Strawberry Fields Forever (IV); The Ace of Spades ** *

Giant earth moving machines tailored these rows and rows of terraces

on gently sloping hills; a powerful 200~400 mm telephoto lens makes

gentle slopes seem more like mountains, and appears to create a

geometric pattern around a lonely Mexican worker who becomes

the 'Ace of Spaces' for his shovel work cleaning up what the

machines didn't do exactly correctly. 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 knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

John, I appreciate what you are trying to do in this photo. For me the out of focus foreground hurts the shot. It is so strongly out of focus that it dominates the space and pulls my eye right to it and away from the more interesting aspects. I like the natural pattern of the land and the isolated feeling of the lone worker.

I think michael is right.Still great shot.

Sorry about the OOF (out of focus) foreground (ed.).

 

This is a digital image, and if I had taken it at ISO 3200, I might have been able to stop down my giant (and expensive) 200-400 mm Nikkor tele to make the foreground be sharp. (edited).

 

As it was, the key to this photo is the guy (The Ace of Spades -- I couldn't resist), turning over earth, and that required a shutter speed that was fast enough to stop action, or I might have been able to stop down more.

 

And, at a higher ISO (sensor sensitivity) the brown earth would have washed out, and been simply so unattractive that this photo would have been unviewable.

 

It was a Hobson's Choice (a choice for which there is no proper solution)

 

Until they make sensors that take color with the sensitivity of an ISO 100 at ISO 3200, the photo you envision will not be possible to take, except as follows:

 

One would be able to go to the field with a giant camera -- say an 8 x 12 or an 8 x 10, stop it down greatly, use a higher ISO cut sheet film, take a very large image of the entire film, and then crop just this portion out, and the guy would be in focus as would be the background (but so also would the foreground, say, at F64).

 

I appreciate the comment, but wonder how can I improve except just to run this several times through 'unsharp mask' having selected the foreground (ed.) rows only?

 

Let me know, would you?

 

I know your point probably was to let me know about aesthetics, and for that I am very appreciative.

 

John (Crosley)

Please note my comment above about the sharpness of the foreground (ed.); I won't repeat it here.

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

Here I found that my key in the ignition keeps my daytime running lights on even when the engine is stopped, so as I sat in my car taking photos, from a nearby street/road, engine off, my battery ran down and when I went to start my car, I got that whirring/clicking sound of a partially charged, but not enough charged battery.

 

Eventually, the corporate field owners sent their spy, a Mexican or Mexican/American guy in a big white pickup truck, who saw me at field's edge, and called to me from his big pickup truck 'what are you doing?'

 

A stupid question.

 

I said 'I'm photographing, didn't you happen to see the camera?' a little sarcastically, noting to myself I hadn't been on anyone's private property and was on county and/or municipal property at all times. It was a huge Nikon D2Xs with a Nikkor 200~400 E.D. zoom, and it may have had a tele-extender on it (I forgot). A HUGE affair -- his question was rhetorical.

 

I walked slowly over to his truck and he said he was 'just checking' about why I was taking photographs because there were sometimes 'undesirable types such as representatives for the United Farm Workers (UFW)' who came by to photograph, and this was a very publicly exposed field since it was visible from the road, and it was 'bad' if such people were 'allowed' to take photos.

 

I said, too bad if you don't like people taking photos, but these fields abut two major roads, and anyone can take all the photos they want.

 

I had asked him if he could jump start my car there at about 1:30 p.m. and he said 'maybe quitting time at 6:00 p.m.' About 4-1/2 hours later.

 

Jerk!

 

Anyone from United Farm Workers out there? Contact me, I have bunches of photos if you want them.

 

I had explained that I was taking photos for light and darkness and patterns, and he said 'if I wanted, I could make trouble for you.'

 

My reply was 'what trouble can you make for me, I have digital photographs for the past 45 minutes with time and date on all of them showing where I've been, what I've been doing and that I've been on public property, where I am now and always have been, so exactly what kind of trouble are you threatening to 'make for me?'

 

He said 'you never know what kind of trouble I can make for you.'

 

Jerk.

 

He drove off.

 

I was left with a battery that still needed jump starting.

 

I continued to take photos and will continue in the future -- and in the future I'll look for labor violations, I think (I hadn't previously given that a thought - that was the UFW's work, not mine -- I looked for art.)

 

This 'security guy' with the hat that identified his security firm (which I won't name here yet), was lowest of the low.

 

I told him that he was treading in very deep waters, and flirting with trouble if he made any move against me for any reason, then I went off and continued to take photos, (from streetside) and noted that I know many cops/sheriffs in the area (and they're not dummies or yokels around here -- they are two major colleges here and a highly educated populace, and cops here are not beholden to any agribusiness/strawberry farmers who grow hard as rocks strawberries that are sour to the taste and have the consistency of cardboard).

 

(Old time growsers won't even eat today's field-grown strawberries -- they plant and eat for themselves, what many of us call 'heirloom' varities, such as Mt. Whitneys, or berries that produce one crop a season, not varitiees that produce rock-hard berries to be picked from March through October.)

 

Pretty picture; pity the poor laborers for putting up with putzes for owners they have to put up with.

 

And the laborers are nice guys.

 

A very nice lady stopped and gave me a jump start.

 

She says she also photographs the berry pickers and field workers, but with her movie camera.

 

We have very nice people hereabouts, despite an occasional 'bad apple'.

 

John (Crosley)

Meandering aside (tips to 'street shooters, actually -- they often read these comments to learn about how to deal with 'street angst), the point of this photo was to bring the laborer into sharp focus, while surrounding him with lines in a pattern, and no care at all was given to making those lines be 'in-focus' and in fact, if you hit the 'larger' view, you'll notice that because he's 'in-focus' on a 'large' view that he tends to 'pop' when you view the entire scene and your eye will go right to him and his shovel full of dirt.

 

That was the intended point of the photo.

 

John (Crosley)

John, A possible solution to your delimma is to do a composite of 2 shots. The first focused on the worker and the second bringing more of the foreground into focus. I don't think the foreground has to be real sharp but it should not dominate the shot. My personal preference would also be to place the worker on the lower right third since he is looking to his right. that would have him looking into the shot versus to the edge of your shot.

I don't do composites. I don't know how to, and I don't think I'm going to learn.

 

If I can't get it right in the viewfinder or camera, by moving left or right a bit, I'll give up (or take bunch more photos until I just get a better one).

 

As to his looking 'out of frame', I kind of like that, since all the rows are radiating out from a central point -- so then is his shovel, and thus his gaze must follow his shovel. So, to follow that logic, the unseen line from his eyes to the shovel's end continues the line of the 'rays' from the furrows and broad ridges (atop which they plant the strawberries, for drainage and for picking convenience).

 

I may even have the exact shot you're thinking about, but just haven't recognized it -- I have so MANY photos I barely have time to look at more than a select few [ed.] after I shoot them. I need a full time photo librarian.

 

I think in this case, for the composition, I want the guy looking away from the apex and looking parallel to his shovel, thus all lines are either parallel to similar lines in the group (ed.) or in a 'ray' from the apex to the right middle.

 

That's my point of view -- but actually yours may be better aesthetically -- I'm a victim sometimes of my own myopia.

 

Oh, and Michael, placing him more to the right would have cut up the background -- destroyed the 'ray' effect. I HAD to place him within the part of the triangle where I did to avoid doing just that. That accounts mostly for choice of placement and the choice was most conscious.

 

Respectfully,

 

John (Crosley)

This also makes a heckuva Black and White photo.

 

I had to decide which to post, but I hadn't posted a good color photo in this folder for a while, so that's why I posted this in color (plus he has a red hat -- without that, I probably would have posted a desaturated view).

 

John (Crosley)

I like the dimensionality created by the farming lines. This looks like more of infinite space so I would like to call it "Universe in making"

You have understood this photo well.

 

It's exactly that 'dimensionality' I was trying to 'create' or 'capture' if you prefer.

 

And who can resist such lines?

 

But it takes a huge telephoto to make what looks like mountains from what in reality are mere bumps in the earth.

 

(edited) (I have a concussion and more, am bedridden, -- got hit by some kid who lost control of his car last night and can neither think, sleep or type correctly, let alone write correctly, and he was uninsured.) (See use of 'perpendicular' for 'parallel', above, and many other errors, now being corrected throughout).

 

John (Crosley)

 

(from the world of 'Hurt')

 

[i had my unmaking tonight by some kid with a car full of kids who started to drive away before cops could arrive, till he saw me and my camera aimed at him, and he stopped -- his shirt read 'Rehab is for Quitters'. Invariably the person in California has no insurance because his driving record is SO BAD he cannot afford to get insurance or so careless in his personal affairs he just doesn't give a good goldarn [edit]. People like me pay the price, up all night, bedridden, -- even using bedpans, the ultimate indignity, with a prospect of doing that for weeks, maybe months or beyond [edit]. All while I was out 'testing lenses' with my D2Xs (3) and my D200s and some 'big glass' at Elkhorn Slough (see my portfolio).

 

[One cannot take good shots without knowing one's equipment. With 'street photos' no real 'lens testing' is necessary, as 'sharpness' seldom is an issue, but for 'nature photography' I found that just using my usual 'street' lenses, even with tele-extenders of highest quality from Nikon, probably was not nearly as sharp as a non-extended lens (with E.D. glass). Nature photography requires hugely sharp lenses.

 

[so I had some huge lenses purchased earlier this year (Nikkor, long, fast lenses, in household storage, and they were in the trunk of my (gasp!) rear-ended car, and I have yet to inspect them -- I'm on total bed rest for at least 5 days, mostly confined to my bedroom. I hope the lenses are OK; same for the trunkful of cameras with the lenses.

 

[The impact was so great it not only blew my glasses off my head, but it also blew the batteries out of the 2 D200s sitting on the car seat next to me (no, there was nothing for them to drop onto, as the floor was covered with an entire box of cameras and lenses -- (covered of course with newspapers, junk, trash, so no one would ever have guessed).

 

[if you have a Nikon D70 or D200, try impacting that camera to knock the batteries out, and see what it takes. I don't think you physically can do it! That's what my head feels like right now. Since I can't do absolutely anything, I can at least try to post on Photo.net)]

Excelente imagen, perfecta luz y color, magnifico encuadre y bella composicion, saludos cordiales John.

Muchas gracias.

 

Of all those words, those about composition mean the utmost to me.

 

I try so very hard to make appealing photos, and photos that are like no one else ever has taken before -- photos that each are different from the others I've posted (even these titled 'Strawberry Fields Forever' which is becoming a photo series, of fields just a few hundred yards to a kilometer or two from my California house -- and they're absolutely some of my best shots ever).

 

I just drive along never thinking of taking a photo, always with a camera at my side, and one day I'll see something, stop (after glancing in my rear view and finding a safe place).

 

Sometimes I just take one or two photos, and one of those photos is on my bio page, the second Strawberry Fields Forever shot.

 

This particular day, I took several hundred, because when shooting bare earth and workers one has to work at to get a good shot -- it's different from shooting ghostly figures working above shiny, reflective, 'hot' plastic, which in a couple of months again will shield the young strawberry plants from winter's ravaging rains, insects, molds and disease. Then one day, crews will come out and on just that day, they'll float through the fields, either to pull the plants through the plastic or cut bigger openings and tend the young plants, then disappear.

 

That's the day to be at a particular field (passing by) with a camera and to see something that may last for a minute or less, and to pick up that pre-loaded and preset camera and fire -- there may not ever be another moment like it in the history of the earth.

 

That's a moment you, as the photographer own.

 

It's yours alone -- forever, if you frame and focus quickly enough and don't forget quickly to press the shutter button before the composition goes away.

 

Muchas Gracias, senor, again.

 

Y saludas cordiales.

 

John (Juan) (Crosley)

Photo composition experts like to write about the 'rule of thirds' as though it were some 'magic potion' for creating a great photo.

 

I like to do riffs, sort of like some jazz musicians liked to do riffs around a particular musical theme. One has heard of one musical great doing 'flatted fifths' which some heard as pure cacophony, and others heard as genius.

 

Take the 'Rule of Thirds'

 

This photo, in case you didn't notice, is divided (consciously) into three distinct parts.

 

They are 'thirds' if you will, but 'unequal' thirds.

 

In a previously-analyzed photo of a young girl in front of a photo of footballers (soccer players) in a window with her leaning against a wall, leg upraised and crossed, dog at her side, I showed how the Rule of Thirds related to that photo; two thirds was devoted to the building and its window with photo/one third to the sidewalk with the girl and other denizens, a sort of 'riff' on the rule of thirds (two-thirds, one-third, but to a vanishing point, so that one would never realize the use of 'rule of thirds' as a basis)

 

Here, it's a little more distinct, with 'Rule of Thirds' being played with a little more, and this time again the 'thirds' are 'unequal' like Dizzy Gillespie's 'flatted fifth? A little disharmony among all that harmony of the parallel lines of the furrows and flat terraces.

 

Moreover, there's more disharmony.

 

Like many of my posted photos, this one has 'more than one-third' devoted to an out-of-focus foreground, forcing your eye to the 'subject' in the background, the sole Mexican field worker with his shovel turning over a spadeful of dirt as he repairs a furrow. (These are very precise furrows, with exact dimensions, meant for people to stand and kneel in them, and the terraces also are soooo wide, for strawberries to grow atop them, and for the berries and vines to hang over the sides -- to create maximum growing space from the earth, it seems.)

 

If you look through my many photos, you can identify a substantial number in which up to one-half of the photo itself is out-of-focus (OOF) serving to drive attention to a feature in the photo.

 

Food for thought.

 

Or not.

 

To your taste.

 

Although this is posted as a 'documentary' photo; it actually is a 'street' photo; and indeed was taken from a 'street' complete with curb.

 

John (Crosley)

The foreground, which some said should be 'in focus' actually, as I now recall, as so very close to the roadside from which I was photographing that it may very well not have ever been possible to focus on it to bring it in focus.

 

Reflecting on the comments and on the moment of photographing, I was near street's edge, and the furrows went next to street's edge, and it appears that the distance to the nearest furrows even was closer than the minimum focusing distance of my lens (I'd have to check with a field test to make sure, but that's involve finding where I stood, a near impossibility).

 

In any case, short of stopping down to f64, which is NOT an available setting, the foreground ever was destined to be out of focus.

 

No amount of cutting and pasting or 'joining' two images together, sharpening, or other devices would ever make the forreground here sharp, short of mounting the camera on a tripod, and choosing a lens with an f64 aperture and thus probably a huge field of view -- view cameras typically are the main ones that come with f64 apertures, which would have been necessary to 'pull' the foregound into focus.

 

It never was intended by me that the foreground be in focus, its 'fuzziness' always was meant to 'draw attention to' the male worker with his shovelful of dirt.

 

And, because this is a 'candid' capture -- he is no captive model -- I did not have the luxury of choosing the smallest aperture, mounting this on a tripoc (he kept moving back and forth) then choosing a very slow shutter speed to accommodate the smallest aperture.

 

He was moving and that called for a motion-stopping shutter speed, and, thus, a less than full depth of field, even on this partly sunny/partly diffused light day -- but still bright enough at midday.

 

John (Crosley)

Interesting photo John, I like the implication that no matter how big the machine, the details always need a mans attention. The scale of this I can only begin to imagine - and I like that you've tightly composed this to add to that tension.

 

Regarding the OOF area, perhaps a slightly higher angle of shot would have reduced this area to thirds, but I do not know how close you've cropped the top to the sky (in frame I mean), and know that you prefer to frame in camera - so I like the honesty here.

 

My minds eye is expanding this scene to a huge vista, with this lone tiny figure toiling endlessly - a Sisyphean task perhaps?

It's actually a few acres-- five or six perhaps, artfully composed to 'stand for' infinity. It's where you stand and how you frame the shot.

 

Yes, a Sisyphean task is quite right.

 

And, indeed, a man's touch, for what machines have rendered a man must finish (especially 'cheap' Mexican labor).

 

John (Crosley)