Quick Intelligence Test**+

This photo is the basis of a quick intelligence test question.

Click through to take the test -- answer provided in the first

comment. 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

This is the quick intelligence test referred to in the Request for Critique:

 

Question: Which of the figures above does not belong in the photo and why?

 

Answer: The man at the bottom, because he has at least one leg and the rest have none.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

I thought it was the man on the left: because he's not looking into the camera :-)

But where's your sense of humour?

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

Fantastic composition.

Nice shot capturing an excellent view on todays issues

 

Well done.

 

nic :-)

Do you really mean it? I got the crutch guy in the frame and really meant to go back and get a better shot, but through shadow/highlight filter was able to bring this one 'up to snuff' and think up a catchy enough caption to post it.

 

Is the composition really that good? I can be awful myopic about my own images sometimes -- I've received a fair share of 3/3s for a number of images I thought were much better than this, but it's the rater's show, not mine.

 

Maybe I'm just out of touch, or creating 'juxtapositions' and 'contrast' shots has become so easy for me I undersell that part of what I do.

 

Go figure.

 

I do, however, appreciate the encouraging words, and wouldn't ever discourage you from saying nice things about my photographs/photographic abilities, Lord knows. I self-critique enough that having a little encouragement helps from time to time.

 

I hadn't noticed, however, when I took the photo or until some time later, that the man on crutches (notice they're taped crutches because he's poor), has a white hat on (he's a good guy?) just like the poster man behind him, something 'Knicki!?!' once called 'coinki dinkness' in her inimitable manner.

 

I call it 'repetition' of a theme' (sounds more hifalutin).

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

It's today's issues all right, but not in your backyard (or mine). (NIMBY) Look at 'details' to see where this photo was shot. I take a fair amount of 'beggar' shots because one sees a fair amount of them; they all have their own territories staked out, and I've got a shot for each one now -- almost all of them pretty good shots, too, and I'm not sure how I've done it.

 

I do some pretty happy stuff too, though, so if you're considering that all I do is 'social issues' (which is grist for my mill), I'm also happy to do 'pretty girls', nudes, landscapes, hot summer in the fountain shots as well as my usual number of interesting 'street portraits' which one prospective model (who turned me down, drat), called 'Crosley's characters'. I've even got a personal series on great looking legs (and there are stunning legs where I am now . . . . even judged by the most jaded man.)

 

Well, at least the prospective model looked at my photos; perhaps she thought she'd end up looking like a street beggar or an old chrone. (Fat chance, she was movie star gorgeous).

 

Thanks for noticing -- some children put spaghetti up their noses to be noticed; i put batteries in my D200s and D2Xs and carry, sometimes enormous lenses (then hope I can engage in street photography without being noticed, and strangely enough, many times people are so caught up in what they're doing, they have no idea I'm chronicaling their moves for posterity).

 

Again, go figure.

 

(the colors did work out nice in this photo, didn't they?)

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

John,

 

Although this one is strong in colour, it actually works better in B&W - go try.

I hope you don't mind me taking this liberty.

It has been remarked that nearly all my color work -- works well as B&W (there ARE certain exceptions). I think with the mind of a B&W compositor, and color themes happen to make things better sometimes.

 

My general rule: If color happens to make it very attractive (in a world in which color predominates, I go with color, but if color detracts in any way, I desaturate, probably through channel mixer with the monochrome box checked and post in B&W -- simple as that. Sometimes I post two versions, but a photo has to be very strong for me to do that (See my photo of a guy and a poster with complementary faces/lighting in Bangkok -- probably together my highest viewed image (again, when both B&W and color versions are added together -- and both black and white and color are quite different appearing images, despite the basic 'bones'.

 

Thanks for caring.

 

Nice job.

 

John (Crosley)

I like the composition as well, it's straight, and has all the information you need. I have noticed that the ratings are very skewed, and maybe if you put in a naked woman next time you will get an extra point or two. That's why I prefer the critique forum, to get suggestions on technique and style. In the end you want to take photos that you like yourself, not just to please the public, in my opinion. I also like the color more, probably because the poster is made to be in color. It shows the contrast between the fancy rich people and the drab homeless guy.

This one is one that 'snuck in' on me -- it proved to be more of a ratings hit that I supposed (though a modest one), and I just pointed my camera at the guy, moved around a little bit, and shot the guy as I moved down the street, and almost forgot about it/his feet were in deep shadow on my screen and had to be brought out by shadow/highlight filter, which is just a contrast adjustment and not a 'manipulation' as I read the rules about 'manipulations' -- is that how you read them.

 

Formerly, when you had to select, then selectively highlight or darken or change the contrast of a figure, it seemed more like 'manipulation' but shadow/highlight filter, which does much of the same thing, doesn't seem like that at all/go figure -- it's the process, not the result.

 

And have you tried 'selecting' then using shadow/highlight within the 'selection?' It's a great tool in itself if you don't want to use on a whole photo (it introduces some color cast if used a little too much -- sometimes a 2% shadow and 3% hightlight adjustment can mean the world.

 

In fact, if I start to use the contrast/brightness slider on a contrasty photo, I often ask myself, why am I not using the shadow/highlight filter? I sometimes then change my mind -- I ought to have a sticky note that says the same thing (but how would I stick it to my keyboard? -- and where?)

 

With regards,

 

John (Crosley

 

 

John, my take on shadow/highlights/contrast is that it is perfectly acceptable to adjust these and still call a photo unmanipulated - it's akin to traditional darkroom work and you're not introducing elements into a scene that were not there in the original - just revealing what the dynamic range of the camera could not properly show but the eye could see.

I believe you're right for the reasons stated, but to 'select' an area, then work it over, sharpening it selectively, etc., that falls more into a grey (gray) area moreso for me, especially if you're doing so rather drastically, even if you only are manipulating the contrast/brightness (which is all the sharpness filters do, really, according to a computer-generated formula albeit).

 

;-))

 

Thanks for your contribution, and I'll continue to post such work as 'unmanipulated' until I indulge in more 'creative' post-processing. (Which I doubt I'll be doing -- I take enough photos as it is without having to become a darkroom (digital) tech.

 

John (Crosley)