Jump to content
© Copyright 2006, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved, First Publication 2006

Sometimes Nobody Even Notices


johncrosley

Nikon D200, Nikkor 70~200, Nikkor 2x teleconverter, at unknown mm setting. Minor left crop and levels applied, but unmanipulated under the rules.

Copyright

© Copyright 2006, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved, First Publication 2006

From the category:

Street

· 124,943 images
  • 124,943 images
  • 442,913 image comments


Recommended Comments

The Caption above says it all -- in opposition to yesterday's

previous post in which it seemed everybody noticed. Otherwise, no

need to say anything. Your ratings and critiques are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit

a helpful and constructive critique/Please share your superior

photographic knowledge. Thank! Enjoy! John

Link to comment

Please rate according to the rules, not according to how you personally feel about tattoos. Consider this photo and its rating like how you would rate a photo of something like, say, 'macro spiders' or 'macro snakes', maybe, please.

 

(That is if you are not sporting a bunch of 'tats' yourself and lust for some more, like this guy.)

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

For now, the previous post with this guy is in this folder, though it may 'travel' someday as this folder is 'temporary' -- or is intended to be 'temporary'.

 

He says he's 100% tatooed over his body, but I haven't had the temerity to put him to the test; I take him at his word; one can only 'imagine' the process . . . .

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment
Guest Guest

Posted

I like how he looks so *different* and at the same time he does something absolutly *normal*. Great one John.

 

In this scene, it's funny how the man in the right (with the phone) looks at you. He seems interrogative.

Link to comment

Or the man, right, with the phone is asking a question of the person on the phone and has a blank stare directed at me.

 

By the way, Yann, the first rate on this was 3/3.

 

Who dreams up those rates?

 

The next was a 5/6.

 

This should be named PP.NET = Pretty Photo.net or FGPhoto.net = Feelgood Photo.net, as anything that is 'unsettling' or has some assault on well-formed feelings or assumptions has a pretty hard row to hoe, which possibly is why Balaji left -- long before that he stopped asking for ratings. Pogue Mahone had some horrible things to say about the rating system and the way 'street' photos were received on Photo.net and he was a 'great' shooter.

 

But for now, I'm content here, PN has the largest audience, and unless I were to turn pro, where else would I get the audience?

 

Did you see the previous post in which 'everybody' was looking at this guy and it was more of an 'artistic' -- 'surreal' feel, in B&W?

 

I liked that one from an artistic point of view -- but will replace the 'capture' with a better workup -- not one of those posted in comments, but the one shown has some 'technical' difficulties, and I'm only wondering how much to bring in or diminish the background characters and how much shadow to have on the tattoo guy in that post, then work it up (and my copy of Photoshop is buggy and no backup here in Argentina -- lots of beef, but nothing to fix my Photoshop 'beef'. ;-))

 

Thanks for stopping by Yann.

 

It's comments like yours, Yann, from people I respect, that provide me the feedback that prompts me to keep posting my very considerable output. I'm in very high gear, and without a forum, I'd be like a race car without gas or a road.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

John,

A good observation, and isolation with DOF, 'urban camouflage'

Yann... yes the guy in the background is almost pointing to himself and miming @is it me?' (you're pointing that camera at)

Cheers Ian

Link to comment

Ian, you've hit the nail on the head. The guy with the phone doesn't even see the tattoo guy and he's seeing me far in the distance with my 70~200 with my 2x tele-adapter, trying to be 'inconspicuous' and so far away that the tattoo guy had a hard time even making me out and even wondered if he'd be in the frame . . . 'little did he know . . . what I was doing' . . . and By God, Ian, I think you've got it!

 

If I were Professor Doolittle (from 'My Fair Lady' I'd be singing a song, about your perspicacity, but then my singing voice is awful -- but I could speak the words in rhythm, kind of like Rex Harrison did. . . .

 

Nice observation . . . makes me glad I'm here.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

It seems everbody who I show this photo to, (in this neighborhood, knows this guy -- partly because he's sooo conspicuous.

 

It's kind of hard to be a bank robber, if you're adorned like this guy.

 

Easier to be an entertainer, or sorts, but not a Peter Sellers type, all ambiguous and capable of playing any type -- a guy like this would be typecast from the moment he became an entertainer. Maybe he is one.

 

I have my plans about future photography if he'll cooperate.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I just noticed the cell phone guy's two fingers -- it's as though he's pointing to himself and really asking 'for real, me, you're photographing me?'

 

Fat chance.

 

Bet he thinks his wife married him for his looks or sexual prowess too.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Link to comment
Guest Guest

Posted

You know, "street photo" interests me a lot cause I live somewhere there's *no* streets. So I find this way attractive but really difficult. For the moment, I don't feel able to "catch" moving and alive surroundings, to stop motion in a crowd, etc. Then I hope my comments aren't completly wrong.

I wonder if it's possible to critique "all" on a street shot. "All" means, colors, contrast, composition... Well, I wonder how much a "perfect" street shot has to be spontaneous...

Let's talk about yours.

The second rating, the 5/6 one, was mine. I was wondering about a 6/6 but:

- the whole scene in the background looks blue/purple. I acknowldege that's not so disturbing but I think it's a bit unnatural. Well, that distracts me a little.

- the top of the shot is bright, especially the upper left corner.

As I asked, is it possible to critique this in such a street shot? Don't I ask too much? Please give me your opinion.

I understand how ratings are sometimes difficult to accept. But, what I'm sure about is that you really deserve a large audience. You've got a great eye, for sure!

I have myself some problems with ratings... but more I use PN (and more I take photography of course!), the most I want to know different opinions on mine. I think that submitting photos for critique only isn't enough. I'm planning to buy a DSLR (in october) then I could control settings as I want (not possible with my P8). I'll be more free to test my skills and then I'll be back to the rating system.

I didn't see yet your other shot but I'll have a look this day. Thank you for your kind words, much appreciated. (my comments are sometimes a bit awkward...)

PS : looking at your work makes me improving but beyond photography I think I'm learning English too! Wow! Your vocabulary and syntax are difficult for me! : ))

Link to comment

I can hear the singing (luckily my imagination is kind to your vocal prowess),

Cheers Ian (For reference: No tats or plans for them either)

Link to comment

Thanks for the kind and encouraging words -- explanatory too.

 

One never knows where one's 'audience' comes from, and I'm happy to know that you are a 'rater' as well as a commentator, but commentary is more welcome than rating, which always I take with a 'grain of salt'.

 

Few seem to understand 'street photography', and I won't try to educate them, I'll just keep placing my offerings before them, and some will partake; others will not, and in the meantime the no-nothings will keep distributing the low scores -- often first thing after I post. It's amazing sometimes how fast after I post, as if they were waiting for my post. I hear ohers have the same experience, and not just 'street'. But if the averages reflect a 'trend' then a lowering tide strands all boats and that's OK also, so long as it's not just sinking my boat.

 

Notice I keep posting for critique and don't just make 'midnight postings' (although I often post at midight of in the middle of the night) in which critiques are NOT sought. Critiques are still the best way to get a photo exposed to the base membership, and occasionally a photo, often not my best, will get tremendous viewership -- I have several in which a photo never got enough to be most-rated and quickly got 10s of thousands of viewers and still does, though buried in lesser folders. Who knew they'd be such 'evergreens'?

 

This is NOT a true 'art' photo -- but it's worthy.

 

The B&W when cleaned up has a chance to be a Crosley 'classic' I think and I commend you to look at it. It needs to be reworked then 'edited in' instead of reposting, with the original post kept as a comment item.

 

I've done that before and it passed muster.

 

Thanks for hanging in there, Yann. You'll find that Digital SLRs change your learning curve tremendously.

 

For the better.

 

Blueness in the above photo is 'natural', from late afternoon in shadows -- I could have 'adjusted' it, as all digital photos have 'casts' to them, but thought better of it.

 

My best,

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I wouldn't consider anyone who would plan for a 'tat' (tit for tat); my whole raison d'etre on Photo.net is centered on there being no mate-rating or reciprocity other than simple recognition of the worth of good photographs and friendships developed through these comments (but NOT reciprocal ratings)--a look at my highest-rated photos will bear that out, as I know few of the photographers there, and few of them comment on my photographs and I seldom rate less than the highest, and never expect anything in return. (I think that's what you meant by 'tats').

 

My best.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I have some of him 'posing' -- it was hard to 'turn him off' from 'posing' -- it seems to be in his blood, but 'candid' was far better in my opinion, and these two were chosen for their being opposites -- they make totally opposite points, don't they? (and I just came upon him in the street, handing out leaflets fully clothed -- him, not me, no, I mean I was fully clothed and he was also, and he undressed partly for these photos, without prodding -- there, am I clear?)

 

Each one stands for a point of view, and each one makes its point of view, but each point of view is opposite the other.

 

It's kind of like a high school or college debating team.

 

From one competition to the next they either have to take one side or the other (I don't know how far ahead they are told which) and they must prepare each side and be prepared to argue each side of the chosen topic.

 

Here, I hope my photographs have 'argued' each side of the 'point of view' equally well, as your comment seems to indicate.

 

Thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

John, just to clear something up,

No plans for tattoos (you asked for people to critique you work without prejudice) I was pointing out that that was the case

as for the other meaning of tat... No, 'tit for tat' is not on my agenda. I only comment these days (that's in the bio) after reading the constant agony on the site feedback forums) ... it's a shame as the photo's rated by this member feature is no use then. If a comment on another's work is interesting then you become curious about the commentator, and if that means your work is examined as a consequence (commented or not) then that's great. 1/1 3/3 6/7 tells you nothing about the photo but says more about the rater, 'very nice thanks' says nothing either. We should comment without prejudice or obligation.

 

Phew, glad that's cleared up

Ian

Link to comment

I'm glad to learn that you have no 'tats'.

 

I'm a little morbidly interested just for a 'peek' at what the rest of this guy looks like.

 

For instance, just how does he handle 'x x x x ' and 'y y y y ' which, since since he says he's 100% tattooed must be be adorned with some sort of needlepoint work.

 

And 'speaking' (so to write) of needles and points, just how did the more sensitive parts of his body react to the tattoo needle. I notice his nipples are NOT tattooed. Does he have some 'reservation' about that -- is it an aesthetic, and does it carry forward (or backward as the case may be) to the rest of his body/and reproductive/exremental parts, despite what he told me, in fractured Spanglish?

 

Maybe curiosity killed the cat, but I'm dying to know.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment
I cant understand these harsh and low ratings! this is not a masterpiece indeed, but its a very interesting and provocative photo. The beauty is in its awkwardness. I like the way you see the world. Great capture. Regards
Link to comment

Please see my biography page which states essentially that 'I am not tyrannized by ratings' etc.

 

In fact, I think my postings have helped create a 'taste' on Photo.net for a certain type of photography that hitherto was almost never shown.

 

I may not have done it single handedly, but I have been very successful, and have some 'imitators' or better yet, some who have followed me and in my style in one or more ways, even in the way I post and host colloquy, which was not common before I came here.

 

'Beauty' is not necessary for 'aesthetics' as 'shock value' or just maybe a 'jolt' may be a form of aesthetics, so 'beauty' is not needed, though I agree with your evaluation even down to the guy, right, who wonders if I'm pointing my lens at him. heh heh heh.

 

He doesn't even see the shirtless tattoo guy (whom I want to see again and maybe take plain background studio shots, nude, etc., Richard Avedon style). I may get a chance soon, as I think I can locate him again.

 

I 'love' my 'style' if I indeed 'have a style' - I just take what I see that interests me.

 

It's my way of viewing life (but it's aided by carrying a camera, as I then have a 'mission (not from God, however).

 

Thanks for the interesting and helpful critique.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...