Decompression Chamber For Airline Passengers

This photo, taken at Paris's Roissy-Charles De Gaulle airport,

speaks for itself. 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

To Anja, Tatiana, (and Christian for moral support) who helped me choose this particular view, among several. Thank you. Good photo editing derives from good taste, however derived and and from whatever source; it does not have any professional/educational requirements. Without help from people such as yourselves, my choices of photos would be much more difficult.

 

John (Crosley)

A review of EXIF info reveals the following (plus my own memory).

 

This was taken with an 18~200 Nikkor lens with a shutter speed of 1/20th of a second. Aperture is 'wide open' at f 3.5 with a focal length for this zoom lens of 18 mm (showing how great the depth of field is for such a focal length with an APS size sensor at such an aperture setting -- pretty impressive in my opinion).

 

Easy exposure adjustment had been applied two frames before (there were four frames in all) just as I had dropped the anchors I was carrying (known as large photobags, which the airlines always suggest I check, and I tell them 'are you kidding' they're filled with Nikons, Leicas and all sorts of lenses and do you know where I'm going?' and they always just let me walk on with them, and they always find room for them, often letting me preboard).

 

I took four exposures, one after I dropped my camera bags and untangled my cameras from around my neck (as instantly as I could when I saw this scene and the people walking away from me), and caught them fairly near me, waited about three seconds, and made three more captures, each separated by a second. This is the second from last capture. In the last capture, they were just a little too small, and not quite spaced so symmetrically.

 

I had applied what I recall as being 'easy exposure adjustment' (which is an option on Nikon cameras) to one-third stop overexposure metered equivalent, figuring that the walkway, foreground, would come out exposed a little too darkly under the Nikon Matrix metering (and I was right, it turned out).

 

There still is plenty of detail in the capture in the foreground, and I could have brought out more, but it would not have added to the capture.

 

A review of the 'blowout' screen reveals what appears to be a small blowout at the top where it's very bright/white, and I am not certain that screen actually records reality, though a view of the histogram does show one very narrow, tall line at the right end of the histogram, strongly suggesting a blowout there. In my view, that is of no importance to this particular photograph -- it just emphasizes that this photograph runs the gamut (to misuse a color term with a B&W photo) from total black to total white.

 

It seems, whether one has used the 'easy exposure adjustment' or not, that this is one of those cases in which Nikon Matrix metering has excelled, and Nikon's not paying me anything. I suppose Canon (or other companies' cameras might do just as well, and I would love to see how their cameras' meters would perform at this same spot).

 

My recommendation, to anyone who is befuddled by the Nikon 'easy exposure adjustment' choice on their Nikon SLR digital camera, is to set it to 'on' in the menu, and then using the rear command knob, make adjustments on a number of test shots of one subject under fixed circumstances, to see how much each stop/half stop/third stop makes in the outcome of your shooting, and which direction turning the command knob corrects for overexposure and which for underexposure that you think might occur (such as where there is a backlit subject and you think, say, matrix metering will not be able to figure out how to meter the subject, etc.).

 

Rather than 'bracket' your exposures using 'bracketing' which I never could figure out, 'easy exposure adjustment' on a digital camera gives the photographer precise control (and feedback) over each step of overexposure and underexposure correction within its limits. (Just be sure you set the control back to 'neutral' or 'center position' before you take your next shot' or see if Nikon has a setting that does that for you -- I think they do.

 

Less technical.

 

I did 'aim' to 'split the difference' on the right between the top of the rail and the bright metal floor/carpet trim, and it looks as though I came pretty close. I didn't try to come any closer through use of Photoshop by cropping/this is a full-frame, unmanipulated post.

 

ISO was 400, affected somewhat by the 'easy exposure adjustment'. If it had 'grain' this is about how a film camera with matrix metering would have captured the scene, except there probably would not have been any 'blowout' at the top, given the greater EV latitude of film, especially, say, TRI-X, the workhorse of 400 ISO films which had enormous Exposure Value latitude (EV latitude).

 

This is a jpeg (Japan photographic expert group standard) capture. NEFs (Nikon Electronic Format -- Nikon's version of Raw -- unmanipulated) outside of a studio setting were just using up too much computer memory for the amount I shoot, and NEFs were too tricky to get ready for posting either with Nikon's software or with the Photoshop CS2 'RAW' plug-in, and when you're traveling, it's pretty inconvenient to shoot NEF's (RAW) and JPEG's simultaneously (though it's just one other way of shooting -- just make a menu choice to do so) because that leaves precious little space on any size Compact Flash chip, even though now I am shooting 4 Gig chips (and have pockets full of 2 gig chips and more pockets full of 1 gig chips.

 

I hope someone reading this benefits from this (and maybe lets me know about it). I see beautiful photographs on this service, often without a word about how they were achieved, and so I am left to wonder 'how did he/she do that' -- and it's all a big mystery.

 

I don't think such things necessarily should be mysteries. After all, one of the most famous and valuable photographs ever made 'Moonrise Over Hernandez' had a certain 'look' to it that was achieved through -- 'gasp' -- manipulation of various chemicals that were not standard darkroom stuff, and that fact has widely been publicized. There were a large enough number of prints of that particular photograph made, and it's still a standout, regardless of its 'secret's having been 'revealed'.

 

Ansel Adams would have been a Photoshopper if it had existed when he took up photography, of that I am sure, and the 'zone system' might never have been invented as a result (though they are not mutually exclusive).

 

John (Crosley)

From a compositional standpoint at least, this is one of my lifetime best, a worthy photo, regardless of whatever ratings it garners.

 

Although I frequently take photos with a 'message', sometimes I also take more 'abstract' photos, or photos that are meant to be no more than just photos that relate harmony as I see it. This is a 'street' photo in my mind, because the various passengers/crew, were 'moving' and therefore this photo involved a significant element of timing and subject placement that was time dependant -- the spacing between the subjects was propitious only for these four persons, not for others whom I saw pass, and I think if I stood there for several days, I might not see such a felicitous juxtaposition of passengers/crew again.

 

While 'street photography' is about recognizing and capturing 'significant relationships' not all those relationships have to be intellectual -- they can also be aesthetic. Here, to my mind, it is in the nearly equal spacing of the four individuals walking up the sloping ramp, as well as their placement within the greater whole of the lines, shapes, lights and shadows of the structure.

 

John (Crosley)

havent read the novel above - but I will. Of course, you already know this is a good photo. I like the light at the end of the tunnel and the people going towards it...guess you can take it with you.

Not at the rate I'm spending it.

 

I hadn't considered the 'other-wordly' or 'spiritual' angle of things. You always surprise me with refreshing comments. People who died, at least in the '50s and '60s described their 'near-death' experiences as going down a long tunnel at which there was light at the end -- for which this may be an apt metaphor.

 

But were they limited to 'roll-a-boards' or was there also 'checked baggage'. One reads in personals about individuals 'free of baggage' -- isn't that what 'death' or 'near-death' is all about, 'not taking it with you?'

 

But if it refers to physical things, maybe I'll join one of them new-fangled 'black' 'get rich' churches which equate wealth with godliness and promise that by following their/our faith, we'll all get rich, then I'm sure, absolutely sure, they'll let us members take our material wealth with us, for theirs is an acquisitive God.

 

I guess, that presupposes heaven doesn't have 'everything'

 

Maybe there's a 'basic' heaven to which you must bring almost everything (Egyptian style, complete with servants and some food; higher up, a 'gold level' heaven to which you must bring some things, but just a few extras; maybe a 'platinum' heaven, fully stocked, and finally a 'titanium' heaven in which they're trying to interest you in 'new things' all the time to while away eternity -- literally pushing stuff on you.

 

And that presupposes another question.

 

In heaven, is there a concept of anything being 'new' at all? Or is everything already known?

 

And if that is the case, what is there to think about in heaven?

 

Do you even eat in heaven, and have the satisfaction of looking forward to a new and satisfying meal? That presupposes you have to experience hunger -- is there hunger in heaven -- perish the thought, (so to speak).

 

Is there sex in heaven; the Christians tell us that sex is 'evil' unless practiced in certain ways to 'make children' -- do angels 'make children'?

 

And from an Islamic point of view with their purported many 'virgins' for martyrs -- do the virgins remain virgins?

 

All those Islamic men are supposed to lust after an afterlife surrounded by virgins. (Doesn't sound like much fun to me; they never had to share a bed with my first wife, the wife of perpetual virginity.)

 

Or are they plannning something a little more?

 

Just a question that it appears no one has ever asked.

 

One only has presupposed that a 'man and a virgin' -- well that is supposed to answer the question -- but, well, because it's heaven and all, with God ruling everything, all bets are off about what a man can do with a virgin. Just telling me I would get a set number of virgins is of little solace for me if they have to remain virgins for all eternity.

 

Where is that question attacked in Holy Books?

 

If they have 'everything' in heaven and are in a perpetual state of bliss, what 'extra' bliss could be bestowed by a newfound object, novel, etc.,?

 

Do they allow smoking in heaven (after all, you can't 'die' of it?)

 

Maybe only for cigar afficianados?

 

And what do you call a match in heaven -- surely not a Lucifer . . . ;-))

 

Maybe that's what drove Satan to his evil ways.

 

Boredom.

 

I'm full of questions today, but no answers.

 

Unlike the President, God didn't have a tete-a-tete with me, which is why I haven't declared war on any country so far.

 

John (Crosley)

 

;-0

 

I look forward to your enlightened answers to my begging spiritual questions, oh learned one.

 

jc

What if PN gave 'extra credit' in the ratings for interesting comments and critiques that a member gives (and gets) like they give 'extra credit' in schools.

 

I hear now it's possible in some California schools now to get over a 4.67 GPA -- no wonder that a 4.00 seems to be about the cutoff point for UC-Berkeley or some similarly stratospherically high GPA number.

 

Just food for thought -- got to boost my averages, and maybe someday I'll graduate to bigger and better things.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

Everyone is familiar with the 'S' curve which draws the viewer's eye into the photo; fewer are familiar with the 'C' curve, also classic, which does the same thing.

 

Well, this photo, for all its lines and shadows, is simply a variation on a classic 'C' curve, and the result is predictable, perhaps why I was so eager to drop my bags and untantle my cameras, given the interesting architecture and lighting, and the rapidly disappearing figures (all nicely spaced, as though I had ordered them to thusly by some sort of telepathy or remote control).

 

The 'street photographer' can envy the movie director. Although he/she has to deal and manage diverse personalities, many with huge egoes, he/she gets the satisfaction of placing the figures and saying 'action' when the cameras are set and reshooting a scene until satisfied it's right.

 

The street photographer gets none of that; 'it's now or never' for him.

 

John (Crosley)

The focus point -- which determined the depth of field -- (remember 1/3 of acceptable depth of field is in front of the focus point and 2/3 of acceptable depth of field is behind it), was placed on the right rail, at or about hte second 'circular' concrete expansion joint/mold form -- it's ideal place for a photo such as this, resulting in absolute maximum depth of field for using the maximum aperture (to allow the fastest shutter speed available).

 

(from a review of the image on the CF card)

 

John (Crosley)

what if the people represented those souls going onto the next life and their baggage all the things they didnt take care of in this life time. They enter the portal to become the next version of themselves to work their way up the ladder to greater being... If you believe in reincarnation you do take it with you - not material possessions of course.

 

now, onto your questions: what happens to the virgins once they are no longer virgins? why would she give up her virginity to some stupid man who is only interested in her for her virginity. this couldnt quite be heaven. The men get virgins and all the women get jerk men who only want to (excuse the phrase) but pop their cherry and leave them for another to do the same. sounds alot like hell to me.

 

I like your phrase perpetual virgin...I'm off to change my bio now.

Despite the badinage, above, in comments, this truly is one of my finest, and judging from 'views' is so self-contained that a 'folder view' is all it takes to judge it, or few really are interested in it as a photo. I tend to think that it is seen so 'large' and has so few details, that it can fully be viewed from 'thumbnail' so anyone browsing a page of thumbnails has little need to 'click' on the photo for an extra 'view'.

 

Whether or not anyone truly is 'interested' in this photo, I'll be me, contrarian or not, and continue to claim this photo, simple but effective, as one of my lifetime best -- a photo where everything just fell into place (of course I took more than one shot, just as the figures were receding into the distance and caught them in this particular shot just evenly spaced enough it didn't look as though I personally went and placed them there myself (I think).

 

Thanks for reading, it you get this far; I hope you've been entertained by the above comments.

 

And I hope you like the photo.

 

John (Crosley)

John, this is a great picture. And like other great pictures, it doesn't require a thousand words to explain it. I didn't read your novel either, but I very much admire your picture. It captures a moment, and is exquisitely composed and exposed. You can't ask for more.

 

From the start, I understood it was one of my all-time best, yet it received a luke-warm reception.

 

I placed it on my bio page, in recognition of how I felt about it, regardless of ratings or views.

 

Thanks for your kind endorsement.

 

I wish I could take such photos every day, but alas.

 

Of course, no need to read my novellas; this site has many beginners and others who have a certain 'angst' about their photography -- I have a sort of 'running commentary' for their benefit -- to let them know that their 'angst' is not something they are alone in, and to let newcomers who have not yet 'dipped their feet in' to know the sorts of things they will encounter when they actively take up this kind of photography -- how they will come across taking photos like this.

 

Thanks again for the recognition.

 

John (Crosley)

Of course, I've read the novel ; )

Once again I'm attracted by surroundings I don't know at all. I've never travelled by plane and I do not think I'll do it soon - not because of fear, simply because that's like that - but this "decompression chamber" is so different than my *wide opened countryside* that I feel suffocated like if I was there. Strange paradox, isn't it? I feel suffocated while you named it "decompression chamber"... BTW, I'm more an "online" passenger - visiting the net - than an "airline" one : ))

I thought too about the light at the end of the tunnel like the one some said they saw when they came *back*, maybe that's a metaphor (an image) many have in mind when they're front of such a scene because of a kind of *spiritual propaganda*, expecially available in some TV shows... Don't know.

On the technical side and beyond your writing, an interesting point for me - who's going to try a D200 with a 18-200 VR II (I wish one will be available!) tomorrow ; I can't wait! - is the not so terrible (quite low indeed) distortion visible at the shortest focal length and at the widest aperture. I thought that could be really worse! The vertical line of the grid on the right seems especially straight. Sounds good! BTW, what's your opinion on this? Do you find distortion so much high, at least higher than expected on such a lens?

Looking at the composition, I thought first about a crop to make the group a bit lower but that didn't work: the whole empty space on the foreground is necessary in order to balance the clearest part of the top. Overexposed? Maybe but that's not distracting at all. So do not change a thing. Moreover, the ability to frame in the viewfinder is a great quality, at least that's a point I think important in photography (of course, it's not a shame to crop).

That's an interesting photo, John, maybe with less "specific impact" than some of others of yours (especially compared to some street one) but yet very interesting, as well regarding the composition than the technical side.

Thanks for the change of scene ; )

Quite unusual to see that 3 persons on 4 seem to be left hand users : )

I think that means "Joint Photographic Experts Group".

This is more on the order of a Cartier-Bresson style, where the whole is the composition, rather than the specific, or any one of a number of named artists, though indeed it does lack a specific human subject with an expression, something that that his better photographs featured.

 

This indeed, is a composition, indeed what he termed 'plastic art' in the sense that it was moving, it appeared suddenly, and just as quickly disappeared.

 

As to the lens, I have no hesitancy in recommending it -- forget about any 'distortion' issues, unless you're going to do architectural photography, and even then, I'd wonder, as to me they're theoretical.

 

I DO know what JPEG means, by the way, so I'm wondering . . . . but I'll let that mystery just stay.

 

I always appreciate when your critiques appear here. Keep 'em coming.

 

John (Crosley)

I often pull luggage with the hand that is NOT dominant -- maybe they're using their dominant hands for their cell (mobile) phones?

 

John (Crosley)

John

 

This image is a modern day example of what it would be like to "Walk Toward The Light..." I love it.

 

I guess nowdays, travelers walking toward the light must bring along their luggage. I'm thining the after life does not provide clothing and personal items. :)

 

Really a great image that makes my thoughts eager to travel beyond the curve and into the brightness.

 

deb

This opened to few comments and lower rates; I 'explained it almost to death', and it became subject of some discussion, including minutiae about which hand pulls luggage.

But it's the totality which compels, and the entire composition, including spaces and spacing.  I saw it coming, put down my bags and started firing.  i KNEW there was a good to great photo to be had.

But really this has NOT been recognized by many as a great photo, viewership has been moderate, and that's OK.  It's not necessary to click on it thus recording a click in order to appreciate it. because it shows so well in thumbnail.

Maybe people don't know what's at the end of the tunnel and take their bags in some mistaken belief (and even their clothes, gasp!).

If Muslims find virgins, what might others find?  And what is proper dress at the end of the tunnel, if any at all?

I'm glad that in the 'end' this photo has provoked great discussion and people have chosen to look at it; it's deceptively simple, thus making it seem as if it were easy to take.

Nothing could be further from the truth; though it was mostly intuitive and reactive as there was little time to think it through thoroughly.

It's pure serendipity that in this frame the spacing between the travelers is roughly even (not in lockstep though or it would have looked 'contrived' I think).

Keep your critiques coming, deb.  I enjoy the heck out of 'em.

john

John (Crosley)