately -- through observation and experience and in a sense I'm completely naive. (a naif).

 

But a self-educated naif who has not stuck his head in the ground, either, so I'm always open to ideas, observations and bon mots (and not so bon mots, as the case is appropriate).

 

I had dinner tonight (shared a table at least, with a young woman from a nearby country to this woman portrayed, who barely looked a teen, but she was a full-fledged M.D. -- with a specialty no less -- who was hardly old enough to have graduated college in the U.S. -- smart as a whip, and with strong opinions too -- I liked her instantly, and only regretted I would never, ever see her again, as the meeting was only happenstance.

 

While American women may revel in growing old slowly, Russian/Ukrainian women are more in a hurry -- parents tell them they'll be 'old maids' if they're not married and maybe pregnant by 23 (like when I was a young man, approaching 25 -- nearly all the good ones were taken . . . yes, it was true, though the opposite is now true in America with 'trial marriages' increasingly common.

 

But increasingly the 'waiting to grow up' has meant 'sponging off mom and pop' because housing is so darned expensive and job gains (except for a few professions) so slow in coming with wages concommitantly being held down except for two-income families representing 'the professions' and sometimes 'business ownership'.

 

Regrettably, I started meeting women in other countries because women in America I was meeting were frequently 'playing games' -- much as cats will play with their evening meal (e.g. a mouse) they might have caught before they crush its skull and walk away (That sounds a little harsh, but I watched one cat do just that -- play with a mouse, giving it chase for an hour, before finally ending it by sweeping the mouse with a paw, then dutifully putting Mr. Mouska out of his misery by crunching its head.).

 

America is a land where lots of women go out with 'nice guys' just to get the 'good food' from a nice restaurant, say they're tired and have to so they can 'get up early', then go home, put on their 'leathers' or low-cut blouses/tops, go to a biker bar to look for a 'dangerous guy' to take home (or go home with) then complain later to their friends at work about what losers American men are (or how bad they are at picking men, and why can't they do a better job at choosing a man.)

 

Just one man's view, you say?

 

Well, as I've photographed in Russia/Ukraine, I've met a lot of men/groups of men on those 'dating/marriage' tours and almost to a one, they say the same thing -- they didn't want to go to Russia/Ukraine, but they were sincere guys (and nice guys generally) who were not being taken sincerely by American women.

 

And since I got to know quite a few of them, I have to say I think they are right (in general). And, from the happy ones I've met returning from their homes abroad (in America and elsewhere as dual nationality couples with Ukrainian/Russian brides) at airports in Russia and Ukraine, I'd say a good number of the men who do get married have exceedingly happy marriages, and the wives love them very much. I know there are some opposite statistics, but I meet the happy ones who come home to see 'momma' or are bringing the grandkids home to see 'babushka and deodushka' (grandma and grandpa) and everybody seems ever so happy and enthusiastic about such international marriages (even cross-generational ones seem to have few problems).

 

One woman I met (today if you want me to be frank) told me that when I told her she seemed to be an 'ideal moma' that it was the child's father -- a wonderful man' (and a Norwegian) who was primarily responsible for the child's being such a wonderful child -- she completely deflected any praise from herself as a good mother to the boy's father -- an indication of great love and respect (as I read it -- and she definitely was not a 'Stepford Wife' -- this woman had a brain.)

 

All things said, however, I'd be happy to have a daughter of two around to do some 'sponging' or whatever it is that it's called. All you can really do is love them, no matter how they turn out, or how events materialize, and sometimes the recipients of the greatest love never even will know they were loved at all.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I've been thinking a lot about your comments on women. A nephew and a colleague both married Russian women. In the first case, it did not work out. I'm afraid she was just too much for him. In the second case, I expect it will work out because they met several times in Russia, and he is a very practical and sensible person. As a matter of fact, he tried to get me to go to Russia with him, promising excellent female contacts, but I declined.

Nevertheless, I think young American men and women have painted themselves into a corner. IMO they are spoiled adolescents, the men don't want to get married while they can have all the sex they need without a commitment, and the women can't make up their minds about whether they want children. Besides, this generation has no experience with economic hardship.

We should probably get back to photography. I am impressed with how much you think and write about taking pictures. As a self-taught artist, you have learned a great deal. Personally, I am suspicious of most schools beyond purely technical training. I learned to write by writing a great deal. I intend to learn picture-taking by taking a lot of pictures. I am a post-process person and I'm careless in my picture-taking...I just photograph everything that looks interesting. But the more I process, the more I analyze and I see why some images are bad (95% are bad or unremarkable) and some are good.

In the meantime, it is great to learn from folks like you.

I agree with your analysis about American men/women and the predicament they are in/I meet a lot of sensible American men who travel to Russia/Ukraine in my travels, and stay in the same apartments they often rent (though I seldom cross paths with them, as those apartments never adjoin -- I only meet them when I go to pay my rent, or meet them in restaurants, but they usually are on continual series of dates jammed into a week or two.

 

But occasionally, as I pay my rent, or even am on a plane or in an airport, I get stuck for an hour (or in an airport four hours or more) with these men, or those who got married that way, and I get a chance to evaluate not only the couples who got married but the married women come back to visit their families and find that almost all are VERY happy (at last the ones I meet), though there are many divorces, and if you could see that the men are unscreened and the women unscreened also (and some people are poor choosers from both sexes and sides of the ocean) one could understand that -- international marriages just have a lower chance of success.

 

But there are many happy marriages I've run across, and many serious men looking, and some receptive women, though I understand the governments of Ukraine AS WELL AS RUSSIA have announced bounties (subsidies) for newborn children, but how Ukraine's going to pay is anybody's guess -- Russia can divert its new oil wealth and it should do so, as it's losing population (it also should actually PAY its doctors a realistic wages because they all became taxi drivers or emigrated long ago. Or supplemented their surgeon's salaries with doing massages on the side - imagine a surgeon having made (five years ago) $25 to $50 a month -- as one women, chief cardiologist, told me she made in a major regional capital, so she supplemented it doing massage on the side. She also had been the Soviet's national rifle (or was is pistol) champion at one time, but not very old at all, and smart with twin daughters (and unaware of her sexuality, unfortunately, which worked against her chances in a country loaded with beautiful, attractive women aware of their attractiveness.)

 

As to photography (an aside?), I did the same as you're doing; I bought a camera and began taking photos right from the start, using the built-in exposure meter to make sure I took properly exposed photos. I got one from my first role that's here on Photo.net (three men on ferry boat, Early B&W folder), but there were lots and lots of discards.

 

Film was scarce and printing unaffordable -- even contact sheets were often unaffordable to I turned my film at an angle to view the 'positive' image on the grain (look at B&W film and you can see a positive image if you hold it just so.)

 

I forever am looking at my own images, trying to find out why they succeeded (not being narcissistic) trying to avoid in the future, raising my camera to repeat a mistake and by god I'm not making so many of the same mistakes, and find I'm getting more captures per roll.

 

That was my goal, and I'm achieving it. Of course, since I shoot so many genres, if one is not available, I'm simply shooting another (which is the way I like it, since it's stupid to grab a camera and say to yourself, I'm going to go out and take waterfall photos, say, in the late summer when the water's ceased flowing, or flower photos in the fall or winter. One has to have more than one way of photographing, and I spread the risk/wealth by having a taste for lots of things, which goes with inveterate curiosity.

 

I think that if you 'learn' this way, you'll learn quickly and in a different way than in a photo school, and you'll end up being a more thoroughly interesting photographer than so many -- just don't look at too many PN images. Go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and grab photo books and magazines and head to the cafe and start reading for hours.

 

You'll learn about photography better that way.

 

My best.

 

John (Crosley)