Bull vs. Man**

This man, dressed as a clown, actually is a competitor in a sport

known as a form of bull-fighting, in which the man has no weapons,

and he engages the bull -- trying to tempt the bull to charge him,

then escape (barely) -- all scored on the guy's skill in getting the

bull to charge him closely (often throwing participants), and his

skill in eluding the bull. (one cowboy went to the hospital). Your

opinions and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate

harshly or very negatively, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment/Please share your superior knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Notice the cowboy-clown's left forearm -- it's in a cast; -- the forearm or wrist was previously broken -- this is one dangerous occupation.

 

But after watching this guy, he'd probably use the cast to whack the bull over the head -- he was pretty audacious as a bull-fighter (American style) -- no picadores with their spears, etc. to weaken the bull and no sword to finish off the bull hidden under a cape (Spanish style).

 

Just get in the ring with an 1850 pound bull and taunt him until he chases you, then evade the bull, and when the bull doesn't chase you, taunt him some more (and if he corners you, jump --climb high -- the fencing, or 'freeze and pray'/alternatively call for other 'clowns' to rescue you including the 'clown in the barrel' (who got severely clobbered several times by the bull. After decades of doing that -- it was the barrel clown's last appearance, and he looked deadly serious despite his offbeat and 'humorous' makeup).

 

This photo was taken with my lens poked through the steel fencing; if I hadn't withdrawn my lens at times, it would've been skewered by horns.

 

Imagine the ad on E-Bay: one Nikkor lens, parts only, skewered by bull horns (at rodeo) . . . .

 

John (Crosley)

 

Please note, this is a wide angle view.

 

I was shooting with an 18~200 mm Nikkor, a much sought-after lens, and with this view the lens was fully retracted into the widest angle position -- a film equivalent of about 28 mm. for a very wide angle of view.

 

In other words, this cowboy was right in front of me, and the bull not far behind him (and dangerously close to me). The cowpoke ended up being cornered in the arena by the bull, with another clown drawing the bull's attention, and all just stood there, the cowboy partly ready to spring the fence and another cowboy/clown also ready to spring the fence -- and the bull undecided which to go for.

 

Stupid bull.

 

Frankly, this cowpoke was sweating bullets, being trapped in the fence corner there, but bulls lose interest if nobody moves . . . a trick every rodeo partipant (and photographer) should know; bulls have notoriously poor eyesight (how else to explain that they mate with 'cows'.)

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

I love this shot, John! At first I wondered how in the world you got so close, but my question was answered on your other rodeo shot :) I was there Sunday & had a VIP pass, but not a media pass (which I'm determined to get next year - ha!) so my pics are from a ways up in the stands. Anyhow, I'm quite jealous - this is some good action. Best wishes - T

I got my media pass based on my past AP experience (I formerly shot for AP, plus my stock photo experience -- which I don't write about -- my publishing ambitions (also not written about) and an online view of my entire portfolio by the press office, right there in the media/press office. It didn't seem to be too hard a choice, especially since there was a huge, worldwide motorcycle event going on at nearby Laguna Seca that weekend, taking away much of the media attention/crowds.

 

I hope I have repaid their faith by showing a couple of very good and more unusual rodeo photos and have one more that is somewhat unusual (a spectator for my 'faces' folder, which is precious and priceless.)

 

And I have some other, more offbeat photos, including a child roping a steel bull in the 'rodeo family area' as he prepares to learn the family tradition. I wish I'd spent half a day getting the perfect photo of that one, in retrospect, as it had greater promise than I gave to it.

 

Don't pin your hopes on a 'media pass' next year; I've got and had experience as working media/photographer (been a combat photographer, etc., worked for AP photos), but the media office was VERY nice to me for which they deserve accolades.

 

My photo of the 'Bronco Busting' however, was taken from the stands, as I moved from one area to another and was high in the stands, right with those who were seated in the bleachers at the end of the arena (effectively about a 375~400 mm capture (film equivalent), and it's getting high rates from the membership and has great 'stock photo' potential -- it also can easily be manipulated -- say to pure black and white -- a silhouette. And it can be sold again and again.

 

In fact, for the 'main' events, I got excellent shots from the bleachers at each end bleachers from the pedestrian area just standing, or moving to the front and sitting/kneeling and then using a long lens (80~400 mm) or my 70~200 with either a 1.4 or a 2.0 times tele-extender -- either combination proved perfect with the 'crop factor' of a APS-size sensor Nikon digital camera (D-200s in this case). I couldn't have used a longer lens unless I wanted to take portraits of the cowpokes in the 'chutes'.

 

Next year, I'll probably ask for a 'chute pass' and maybe between now and then I'll hit a rodeo or two; I liked shooting rodeo -- it requires split-second timing and the ability to anticipate -- two skills that I'm pretty good at, and which I can hone at rodeo.

 

One thing: If you carry a media pass, you have to be supernice -- after all you represent yourself and the privileges that have been extended to you, and also lots of rodeogoers kind of 'heckle' you -- asking how they can get their photo in the (Salinas) 'Californian' (daily paper), but I tried to be very good natured, but that goes with the territory -- when you carry a camera (two actually) that looks professional and a large, long lens.

 

All in all, except for one tense instance from one drunken rodeo cowboy behind the stands, ALL the people I met were quite friendly and very good natured -- a most pleasant experience -- some of the nicest people I've ever met in a California crowd scene (bar none).

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

The Official Title is the California Rodeo, Salinas, not the Salinas Rodeo -- just to set the record straight (and to help those who are trying to Google the event.) It's a must see -- a most pleasant way to spend an evening (Thursday and Friday) or an afternoon (Saturday and Sunday).

 

John (Crosley)

Guess I should have looked at all your photos before asking where the Clown was in your other rodeo shot. I like this one also, John. Good works! 6/6.

I took a lot of shots a previous night at the same place, and lost some wonderful ones of guys getting upended (thrown) because I cropped in the camera (framed) too closely, and ended up with a bull, neck extended, and a pair of feet hanging down from 'heaven' (from the thrown guy). He and his expression and thrown limbs (except feet) couldn't be seen because I had zoomed in too closely.

 

Apparently if you don't get gored by the horns, it's not so bad if the bull throws you with his snout (comparatively speaking, of course, and from a rodeo cowpoke's viewpoint of course, not from my viewpoint), and if he doesn't trample you, which he will try to do (this same day the first cowboy went to the hospital, and at first it wasn't clear he was even alive . . . .

 

So, the word for shooting rodeo is 'frame large' and be prepared to crop -- which is contrary to my usual way of shooting -- cropping and framing in the camera.

 

But because quick events can result in the 'frame of action' expanding rapidly (and interestingly), faster than the fastest photographer can 'zoom out', the only way is to 'frame large' and be prepared to crop tight later.

 

However, this was cropped full frame -- there isn't one wasted pixel in this shot and I'd have liked it to have a little more room at the top.

 

In the end, viewing this, for all its faults, it proved to be a most interesting shot, with the bull and cowpoke/clown/bullfighter forming a sort of 'X' crossing in the center of the frame for a very effective and dynamic composition, aided by their apparent 'conflict' and 'twists' emphasized by the bull's hooves being in the air, showing his menace.

 

And I never shot rodeo before.

 

I'll bet this is an unsual shot among rodeo shots, too, in part because it's so close and not telephoto, but wide angle. Highly unusual. (I was behind the steel fencing with plenty of room to place my camera(s) for pointing, focusing and zooming.

 

Thanks for the nice rate (I never peek at rates before I comment in reply -- it keeps my comments honest and uninfluenced.).

 

John (Crosley)

I don't know if you experienced this at all while you were there... On Sunday during the playing of our national anthem, I was surprised/bothered/perplexed - several emotions. Behind me I noticed some men - hats on their heads, remaining seated. I looked around and saw more here and there. A couple of them gave me what appeared to be angry, defiant looks when I glanced at them. I wish now I'd taken a picture, because the snapshot I have in my mind of that moment was powerful. Ah....hindsight.

Perhaps you overreacted.

 

The National Anthem is not what makes a person an American.

 

And the Salinas 'California Rodeo' is not open only to Americans.

 

For all you know they were Canadians, Germans, English, or other tourists there. San Francisco nearby is a great draw for tourists, and since it was hugely hot all over the state, anywhere on the coast where it was cooler, such as Salinas, would have been a great draw for such people -- and the California Rodeo at Salinas is somewhat of an 'international' attraction -- a slice of 'Americana' available to 'foreigners'.

 

Perhaps you were too reactive, if I may be so bold.

 

I personally don't believe that singing a song makes a person an American, just as I believe that Christian churches are 'full of sinners' -- by definition.

 

The Christian Church believes all persons are sinners, and by definition, those who attend services are sinners. What is surprising is that so many who attend services in such churches somehow act 'holier than thou' because they do attend services' but as an attorney (when I practiced some considerable time ago) I saw the behavior of those 'holier than thou people' against their fellow man at other times, and many times it belied their proclaimed 'righteousness'.

 

(In certain other instances, however, I saw people who actually did 'turn the other cheek' -- which it appears you did not, as you appeared to have been hostile to these people, apparently assuming they were somehow 'unAmerican' is what I suppose, although you only suggest it and do not state it expressly. Am I wrong?)

 

America is full of all sorts of people, and some religions even prevent singing (or dancing), and worship of a 'state' such as the United States amounts -- for some strict religions -- as a form of idolatry . . . on one hand -- you won't see Shakers or Mennonites singing the National Anthem, I think (though I may be wrong).

 

On another hand, the rodeo wrapped itself in the flag . . . . with appeals to patriotism that may have made some people uncomfortable -- though 'wrapping itself in the flag was something that was probably appealing to the country folks who put on rodeos and to the vast number of 'country folk' who come from Middle America farm/ranch country and the Intermountain West.

 

I am uncomfortable when somebody seeks to define my patriotism by a song, a chant, a pledge, or anything else.

 

I celebrate my country by comparing it with others, and it comes out a winner almost every time. Just look through my photos and commentaries, and you'll see . . . but I refuse to be blind to the goodness of other people and other cultures (unlike some closed-minded Americans -- the sort who say 'love it (only like they want you to love it) 'or leave it'. That's a sort of dyspepsic way of looking at life and not very inclusive for the world's most inclusive nation.

 

I celebrate that inclusiveness, and if somebody doesn't want to stand for the National Anthem, I celebrate the right that allows them to remain seated (even if in protest, though I don't agree with them), rather than shoot them eye darts . . . for that's what makes America great -- the right to have one's own opinion and keep it . . . and to have one's religion . . . not to be put into some religious strait-jacket (as the current political leaders/Administration seeks to do).

 

I celebrate America for its freedoms, including the freedom to be let alone, to think unconventional thoughts if that's one's wish; this nation was founded by unconventional thinkers -- traitors all (against England).

 

And almost to a one, the colonial leaders were humanists, and hardly evangelical Christians as present-day religious revisionists would have you believe -- they believed in strict separation of Church and State, as a good idea and that it should remain so.

 

So, as much as I understand why you were peeved, I think it was a personal predeliction that bears some looking into . . . maybe they were foreign tourists . . . Canadians who are residents and owe their allegiance to another country . . . tourists . . . people who don't believe in the religious/war overtones of the Star Spangled Banner, etc. . . . or simply people who are patriotic but express it in different ways than the way you deem 'appropriate'.

 

It takes all kinds, and my photographs don't discriminate against those people -- they celebrate them -- whether they are Americans or from other countries. My photographs celebrate mankind and the human condition . . . in its wonderful vagaries and variations.

 

I'm sorry you were peeved, but maybe those people were just tired . . . and maybe just tired of seeing 'patriotic themes exploited' for commercial purposes as some rodeo performers' loudspeaker commentaries did . . . (maybe you were not aware of that theme . . . but it was obvious to me . . . it essentially was . . . 'I'm putting on a show . . . and the commentary over the loudspeaker has a 'patriotic message' . . . 'therefore it's a better show' . . . and 'I'm a better person and my show is better because of the patriotic theme'.

 

I'm of the school that believes the 'Mother Theresa's of this world are the great humanitarians . . . , and those people don't have national anthems or patriotic themes. I don't even care at all for Mother Theresa's religion, but she was a great woman for what she did and doing what she believed in in a caring and loving way without deceit or guile.

 

But many of the rodeo 'shows' exploited the theme of 'patriotism' for personal gain -- to garner applause -- to get their show booked again the next year -- in short, a sort of patriotic pandering.

 

The real question is where are those people when the soup kitchens need workers? Are they there pitching in, and when 'Farm Aid' needs a performer to help poor farmers from losing their land are they pitching in, or doing something else with their talents (besides reaping a payday)?

 

I'm very wary of people who question 'patriotism' of others. I watch over my own patriotism and hope that others do the same with their own, and I am very suspicious of the 'patriotism police.'

 

If someone commits a treasonous act (truly treasonous), I'll be the first to report them, for I love my country too, but not celebrating a song is not one of those things.

 

For what it's worth. I wasn't there Sunday, but was there for two complete performances . . .

 

And I don't denigrate somebody's well-founded personal sense of what they believe is patriotism -- that's something they own -- so long as they don't try to place their sense of values on me, but instead let me choose my own values.

 

I've helped make laws and helped prevent unjust laws from being enforced to the point where I've made courts toss out 'illegal law' and refuse to enforce them, and stuck with poor people trying to get their government benefits through hearing after hearing, for my personal remuneration (pay) that often totaled a few dollars an hour, (if that) giving up work that would have earned me hundreds of dollars an hour.

 

At one time, I counted there were 200 families that had a daily meal and some income because of 'pro bono' work that I did when I was a practicing attorney.

 

That's my form of patriotism, and it doesn't have a tune.

 

And I don't mind if no one paid or ever pays attention to that, because I personally own the dignity of having done that with my life, and didn't do it for aggrandizement or profit (or to make a crowd stand up).

 

John (Crosley)

I wish more would subscribe to your worldview John, in particular those in power. But, please forgive me, I don't wish to turn this commentary into a political diatribe.

 

Speaking of power, that Bull sure is in the driving seat - that's quite some photo you've taken.

I hope you had 'tongue in cheek' about political diatribe -- going off-topic is a tradition now with my commentaries -- not just for me, but for other commentators as well. So long as it relates to a photo, a comment on a photo, world events or something suggested by a photo, a photo comment or a reply.

 

In short, just about anything.

 

And, oh, yes, that bull weights nearly 2,000 pounds, and I'd hate to get in his way. One cowpoke did and went to the hospital -- many feared he was dead (he was out cold and showed no signs of life for 10 or 12 minutes).

 

These guys who 'bullfight' are only dressed as 'rodeo clowns' -- they're really bullfighters, but in a modern, American 'tradition' -- or at least manner. (maybe not old enough to be a tradition -- and one that may not last and is not universal with all rodeos -- but it's a sure crowd pleaser.)

 

One guy doing it is a former professional wrestler; they all dress up in rodeo clown garb, but believe me, they're top athletes -- and maybe lacking something upstairs in terms of self-control, if you know what I mean -- a sense of proportion -- that enables them somehow to think they can make a living rodeo after rodeo challenging these huge critters. The odds just are against them. Sooner or later they'll make a misstep, and these are not 'practice' or 'juvenile' bulls -- they're the real thing.

 

In one instance, a cowpoke had his bull lead away because the bull wasn't 'aggressive enough' and after a delay, a new bull was loaded so he could get a REAL fight and compete for the prize money.

 

The difference between this and Spanish bullfighting? There's a real chance the bullfighter will be dragged out of the ring, and no chance at all that the bull will be dragged off dead (for McDonald's hamburgers?)

 

John (Crosley)

 

God Save the Queen (spirit of ecumenism and worldly peace) ;-))

Long live the Sex Pistols.

First, let me apologize for going somewhat off-topic with my comment. I don't disagree with your reply. I don't know whether it's wise to try and explain myself, but I'll will anyway & you feel free to delete.

 

I welcome and enjoy the people from different countries that come not only to the Rodeo, but also to visit this lovely area in general. My irritation comes with people who come to stay, benefit from the free education for their children, enjoy being able to see a doctor regardless of ability to pay, and choose to do things like calling out "F--- America, viva Mexico!" during our national anthem. (that did not happen this year, but did last year). It's their choice/right to do so, but my choice to be offended by it.

 

Lest you feel I'm a white elitist of some kind, I'm not. I am of mixed blood, my dad being various western european, and my mother pacific islander/hawaiian. My grandfather came to Hawaii from the Philipines to cut sugar cane, thus making a better life for his family. They had a better life here than the one they left. He was grateful, and so were we. When I am in another country, I like to be a "good" or respectful guest. When in Canada, I stand for their national anthem, tho I don't sing or place my hand over my heart. I'd never dream of screaming out obscenities regarding that country and then yell "USA number 1!!" I try to respect the local beliefs and way of life when I go somewhere else, and I don't expect the world around me to constantly provide the way of life I'm used to. I've also been poor enough to go without eating for days in order to put gas in my car so I could go to work, and I understand poverty and what it feels like.

 

I think my problem is not one of patriotism, but of common courtesy. After last year, I shouldn't have been surprised, but I'd forgotton and was indeed surprised again. If people choose to stay seated I don't have a problem with that - but when people call out obscenities and do everything they can to draw your attention and show you how much they 'don't care', I AM bothered. I'm sure my thinking is colored by having lived in Salinas for several years recently. I wanted a more tranquil life, so I moved. I don't know whether I managed to convey my feelings fully, but I tried. Best wishes -

You indeed had not conveyed correctly your feelings, which brought on my strong reply.

 

Anybody discourteous enough to have yelled F** America, Viva Mexico or any other country would have got eye darts from me too.

 

It's just that you didn't say that; you said something quite different and entirely misleading if that was what you meant to say; and it appears what you are saying is basically anti-Mexican immigrant and not clearly defining that it's against the illegals rather than against all Mexicans which it appears to be.

 

Salinas is an interesting town/city, with a huge population not only of Mexican-born, but also a huge number of Chicano youths, (US born of Mexican parents) who enjoy the freedom of US citizenship as a birthright without having suffered the hardship of growing up in Mexico, though it can't have been so easy growing up as children of, say, fieldworkers.

 

And they have their own gangs, and a violence problem has grown up around them, whereas nearby Watsonville, where I live, has fewer of such Chicano youths, and more youths who are 'illegals' and thus place themselves and their parents in jeopardy if they get in trouble with the law -- and so the local 'illegals' go out of their way to be law-abiding. This is contrary to the situation of the Hispanics in Salinas, many of whom happen to be citizens, and don't risk so much to tread on the laws -- they can't get deported.

 

But you simply didn't express yourself well for the first thing; if you were agains those who intentionally were rude, you didn't express it clearly, as I pointed out a little long-windedly, but then again, as an immigrant daughter, you should be aware that much of what else you have written says 'I'm here, and they're new arrivals, and maybe the door should have been shut after our arrival, because we're better people, and they're not.'

 

The Asian people have a different culture, and the Filipina(o)s a different view of American life (considerable envy for things American is one thing that characterizes life in the Philippines), whereas there is intense pride in things Mexican even among those who come to the US from Mexico primarily for economic reasons and intend to stay here. Culturally, you probably feel quite superior to the lower-educated and agrarian-raised, mostly Central Mexicans who have settled in California from Mexico, compared to your ancestors, and one can understand that.

 

Plus Mexican-Chicano gang violence that permeates Salinas cannot have escaped your notice and I think your perception of personal safety at least in parts of Salinas certainly has colored your thinking. (I certainly would not want to be living in parts of Salinas today, for their gang problems, and their relationships to the prison gangs - Nuestra Familia, Aryan Brotherhood, and so forth -- I saw some of those people at the Salinas Air Show last year and the year before, and was horrified.)

 

But you are not a careful writer, and you blur the distinctions between those who earned the right to come here (or had it granted to them ex post facto), and those who climb the fences, trek through the deserts, and swim the Rio Grande), and that accounts for the trouble we seem to have had in communicating and my very strong response.

 

And I think it's more a matter of the appearance of intemperateness in your remarks (and some things you didn't say that I would have agreed with if you had said them) rather than any real difference we have as individuals, that has sparked the appearance of differences between us.

 

But then again, it's a good exercise sometimes to state what one believes in, and with vigor, and I don't fault you for that, and I hope in turn you don't fault me for that either.

 

I hope you have peace in your new community, wherever that is.

 

One thing you may have overlooked is that native-born and long-term Americans have stopped reproducing at sufficient rates to finance the foreseen retirements of the elderly and to fill the jobs of the future, and it is the birthrates of immigrants that are needed to supply the youths to fill those jobs -- for better or worse.

 

And the same thing is happening in Europe, with France wrestling with the issue of a declining 'Caucasian' birth rate, an aging population, but a climbing 'African-French' and Muslim-French birthrate, without making accommodations in their society for those people.

 

Similarly, Germany also needs its Turkisha and other Arab-Muslim workers, yet until recently it has erected insurmountable barriers to citizenship and entry to society for them and even their German-born progeny with the result that an adult, born in Germany of Turkish parents, educated in German schools, who doesn't even speak Turkish and has never been to Turkey, might only be eligible to carry a Turkish passport and be ineligible for certain German jobs -- and also be discriminated by the same German people that young son/daughter of Turkish parents as an adult grew up and went to school with.

 

It's a sign of the developing, industrializing world, and you and I are just one small part of it; the issues we've raised above are just one small part of a much larger whole.

 

I wish you happiness.

 

John (Crosley)

I read with interest your thoughts. Now I see that speaking very bluntly (which would be considered rude in the culture I grew up in) you do not see as rudeness, but is what you would prefer. I will do so when we next meet :) regards -

Sometimes through shaving our meanings and trying to be or appear innocuous to others we present an appearance that actually misrepresents our thoughts -- and that is a danger. I practiced law for many years, and many times people would present themselves in one way, who had been through horrendous circumstances and they would 'downplay' those circumstances, though those circumstances had shaped their lives in a bad way -- literally caused them to lose a good station in their lives -- the need to be polite and denigrate their anger or not to be outspoken and to be socially polite caused them to misrepresent themselves.

 

In most such cases they were angry and angry as hell, but they simply tried to present themselves as controlled because they had no real control over their circumstances and that was the best they could do. In reality, they were lying to others about how they really felt about their circumstances.

 

Now accurately representing how one feels about one's circumstances, for social nicety, is a situation I am very familiar with, because of long experience with these people, whose lives often had collapsed under them for no fault of their own, and who seldom if ever complained -- they were simply stoic.

 

But it often took some considerable practice to enable them to speak plainly about their TRUE feelings, such that they could be put before a jury and tell the actual truth, rather than the social lie. (Juries cannot look into yor 'heart of hearts' -- only into what you testify about and if you don't testify about our pain and how it affected you, they award you nothing.)

 

If such a person wakes up hurting every day and has a vastly curtailed life because of pain, he might often say he feels felt 'fine' to everybody, but that's a disaster if speaking to a jury -- and many lacked the vocabulary to say 'I woke up, and it took 45 minutes just to swing my feet over the edge of the bed and put on my slippers afer I got the courage to endure the pain it caused, and the rest of the day went like that,' because they never allowed themselves to speak like that in an attempt to avoid thinking about their pain. It's an avoidance mechanism.

 

So, with my background like that, and in dealing with people who for social reasons either didn't speak the whole truth or left parts out, I bear down hard, looking for the real truth . . . . and in some cases it's highly beneficial.

 

In your case, it turns out the unspoken truth was that your apparent upset from this year, actually had occurred the year before when Hispanics (alien status unknown) disrespected the National Anthem and shouted 'Viva Mexico' (or words to that effect) (and I also would have found that upsetting), but that was not found in your first post, and therefore your first post was misleading.

 

The cardinal point of expressing yourself, especially in text to an unknown audience, is to speak clearly and not hide in subtleties unknown to others.

 

I got caught in such a subterfuge (your omission of important facts) -- I thrive on full discussion of facts and am not put off by what you might feel is 'rude' talk -- I call that 'vigorous discussion' and often can find that I make the most friends when I have a 'vigorous' conversation with someone -- for they respect that my views are well-founded and come from my heart (even if they disagree heartily.)

 

I wish you the best, and hope that in your new abode you have found the peace (and safety) you desired.

 

For the most part I found the participants and audience at the rodeo highly civil and could find no fault with their behavior, but I had no expectations.

 

John (Crosley)

In your portfolio i have seen many intimate and many action moments... i pick this image to represent them all. The story is all there, developing with great dynamism into the frame, there are colors that help conveying the message, yes, but also it is to notice that both subjects are placed on a plain background that helps isolating them AND in this case the photographer choose to use colors to his advantage, since the green and the black contrast beautifully and gives the human a good detach from his attacker (or is the other way around? - you choose).

Interesting that you choose this rather under-appreciated image -- raters hardly liked it although it started out strongly, but enthusiam quickly died out, though I did like it immensely, and viewers also were ho-hum about clicking on it.

 

But I viewed it as one of my better action images; I never had shot 'sports' before; this is one of my first efforts at 'sports', but I imagine that the fundamentals are what you master, not the specialties, just as when I studied at an Ivy League University (Columbia) the great writings. ideas, and philosophies, and sought to master 'how to find the *truth*' instead of specific diciplines, all the time trying to understand 'how one finds the *truth*' even if it is specific only to the person doing the examination -- in this case, me.

 

I apply that approach also to the 'art' of photography. I imagine that with basic knowledge of composition, color, apertures, media sensitivity and properties, shutter speed and their inter-reactions, I can photograph nearly anything with some practice, and I am attempting to do so with nearly everything that I find interesting, AND to give my individual 'take' on everything, which may vary depending on the circumstances -- for I don't generally have a point of view particularly -- I only try to make 'intersting photos', and in that regard, I hope I have succeeded.

 

You 'explain' this 'little' photo very well; I treasure that you have stopped here instead of an image I regard as 'magnificent' or greatly worthy, and it is a sign that I am accomplishing my goal -- to be able in a worthy way to apply basic techniques to everything I come across.

 

I do appreciate what you have set out to do and am greatly flattered at being a chosen subject.

 

Mazeltov.

 

John (Crosley)

It appears, in my enthusiasm to take interesting photos, I use a myriad of photographic devices, often without exactly knowing what they are -- they're just one more way to make interesting photos -- photos that stand out, though they're often of the most mundane subjects, though not in this case.

 

Maybe it's just that I take a lot of photos, and I'm a very good photo editor; for a year that was my profession, but I was chosen for that profession because of my skills as a writer/photographer and 'telling stories' so it goes round and round . . . a chicken and egg sort of thing.

 

In the end it all boils down to this distillation: Get all the interesting stuff in the frame and keep all the uninteresting stuff out. How big that frame is will vary from photo to photo depending on what is being portrayed, and even empty, negative, or blank space may indeed be 'interesting' when combined with a proper subject as a whole.

 

John (Crosley)

Giuseppe, if you remember the movie by the Late Peter Sellers, 'Being There' the inimitable Chauncey the Gardener, (hereinafter Chauncey) seemed inbued with tremendous wisdom as he explained his plants and later life in the metaphor (actually the potting terminology) of the garden.

 

In a photographic sense, maybe I'm just a 'Chauncey' a bumbling guy who appears 'worthy' by virtue of something over which I have no control, just 'being there' to take my photographs, and for every worthy photo I take and substantial camera and lens combination I carry, people project talent onto me, though I may indeed have very little.

 

Maybe I'm just Chauncey the Photographer, who comes up with a good one from time to time, based on the law of averages; Chauncey eventually ended up (I believe) as an advisor to public leaders by virtue of spouting platitudes that 'just sounded great' -- a sort of studied nonchalance with some outstanding results buried among tons of drek.

 

That's my take on it.

 

John

goodness... that is closer than I would ever want to be!! Clear and crisp. You can smell the Bull from here. Wow GREAT picture! I am impressed with the colors and the motion! ~ micki

Micki,

 

As you can probably guess, I can pretty close to having this bull's horns up my lens.

 

This was my first and only go at Rodeo shooting, and it seemed pretty successful to me, so long as I didn't have to get a great photo of a particular 'star' but rather was left on my own to get my 'best' photo of anyone doing whatever.

 

That's where I'm best, rather than trying to pick out No. 54 on top of 'Ol Ironside' and just getting a photo to satisfy the folks who sell hay so they'll place an ad in Sunday's edition.

 

I want a photo that will generate interest a half year or a year and a half hence, rather than something to line a bird cage with (newspaper photo), though there are some great photos in newspapers, including one I saw a few weeks ago that ought to get the Pulitzer -- a photo of a man and a burnt-out oil field after a Nigerian oil explosion set off by people carrying gasoline in homemade containers -- as good a photo as you'll ever see anywhere, at least in the documentary category, and right there in the New York Times and other major newspapers, and deservedly right on the front pages.

 

I eschewed a newspaper photographer's job because of low pay and failure to provide a path for my other talents, not because it wasn't 'interesting' but because it was 'not interesting enough' for a guy with at least three rings going on under his circus tent at all times.

 

I often wonder what would have happened if I had kept that path open to photographic journalism -- would there have been a Pulitzer, or just a lifetime chasing a Pulitzer (and maybe some disappointment)?

 

Instead I've had a full life and who really cares about a Pulitzer -- amateurs sometimes get them and lucky neophytes who happen to be at the right place at the right time.

 

I am working on a 'work' on juxtapositions -- a Presentation called 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' and this is a classic example of a case in which a bull chasing a man and the man being chased are self-contained -- with the bull himself being the background for the man and together the two defining the boundaries of the photo.

 

And this bull, having been evaded by the man, came dangerously close to my lens, which initially was stuck between the metal 'boards' of the fence, only to be quickly withdrawn . . . whew!

 

Them bulls ain't nothing to screw around with . . . poor eyesight or not.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

 

 

Ok... and I have no clue what it is called (we lived in Monterey back in the late 80's) I had more problems with how RODEO was pronounced because I am from Texas. I think you captured this with more color and more action than I remember any rodeo! I could spend all day in your portfolio looking back into California and the Monterey area. Into another world!

I remember the smell of the Rodeo's and the smell of my Granda's farm when seeing a good picture like this. It's not that Cow's and Bull's smell bad they just have that smell that is not unlike any other smell. If you have ever been one of those kids that has been able to be put on top of a cow or horse without a saddle it is the most wonderful thing in the world! You almost went bareback here!! I think you should write a book and I think you should go out there and sell it! Maybe write one that says "Lawyers, Watch Your Background Too". I knew several Realators while in Monterey they were fun! You really have a great portfolio here on Photo.net and I bet you have some great pictures you haven't even shared! You capture these bits of time so well! You need to WRITE with you pictures because you capture your words so well too! ~ just my two cents! ~ micki

A rare find; a writer among photographers -- one who can think (and write) among the (often great) visualizers.

 

And a treat for the eyes if the photo attached to your bio is any indication, as I suppose caught by Fergi, too. (fergiswife? Does that define you, or are you more than that?) Are those great looks part of that the Texas heritage, with roots in Czech Republic or Czechoslovakia immigrants which has fueled so many Texas beauties, or from some other source?

 

No matter; lucky Fergi to have such a partner, and be a person who can share and think and write all at the same time (I suppose you can do all that and rub your tummy and chew gum too, for it is clear you are intelligent (and clever and funny). Sorry about the tremor, but there are other pursuits, and photography certainly is one, as well as sculpture, collage, and others I can think of, but photography is my choice because I really can't do anything else at all.

 

I have practically NO imagination at all, that is until I SEE it, and then it triggers something in my imagination that was dormant -- something God turned on in the artists -- the Picassos and the lesser artists of this world, but failed even to turn on in me, but he gave me its spark and it takes seeing something and having a camera in my hands to cause it to rise to the present and to actualize.

 

Thanks for the compliments about the photography AND about the writing, but it seems my writing is not superior to yours . . . your writing for instance of being put in a horse or the smell of a bull . . . which you describe as being essentially 'not bad' (not your words exactly, though in quotes), but which I recall as being harsh to the nose -- acrid even with ammonia odor, and not a welcome one unless one is trying to get windows clean (and even then one I shy away from.)

 

Bulls do have a function, for where would our milk, cheese and cows come from, (and regrettably that 'veal chop' I ate last night that was very expensive which I could barely cut with a sturdy serrated blade knife that almost caused the plate to crack when the knife slipped once, and was 'passed off' as 'veal' -- I think it was OLD DYNAMITE above after he'd seen a Spanish style bullfighter and the bullfighters and picadors decided to carve the trophy for dinner, had some leftover and decided to trade off a piece of carcass as 'veal' (and overpriced 'veal' at that, as well also as overdone, served by a 'snippy' waitress:

 

Snippy Waitress coming to the table -- sample introduction:

 

'Good evening, my name is Tatyana, and I'll be your snippy waitress for this evening.

 

'If there's anything you want, you better think of it now, because if you ask for it later, I'll make little airs as though you are defective for not having asked for it earlier and make like you're putting me out later for not having thought of it earlier, you Cretin. By the way, nothing that you ask for on the menu actually will be in the kitchen; there are three things in the 30-item menu that actually are in the kitchen, but I won't tell you that; I'll only say 'nyeto' when you order the ones that are not stocked'

 

('Nyeto' means -- no way Charlie are you gonna get that particular item, and is offered with no explanation or even a smile or excuse, such as 'our supplier didn't bring it by this morning because the chef was too drunk yesterday to place his order . . . ' and so on)

 

But that was last night; today's another day and brings your wonderful, well-written comment.

 

And the suggestion I write. If I am a writer, so are you, and you too should try your hand at writing (if you haven't already) . . . for yours is most evocative.

 

And you are always welcome to place your comments here, whether on topic, slightly on topic or more far-ranging, so long as they appear to start out as a reference to the photo being discussed or the thread that follows.

 

My best wishes to you.

 

(sample comment 413a.3)

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)