Hey Mr. 'Death'

Mr. 'Death' doesn't seem to be looking at me too kindly; maybe he

knows something I don't know. (or didn't tip him large enough - or

at at all because of his glare). 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 photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

Once again, your image catches a moment of life an it is so vivid that it really looks menacing. Great contrast and capture. I would have liked perhaps more space above his head, but since at times the shot does not afford us the opportunity, I have made another crop, that may highten his glare even more. See what you think.

 

Great image.

Quite a countenance. I like the uncropped version because I think the wrinkles in the fabric of his hood are important to show the texture and nature of the garment. Good focus and dof to isolate the subject.

 

-s

I would crop it a bit from the right

It's flattering that you went to the effort to make a counter-crop, even with your expressed instinct to leave MORE space above his head, than less.

 

Yes, yours does look more menacing.

 

One member long ago critized me for cutting off the top of subject's heads and I explained then that it was necessary for emphasis, but you didn't see me doing it when the background was out of focus, as that is enough to draw focus onto the subject. (I recall that exchange profoundly, as it was instrumental in my thought process -- calling attention to what I do inchoately)

 

While I like your crop, I'll go with the original.

 

In fact, in Spanish, I called to this guy, looking elsewhere 'Hola, Senor Morte' and he turned at me with those eyes.'

 

Chilling, aren't they?

 

And I didn't tip this street performer, as I was a very long distance away.

 

(See lens info.)

 

Your comment alone flatters me.

 

John (Crosley)

I may have a second or third version in which there is more space above his hood, as you have expressed a preference for, as I often take several in street portrait shooting, rapid fire, especially where sudden select focus is an issue and framing is important, but this was the one where his eyes were the most important plus the makeup was not 'blown' on his chin -- in others his eyes were too well shown, so I eliminated them regardless of cropping.

 

Thanks for your well-considered opinion. Always welcome here. I'm always interested in why I make choices, often without the conscious thought that these comments draw out of me.

 

John (Crosley)

Besides in general being anti-cropping and liking to frame in the field, if you look carefully, the mass of the subject is to the left of center which creates a dissonance in the photo -- a soft of unnaturalness or off-balance which draws the eyes left, yet at the same time his nose is dead center -- a sort of balancing act.

 

The eye tends to respect a photo in which it has to travel around a photo a little and disrepect one in which it can take in with one glance as more a 'snapshot'. I like off-center framing and have been doing it as long as I have been taking 'portraits' or 'street portraits' and will continue to do so, probably, as they are more 'interesting' at least to me.

 

I would probably have left more of his hood, if I could have got the exposure right on his eyes and chin (as in other shots) but that's for a perfect world.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo was hit by two 3/3 ratings within minutes of being posted. (somehow 3 for originality, struck me as being a little 'odd' to say the least, no matter what the aesthetic score was). Considering the rest of the scores, this would have placed very high on the TRP scale without those two RR scores. (but that's to be expected, isn't it, when you let anyone rate, regardless of credential or motive.)

 

John (Crosley)

Good one. Great eye contact.

You got it right about eye contact.

 

I think he wished for me go to where he was the escort, though I hadn't made my 'no tipping' decision yet.

 

I was struck by his expression.

 

If I see him again, I will tip him, just for this. I shot him with a 70~200 telephoto with a 1.4 x tele-extender, so was a huge distance from him and moving away.

 

;-))

 

(and maybe he knows something about my near future I don't know.)

 

John (Crosley)

John, thank you for replying. I see your point. I think, cropping, like everything in photography, has quite an important personal dimension. I left my comment while rating in blind and I didn't have the chance to see the previous comments. Now that I do, it seems as if there is a real issue. The dynamics of the posture, expression and eyeing create a very strong image anyway. I attach an experiment where I have drawn the trajectory of my viewing (if you don't mind). The unused space on the right kept my ratings 1 point away from excellence. But, again, this is a very personal view and I know that imbalance can be a substantial element of beauty.

It's a fine crop, and if I were in a cropping moood (which I am not, unless he learns to shoot those red rays from his eyes . . . !!!), then yours is a most interesting one and one I would seriously consider.

 

Keep in mind, I'm somewhat of a cropping purist -- I'm not against cropping per se, as I do it all the time for photos that have no other way to be shown than through cropping, but for one in which I hit it squarely on the nose (for one view at least) in the viewfinder, I won't touch it (them) unless they're out of rotation or somewhat.

 

Now if I worked for a publication or something like that and had to fill a space of specific dimensions, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the crop you've shown me; I worked as a photo editor for a year in AP New York world service photos and we cropped all the time (somewhat inordinately, to my view, and sometimes other editors 'flipped' negatives, right to left, to get the hair 'part' on the desired side of the head, but I refused as that was simply wrong).

 

Henri Carter-Bresson was an absolutist about cropping; I am not. Yours is an excellent crop, but mine is good enough that I'm not gonna crop it, though maybe yours might even be better, because I defer to what I saw in the viewfinder 99% of the time when it comes out OK as an image, no matter how much it might be 'improved'. It's a matter of choice, apparently, maybe stubbornness or laziness, and perhaps a warped sort of ethics, but there it is.

 

If I were messing with some else's photographs as I did long ago at the age of 24, many of them took umbrage with what I did (the local photogs, as most were a half world away, or just less, and I coudn't hear their howls, and besides what are photo editors for . . . ? -- of course, to write captions, which I also did, sometimes making them into whole stories, putting the news department out of business -- which they complained about from time to time, as I was nominally a 'newsman' under the union rules, and a trained writer/editor.)

 

To sum it up, your cropping's as good as mine, and when you take this photo, you'll be aiming your camera as you cropped it, I am sure. But one problem: the lens attached to your camera won't be long enough to make an in-camera crop as you have suggested.

 

You may have read previously my disdain at a woman called 'Marilyn' who fancied herself a news photographer at a Reno newspaper who took a Rollei and a flash and took ultra-wide and 'large' photos of 'news' and 'sports' things, then just cropped the interesting stuff in the enlarger into photos and nobody knew the difference/she couldn't shoot worth a good Golda*n.

 

She didn't deserve to be called a photographer, in my mind, as the in-camera stuff is pretty darned important to my point of view. (But hypocrite that I am, I also do crop, and my 'crop' tool in Photoshop CS2 gets some substantial use, mainly to tighten a wider shot or take out an extraneous figure who snuck into a frame.)

 

Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

You have a very good eye; I like your crop. If I weren't so picky, I'd probably endorse it.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I accept and back your 'purist' view. Following the rule of the game, in my first comment, I expressed what 'I' would have done if the photograph were mine; by no means did I suggest that you should do the same. Photography is a personal language of expression and the photographer is the master of what he/she wants to say and how. After all, if you posted something like my version I might have failed to stop and look at it for so long. Feelings are above all academic arguments when it comes to art. The 'in-camera' thing represents one's spontaneous expression; cropping is only after-thinking. Each with its own value.

Intellectual discussion. Glad I came back and read this.

 

-s

It is exactly the off-center or off-balance composition probably that had you coming back for a second (or third or fourth) look at this photo.

 

There's something about photography, I am to understand. We have eyes and minds that are lazy regarding photography. If we can see and comprehend a photograph in one viewing, we dismiss it, probably as merely a 'snapshot', much as raters here so often dismiss portraits with low scores.

 

Off-center composition appeals to a lazy viewer, and draws the eye through and into the composition and into the photo so that the viewer himself/herself becomes more 'one' with the photo and is 'engaged' with the dynamics of the photo.

 

Rather than dismissive of the photo, the viewer's eye is 'engaged' with the photo and tends more to wander around. If you look at the 'highest rated' for the year and all time photos, many of them lead the viewers' eyes on a merry chase -- this is a very simple photo by the test of many of those photos (however much many are made through Photoshop, something I eschew for the most part, as I'm not a Photoshop painter/retoucher by any means who takes a 'cue' from a photograph then works it to death. I'll enhance contrast, etc., but only to the extent a Costco (that's a giant American store) Noritsu machine will often do with film with its processing computers.

 

Further 'enhancements' I tend to leave alone, and I'm not really a 'purist' but too busy taking (I hope) interesting photos, to settle on one and then work it to death over a month or two with Photoshop as a 'project' -- that's for others, not me.

 

In many ways this is a very simple photo -- foreground in focus, background out of focus to lend 'sharpness to the foreground and intensity to his 'glare'. And since he is 'death' there's a message there, which is why I didn't feel like going some considerable distance to give him a 'tip'. Maybe when I go back to Barcelona I'll make a special trip to his part of the central mall there and lay some cash at his feet (if he doesn't glare at me like this again, it sends shivers up my aging spine).

 

;-)

 

John

If you keep reading, you'll probably find poetry, sociology, politics, economics, (string theory, if you know what that part of cosmology is . . . ), and various other things that are marginally related to the photo being presented . . . . Remarkably, it turns out, there are some people who 'tune in' just to read the comments (maybe that says something about my photography), and I've found that it includes some pretty lofty company.

 

Going 'off topic' in my commentaries now is somewhat of a PN tradition, though one that got started, I think by rambling discussions (without any aid of alcoholic beverages I might add, but through the aid of worthy guests to my photos, wonderful commentators with something 'real' to say (not just 'great photo 6/6 though I long for a few of those theses days), we've had long 'conversations' into all sorts of semi-related subjects, and NOT EVER has anyone left a nasty remark or been out of line --- no moderator has ever been needed to step in (and I know what to say if there ever were anyone out of line).

 

Stick around (or go read the commentaries under older posted photos) if you are bored some late night and want to fall asleep from 'boredom'.

 

There's always room for one more.

 

'-)

 

John (Crosley)

Thx for the invite. I'll keep it in mind.

 

-s

Hi John, long time ! came to look at your work and found that interesting image and an interesting discussion as well, no wonder with Manolis! he is an intellectual and an interesting human being I have met last year in Vienna.

 

I like that image very much, there is something very attracting in his figure and his gaze. his face and head cover reminds me of old mystery books and films about castle life in the middle age and past centirues ;-)) I like your full image with the nearly negative space, even I like as well Manolis crop, but his fitures are so strong that the extra space is good for my perception . BTW, why is he called mr. death ?

I strongly connect to that image, I will visit again to see more of your work. Pnina

I call him Mr. Death because he is the 'grim reaper' who visited people in Medievel times to take them to their grim reward. I think he had a scythe (the reaper part) but the photo was too focused to take that part in; there was no question he is associated with death.

 

I was reading above, and I think Mr. Spanakis removed part of his first comment, or maybe I just over-responded, something I am wont to do.

 

He made a good point, and I also (as you seem to agree), also made a similarly strong point.

 

Stalemate.

 

It's good to have you snooping around my ever-expanding portfolio -- I feel like it's getting overly large, but some of the old folders just don't drop off and I want to keep them for historical reasons, (and they account for 4.8 million views on the view counter, too, though God help, I'm not sure why, as they're now marked 'secondary folders' -- two of them, as they were mostly submitted without asking for critiques even in the first place -- and they just marched up to nearly 4 and 2 million views apiece- but the photography is pretty mediiocre, and I knew it, but not bad enough to throw away.

 

And I really don't care about rates, so much. Occasionally a truly high rating photo got tossed into one of those two folders (Traveling Man and Seasons, One Day Each), and got amazing 'views' despite low rates overall (when people could rate anything) -- the 'olden days'.

 

Welcome back, and don't be a stranger.

 

I've been to your portfolio and it's wonderful, as always. You far outclass me as a photographer, and I'm the first to admit it. I certainly have a different way with a camera/far less aesthetically inclined.

 

John (Crosley)

John, thanks as always for your detailed answer, I forgot to ask you if it is a figure from a theatre play?

 

About styles of photography, we are different in our perceptions and it is GOOD! Much more interesting John.

Yes, diversity is GOOD; I agree.

 

While we are quite different, we are in complete agreement on that.

 

I just walk around with my camera(s) and take photos, trying for 'isolation' as here, or a good juxtaposition, as in others of my photos.

 

This is one of four different 'street buskers' -- street players on Barcelona's famed pedestrian mall -- the street/mall with the most unusual and interesting group of street performers I ever have seen in my world travels.

 

Can you identify the four posted -- including this one?

 

Many of them got high rates or high views, for a folder of mine and are in this folder, or another, similar folder.

 

I thought I found a good one in Munich -- displayed as a 'bride' in my single folder (color) folder, which ended up being isolated like a portrait because of the exposure values which obscured the surrounding buildings which were reduced to blackness because her whiteness overpowered their surrounding blackness and it proved a high scorer.

 

As a result, I never pass over a 'street performer' (busker in British English) -- a performer who performs for money from passers by.

 

You never know what you'll see, and in Barcelona, it seemed to be the 'mother lode' (a term used to describe the richest vein of gold in a gold 'strike' in the Wild West-- and hence generalized to mean something 'rich' or 'fertile').

 

Consider this: This is a 'landmark' photo of mine, today with over 17,000 views, and now 20 comments, yet it languishes from my best-viewed folder with only 10 views. I have a lot of photos like that -- 10 rates keeping them from being seen by those who browse my most-rated photos, even though the photos are first rate/among my very best.

 

Such is life.

 

John (Crosley)

this death is not proud. he actually looks very apprehensive himself. an amteru inexperienced ripper i guess. i like this shot a lot for its comp-osition (no i would not touch thte crop, a classic subjkect isolation, head posture - just the right angle to see the face but not to have smack in the lense. all the basics bht aeverybody is taught but only few know how to apply. btw, i was surprised that somebody at your level of skill even bothers to mention the ratings. why would you care? those are not true ratings scales anyway, just a gimmick, like a parlor game.

That is a thoughtful comment; thank you.

 

Why mention the ratings? Because, no matter how amateurish, ratings here mean visibility.

 

While those who browse an entire portfolio see all the photos and that is to be encouraged, the casual browsers looking only for the 'best' photos often browse only the 'most-rated' photos, which in my case, I think, is highly misleading.

 

Part of the reason for the success of the site is the Top Rated Photo sorting engine, and it relies on ratings just for sorting purposes; no ratings = no ability to sort, so ratings will stay and if the site operators are smart, ratings will stay forever, no matter how many 'adjustments' are made.

 

But again, from the very first posting, ratings = visibility.

 

My best photo, posted first, is not my highest-viewed, even though it is my highest-rated, because I didn't know how to request a critique within the allowable time limits. Now it has about 87,000 views just from 'click--throughs and browsers, but if it had a critique requested, it probably would have 100,000 more viewers (it is that good--'balloon man' -- Early B&W Folder - Includes Recent Work). Take a look at it, and I think you'll agree.

 

Even Rembrandt painted patrons who paid him and exhibited his works in their wealthy houses, as did many other very famous other painters -- each needed either a patron or a commission, or he had a poor life.

 

On Photo.net, for which there is no payment, 'views' and exhibition is the reward, together with critiques, and the photographer is wise to maximize 'views' and his/her exposure.

 

Now, if you have browsed my work, you'll find that the actual numbers mean really very little to me, despite any growsing. If I get a photo with a 3.5/3.5, I keep it posted, and proudly. I seldom remove a photo; if I post it, it means I'm happy to display it and posted it for a reason, if only that it fit with a particular folder's theme.

 

Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

 

John (Crosley)