The Department Store

'The Department Store' speaks for itself (at least for Americans).

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 me improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

John,

Very creative pic. To me though it seems to busy, theres just to much going on. Could you have acheived what you were going for with a tighter crop? Or an even wider angle, to help give the pic a central focus?

I just looked through all of your photos in your portfolio, you are an amazing photographer, and a very elloquent writer. Its awesome that you put so much thought into your photography, the story of the girl that was cutting herself and the picture was a very compelling story.

I'm headed to Latvia in a few weeks to do some photography over there.

Thanks for shooting and not caring what people think, and for conveying a story with your pictures.

Cheers,

Jim Baker

I always appreciate a thoughtful comment.

Actually, this is a little bit cropped at the right and left edges to ensure that the floor tiling meets the edges of the frame (and if I said unmanipulated, I think manipulation does not exclude small crops).

Yes, the photo is 'busy' but certainly not nearly so busy as most stores; in fact as stores go, this is one of the most coherent and least busy scenes I' have ever seen, (and once I regrettably had, as a job duty, occasionally traveling and photographing stores, including displays and having to write about them -- yucch, a perfect recipe for a headache every night, especially after being a world service editor for Associated Press concerned with world events -- but it paid fabulously well as I saved up to finish my college education and finish school (at night) before law school, something I couldn't do at Associated Press, because they wouldn't guarantee a schedule -- or even a city for long-term posting.

Although there is plenty of 'content' in this photo, it actually has two 'subjects' -- the partially-silhouetted couple, contemplatng the display, and the display, all brought together by the coherency of the light flooring.

Yes, there's lots of color, etc., but that ensures you know it's in a department store. To crop it any more would make it an abstraction (which it is anyway, but it would isolate it, and here it takes on a bigger meaning -- to me at least -- because there's no one else there at all -- just the starkness of this couple contemplating the display, in apparent contemplation and possible adoration, and certainly content (look at the woman's crossed legs. They're there for 'a while', and relaxed.

Among other things, it's a 'body language' photo, and the couple's body language seems to reflect the display they're observing.

And apparently, because of the couple's seeming ease at observing, they probably are contempating (perhaps dreaming) of the clothes in the display and how they'd fit the couple. Too much projection . . . probably not, here, in this particular case if one observes closely.

I actually find this photo not only telling, but a little humorous, in a casual sort of way -- my take on the modern 'yuppie' shoppers -- look at how the male dummy is wearing his tie -- loosely over a solid shirt, ends mismatched, shirt tail out.

One can almost read this couple's mind based on their body language and looking at what they're looking at with apparent approval, I'll wager.

Any contrary views?

And, Jim, even though we disagree about cropping, it caused me to think much more about my own photo, and for alone I am very thankful -- I like it even more now.

; -))

John

I consider this one of my better and more 'intelligent' photos. I am very proud of it.

It certainly is not a 'stunning' or eye-catching photo, but for me it's a photo that 'grows on you', but that's me on my own photo, so I may be full of it.

Compared to some of my successful recent photos, anybody can find an interesting face, focus on it, and capture an interesting expression.

This photo has 'content' (and highly 'original' content at that), if you care to look at it enough, and actually study it a little; I predict it would do very well in a gallery, blown up large enough so people could contemplate it, much as the couple is contemplating the casually dressed mannequins before them.

I met a woman last night, an attorney who's quit to become a clay artist, and showed her some photos on my camera's view screen which she liked very much.

I told her (without knowing her education or talking with her at all, since we were just sitting together randomly), that she probably had a master's or a doctorate -- which was a correct guess -- since she chose photos which required intelligence and education to 'understand' and 'enjoy.'

I seldom have problems with highly intelligent and/or highly educated people appreciating certain photos of mine, including more 'obscure' photos such as this, as a lot of thought is sometimes required to enjoy them.

It's too easy to look at this photo, if your tastes are limited, and say to yourself (quite honestly) 'what's the point of this photo, it's drek!' and that's a valid point of view for anyone who holds it, so rate away -- I can take it. If you feel another way, I always appreciate a comment (comments either way are always helpful.)

John (Crosley)

Notice in this photo which you call 'busy' how all the lines lead to the mannequins -- floor, lights, everything -- even the unseen gazes of the couple, and the lighting couldn't be better.

John (Crosley)

John,

I was just about to comment on the lighting, I did forget to point that out.

Thanks for putting thought into your work...

Jim Baker

Not only is the lighting there, but also notice the 'reflection' of the lighting on the reflective flooring.

(I'm not padding comments -- I was going to 'amend' my comment, above, which I frequently do).

I'm impressed by your watchfulness.

John (Crosley)

My thoughts are still with some of your other images, and one thing you mentioned I couldn't get out of my mind. I will point it out here as well, and I have even seen in in some of my own work (older).

It is the concept of "three's". If you could explain that a bit at some stage it will be excellent. Back to this image - yes obviously is not the stock standard beautiful sea/beach/rocks/lowshutterspeedtogetthemistyeffectinthewater type of image - but is is something to have a decent look at, and to ponder over. I hope you haven't noticed it yet, and that you will shout Eureka! when I mention it: See the [3] tv sets above? And 4 mannequins and 2 people = 6. 2 types however, therefore 6 divided by 2 = 3!!

Or it is just my obsession for even numbers kicking in again. Anyway, I'll ponder this some more and look forward to some explanantion on the 3's issue if you have some time.

See you later.

Regards

JH de Beer

Did you see Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise?

What I am getting at is are you an idiot-savant, or do you have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder -- e.g. all this chatter about numbers, adding them up and converting them. . . . ?)

;-))

Just a joke.

I do the same sorts of things.

Eureka!

You are right, and for that, this will be attributed to you when it gets to my 'Three's' folder, together with your analysis (and if it doesn't -- that is, get there, and get there with analysis attributed to you, remind me. . . . I want someone to point the finger of blame at . . . .)

And it's going to that folder for that.

It's funny (odd, not hah hah), how 'threes' seem to 'crop up' in my photos.

As to the mathematical relationships, I'll have to ponder that, but it interests me.

Here's one for Raymond (I used to 'count the cards' but not like the Raymond-Hoffman character in 'Rain Man' -- he could do a 'count' from six Las Vegas decks packed into a 'shoe'.

I was barely able to handle a single deck in Reno, which stayed with a single deck for a very long time . . . (and they sent in 'mechanics' -- cheating dealers who dealt 'seconds' by peaking at the dealt card and then giving you another card if that was too favorable -- so quickly you could NOT see it, but you could 'hear' it -- amazing people, the mechanics.

If I was 'counting cards', winning, a dealer was changed, and suddenly my luck changed, I just walked away, especially if the pit boss had been watching me intently, and the new dealer had not been in the dealer break 'rotation' before because often it meant a new dealer would be dealing me 'seconds' (illegally and with cheating).

And I did very, very little bets -- imagine what they'd have done to a guy who was winning hundreds or more (I always stopped at $100, -- ten times my original stake of $10, -- 20 and more years ago -- damn they watched me like a hawk, and a counter's bets 'give you away' as a counter, so there's no hiding it.

Back to this photo.

Eureka!

Thanks!

John (Crosley)

I enjoyed your feedback (as always). It would be a pity to have an analysis (if you can even call my attempt that)of mine "published" before one of my images. ;-)

Oh wait, I took some snaps of a local sheep auction, and apparently the big mother of all sheeps photo I took could make it's way into the local newspaper (circulation about 200....).

Anyway, I look forward to put my OC(P)D to work in your future images.

See you soon.

JH