Blue and White (Three Times)**+ *

This unusual 'street' photo, taken in a brief instant, shows three

subjects, including a speeding tram, featuring the colors 'blue and

white'. 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

Title and your comment describe what caught my attention here: the line-up of three stylistic elements, connected diagonally and by color. Would be really interesting to know the writing on the trolley... At least the paintings are somehow connected thematically. Food for thought

This is one of those 'how did I ever think up and execute a photo like that, all in a split second?' photos.

 

Thanks for noting that they're all lined up in a diagonal. I thought that the photo needed a little 'help' and felt I had to note at least one thematic element in the caption.

 

The writing on the tram relates (if I am correct) to pensions and probably relates to the Ukrainian election that then was going on -- mid, late Winter, Spring, in which photo-model beautiful Julia Timoshenko, a leader of the Orange Revolution who had been kicked out of her leadership role in the Orange Revolution government for 'problems' related to governance and 'corruption' that related to her subordinates at least, was the top vote-getter, but the ultimate result was that the man who lost the election for President, was voted Prime Minister (effectively succeeding her successor in that post), and that man, a one-time convict, now is second in command in the government, and represents the 'opposition'. He's the man who Putin's government backed and was trying to help put into power when the current President ended up being poisoned shortly before the successfully contested election that the Ukrainian Supreme Court threw out (on account of election fraud) and was placed into power by a second, court-ordered election that was judged free from fraud.

 

Last Jan. 1, 2006, Putin of Russia raised Ukraine's natural gas prices 400% (lowered subsequently through a short-term compromise, that may have involved a company/organization with ties to organized crime -- which they call Mafia but has no Sicilian ties). So, in the end, Putin's power comes in the back door, and many Ukrainians now are happy, but the government effectively is stalemated preventing effective leadership.

 

The result is that Ukraine is somewhat rudderless, though it is growing at 5% a year, GDP, according to a Fulbright Scholar from a southern Bible College I met who was studying the economy, but he was enormously well-educated, even if I never heard of his college, and I heard of almost all of them in my lifetime.

 

There's that's more than you ever wanted to know about Ukraine, isn't it?

 

By the way, the photo's a little subtle, isn't it -- people might genuinely look at this and say to themselves, 'what's the deal about this photo?'

 

Thanks for weighing in.

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks a lot for the story behind. You should know that I`m a die-hard landscaper, not so firm in street and I am used to see such patterns quickly. Now I see three layers: fine arts - the land and people - and politics ;-)

Carsten,

 

You've done me in.

 

Or outdone would be a better way to put it.

 

'Who would've thunk'? as the character 'Pookie' said in a book and movie, played by Liza Minelli when she was the age of a college student, playing one.

 

I should have thought of that when I was explaining Ukrainian politics to you and the other readers, and applied that to this photo.

 

Maybe I should have slept last night so I could have been more alert.

 

Or maybe I just needed someone more intellectually capable to tell me what my own photo means . . . do you think?

 

I think the latter explanation is the truer one.

 

You're used to 'seeing such patterns' --- does that mean as you spied these two paintings and the speeding tram, you would have been able also to take this photo tying the blue and whites together? I can barely believe I did it -- it's almost as if it were some sort of giant fluke, but it truly was conscious, as I saw the blue streetcar/tram coming, and fired with 'C' drive (motor equivalent) at 5 frames per second as the tram roared by, about 2 or 3 frames only, so great was its speed.

 

Thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

See now this one has more depth to it John. And I think I understand the buzz you get from 'moments of clarity' such as the moment you realized this shot in your minds eye - it truly is a rush.

 

There's also another element you may not have picked up on here, 3 modes of transport, water, foot, tram. Intellectually this ones as deep as the Marianas Trench. Everything just works. You lucky old sod.

John, there is a meta-level, that comes to mind when I see this photo. Motion-speed-acceleration-timing. The girl as pivotal point, against the old, sedate form of motion on one side, and the modern times on the other side. Speed, acceleration, no time. We as photographers could think also about the old-fashioned painting and the screen printing on the tram in juxtaposition. And especially the street photographer has food for thought: this line-up from painting to modern times, diagonally composed in a street shot ? Possible ? Just by accident ? Ahem, enough prattled away. To come to the point: even in the situation of landscape photography I use my brainstem more than my cortex, I guess.

I come here again because this photo is enigmatic. A prerequisite for an interesting photograph (I found a nice essay about that on luminous-landscape)

As to luck, I'll repeat the story I wrote once before about a photographer Associated Press dispatched to an airplane crash at Kennedy Airport and after climbing over wreckage and bodies he came up with a photo of investigators carrying one of the plane's 'black boxes' to which I, as a photo editor' exclaimed 'lucky shot' meaning 'well executed'.

 

Well, wrong choice of words, as this little pint sized tough guy who hung around with the FBI and carried an ankle holster for his pistol almost went for it; he was so irate I would think it 'lucky'. I think you get the idea.

 

Thanks for the high compliment; 'deep as the Mariana's Trench'. I'll treasure those words.

 

Seldom does a 'little photo' such as this which has little photographic significance touch a critic of regard so strongly; I do have my moments of coherence and it IS a rush, although a rapidly passing one, and I do wish I had the mind of a Cartier-Bresson.

 

It appears C-B had such moments all the time, or at least only opened his shutter when he had 'revelations' and just didn't open his shutter otherwise. (Of course, I know that's false, as I've been through the Magnum archives of his shots for sale--the ones culled probably from the millions of shots he took. Before the war he trimmed the excess borders and buried all his negatives in a cookie tin, throwing away all the non-significant (in his mind) photos, so we forever cannot judge his professional progress (e.g. from his outtakes), only his full-blown 'best' which makes him a 'mature' artist from the start in the eyes of critics.

 

You might look at another photo of mine, much better than this, entitled now (it's been recaptioned): 'Through the Looking Glass' showing a preteen girl leaning against a building, her dog by her side and there's a photo of a football (soccer) player on the building display window next to her. Now THAT WAS a rush though few people will fall in love with the photo, but it's among my best, even though a woman, background, is 'split in half' in the better of two frames. (I'd clone the split woman out, but I don't do such things, at least not if there's no one buying. If someone's got money in their hands, maybe I'd be more flexible about my 'ethics';-))

 

Ben, whether throwing brickbats of bouquets, you're one of the finest commentators on Photo.net just for your abilities to observe and to write about it intelligently. You may have noted that many photographers are largely functional illiterates . . . and that those who aren't often pay these pages a visit. (even surreptitiously -- e.g. without comment . . . as an odd comment from time to time on a totally far-out commentary will occasionally reveal.)

 

It's nice to find recognition for such things/I hardly expected it, frankly.

 

John (Crosley)

Your musings about the possible juxtapositions about what you term a 'meta-level' photograph is very much to my liking. That's the sort of thing that one might throw out to a college/university class and say 'what does this mean to you/what do you see in this photo, and why? and then start a long discussion.

 

I saw a critic's portfolio on which he asked for review the other day and it was full of flowers centered in the frame, in large part, entirely 'simply' but well executed. Beautiful flowers but the compositions were far too simple for his fine skills as a photographer and he definitely needed composition lessons, but he had portfolio pages of them and I didn't want to hurt his self-esteem and couldn't figure out the words to say 'what if you put a flower to one side, and an out-of-focus flower or bunch over there (the entire portfolio was sharply focused, all at f11 or greater).

 

I'd really need permission to change the guy's whole way of thinking before I ventured to suggest how to change just one shot.

 

As you have noticed, my mind's forever in ferment, forever in turmoil, as I roam with a camera, making associations, sometimes at random -- in effect free associating, and it's best when my mind is both in turmoil but my eyesight just 'sees' without prejudice as to whether it's 'worthy' or not and I reach somewhere deep in myself and the essence of myself just comes out in my photographs.

 

People seem to like me best when I'm in that space, too. I often show my work and sometimes it's understood (God Bless digital cameras, as it makes me myriad friends -- the people in this city do NOT bother me and in fact celebrate me the 'photographier' and are offended when I do NOT take their photo, as least those who 'know' or 'recognize' me.)

 

And, I'm mistaken for a 'korrespondent' -- newsman. Their news magazine (Time, Newsweek equivalent) is titled 'Korrespondent', so that should tell you something, and they've been in political upheaval this last year, so someone with a camera is someone who commands some possible respect -- after all media coverage of their Orange Revolution actually resulted in a . . . revolution of sorts.

 

Thank you for the link to the article; the author's point was well taken, and if only his six photos had been stronger. One was almost world class (Ferris wheel operator, but the others did not speak to me), and if they all had been 'world class' it would have been a stronger article, and I wonder if the author would think of re-working his article for stronger publication rather than burying it, by using his ideas AND stronger photographs. He has a very valid point, which he somewhat undermined by limiting his photographs.

 

*****

 

A 'meta-level' photograph.

 

Them's words for putting on my wall or in any resume.

 

Together with Ben's 'Mariana's Trench' depth words, above, I can only thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

It's never prattle when you choose to visit.

 

John (Crosley)

The reaction of you two to this photo is one of the reasons I keep posting my 'lesser' photos -- the ones that are not 'instant winners'.

 

I never know when one will 'click' with either a larger audience, such as my Barcelona busker photos, or simply be a hit with an elite critic group such as the two of you.

 

That's why I shoot for myself.

 

Like the US Marines who say 'shoot 'em now and let God sort 'em out'.

 

I 'shoot 'em however and let my viewers and critics sort 'em out.' Maybe I have buried treasure in the ones I didn't post?

 

John (Crosley)

John,

 

You're far too kind in your appraisal of my critique skill - I am truly only a beginner.

 

Now, I don't wish this dialogue to degrade into a mutual appreciation gig, but I do wish to say that when I want to look at something challenging, I come here, there're plenty of places to see pretty stuff elsewhere (not that some of your work is not pretty - you know what I mean). The other draw here is the exchange of thought, and in particular the fact that we do not always agree.

 

I'll look out the other photo a little later, I need to tend to the flock now.

You don't need photographer credentials here to engage in critique -- critiquing calls for an entirely different skillset than being a good photographer.

 

Now, sometimes the skillsets overlap, and then that's where I want to be; an able photographer with the ability to communicate.

 

I left a laudatory note the other week under an outstanding photo on a member's gallery and there's not one acknowledgement. It was simply an outstanding photograph, too, and went into my highest-rated gallery, but no e-mail or gallery post back, and I feel somehow like the post was unappreciated or passed over (but it was a foreign member.

 

However, this foreign national travels extensively, so I feel English is a skill of his/hers -- I'm not saying who it was or even intimating.

 

Commentating is a personal thing; I choose to keep my communications open and anyone's welcome who can string intelligent words together.

 

One of the best critics on Photo.net doesn't even have a good camera he tells us, but he's a most able critic -- trust me. He can spot the best (and worst) of a photo, and when he weighs in, I sit up and take notice.

 

So don't put yourself down. It's not allowed her. I'm the only one who can do that.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

Well, I don't know who the former person is, but I think the latter must be Yann.

 

PS I can tell you it ticks me off when people don't answer crits too - especially when I ask a question.

I would never identify the former person; it would be rude and he/she's just a symbol anyway.

 

And yes, the other person is indeed Yann; I've written of his critique abilities laudatorily here before, but probably you've seen and formed your own opinion -- he's a man to watch.

 

If there were a Siskel and Ebert of Photo.net, then Siskel got cancer and it became Ebert and Roeper, and and Ebert got cancer, my bet is it would be Ebert and Romagnoli.

 

I remember how nervous Roeper was in his first appearances critiquing movies -- after about a year of guest critics, when he first stepped in -- his job was on the line and I am sure he knew it and what big shoes he had to fill, which he has done ably. He's been a first rate critic and I think Yann is in his infancy as a critic; though he's stuck in a dead-end job, it appears, and needs encouragement.

 

John (Crosley)

Ben, John,

I've been a bit out of photo.net lately but I've nevertheless kept a look on my favorite members. Obviously, I've read this page...

I don't think at all that you're able to play false-praise-game-sharing but I think that both of you are overestimating me. Be sure that I take these words like a great sign of respect and liking - by the way, I wish that I can be able to continue to write as easily as I'm now blushing : )) - but I don't feel able at all to critique everyone's work neither the whole work of a photographer. I like to write, that's a fact, but I fear that I'm a very irregular writer (untidy too, like I wrote it in my bio).

I went late to photography, and I'm neither a professional nor someone who absolutely wants to become one but - John knows - that's true that journalism (or at least communication in its broad sense) appeals me. So whatever the future will give me towards this way (even as a voluntary worker - BTW, an association got me in touch after they saw some photos of mine about a local festival), I think I'll take it.

That's as well a good way to express myself... shyness is a strange parameter to be counted in : ))

Thanks again, I'll visit (and try to leave as good as expected critics) yours as soon as possible.

John,

I made a search, I did not know them and they look quite excellent! If one day, Ebert and/or Roeper come here on this page, the comparison/analogy with me will be surely traumatic for them. just kidding LOL

This search has been interesting, I've learnt something new again, thanks John.

I'd love to use perfectly English language, would be so simpler for me! and for readers as well : ))

I think we'd all like to have perfect English Yann :D

This is one time when people were 'speaking' about you behind your back, you found out, and it was good. That's all too rare these days, at least for paranoids like me.

 

Excuse me, I have to adjust the aluminum foil on my ceiling.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

: )) @both of you