'Did I Tell You the Story About . . . ?'**

'Did I Tell You the Story About My Girlfriend . . . ?' is the third

of a series of photos taken in a certain part of Charles De Gaulle

Airport where I began photographing and posting here on Photo.Net

two and a half years ago, and the first two in this series were two

of my most successful color photos ever. 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 (These guys both enjoyed this

photo, which I shared with them -- they both gave it a 'thumbs up' --

how do you rate it?)

Very nicely done!! Congrats...LJ

I arrived in Paris, all tired from an overnight flight and a day before from not sleeping, went to the basement of the terminal where I arrived, a place where I've been before, with the purpose of buying a telephone card to make a hotel reservation, and stopped at this place where I've photographed before.

 

I took a few photographs, then spied these two having a conversation. The guy, right, seemed to want to tell the guy, left, something important, and the guy left, seemed more intent on eating.

 

Later, I called these guys over to show them this photo, and they both loved it; they also congratulated me; and coming from subjects (as well as critics such as you) congratulations for such a photo are very well received by me, as you can imagine.

 

I felt right away it was a 'winner' -- at least in my estimation and it will stay that way (at least in my estimation), whether ratings are high or low.

 

Thanks for the comment -- I think the expression of the guy, right, given the setting, is priceless, don't you?

 

John (Crosley)

If you like this photo or just want to compare my present style with my style of two years ago (or just prior happenstance), you might look in this same folder (Single Folder -- Color), about two years or more ago, for two photos in which this same color of red predominates -- they were taken in almost the same spot, possibly one was taken at this very same table with the same background.

 

So, if you have a moment, those photos were very highly rated, highly viewed and very well received.

 

This one is of a similar style, at least in my mind.

 

However, it's more 'personal' and less 'removed' or 'universal' I suppose. The lens, although now a V.R. (vibration reduction) model, is of almost the same millimeter settings as previously.

 

I'd be interested in any comments on the comparison.

 

John (Crosley)

Very nice and live street shot with excellent colors. I like the expressions too much. John make a comment to see the photo in large view because there are artifacts in the small view because of red maybe. Well done my friend. Michael.

A really beautiful shot, John! Best regards, Ruud.

couldn't've been better if planned (as with many of your shots. Either such a knack for right time vs. right place, or shooting "so much" that shots like these have to happen just based on laws of probability... or both :-)

 

The colors are strong... not nearly so dramatic had they decided to where oposing colors that day or something, but the dark blacks or blues are just so great for the contrast with the wall. And, though this is more a compliment to the interior decorator :-), that slightly shadowy area towards the left adds so much interest.

 

Great angle to the tables from foreground to mainground (is that a word?)... Only thing I might've wanted to see would be a hair more space behind the guy on the right so as not to clip his jacket. Again, jus me.

 

Anyway, amazed as usual by your finds. An inspiration (In truth, my first and as of yet "sole" attempt at street posted here, comes largely based on viewing your work and that of "Kent B". It's an awfully tough "sell" to friends, family, and the general-photo viewer, but I found it to be sooooo rewarding and refreshing from the normal abstract and landscapes that I'd been looking at.)

 

Thank you for posting. A sincere pleasure to have your visions on display!

Just a joke, of course. I established the 'Jeff Moody' identity a while ago to praise my work and it just happened to be that I thought I'd praise this one to the high heavens along with a 'critique' (read praise) of my photo skills, and thought I'd pass it off for a while as being from someone -- a real guy -- named 'Jeff Moody'.

 

But then, of course, being a genuine guy who tries to be truly honest, I have to admit that this comment actually is a joke and Jeff Moody is someone who actually is real (I hope to God), a capable photographer, and that indeed the jacket, right, is clipped and somehow that escaped my viewfinder approach AND even my choice of photos when I edited (I simply overlooked it and may have had a better almost identical one without a clipped jacket) and he zeroed in on the one single substantial defect in the composition of this photo, as a good photo critic should (and it wasn't 'jus' ' Jeff) as he says -- any good critic should have pointed that out (and I just **damn** missed and it's one more good reason why I submit these things for critique).

 

I continually am amazed by how much reference I make to past critiques when I am making shooting/framing choices, for a guide and a reference, not only to find what is popular (that's what ratings are for and I often disregard them) but for the seeming minutiae such as the clipped jacket (right), which can detract and really take on importance for sophisticated shooting, and cannot be resolved short of posting a new shot or filling the frame, right, with red and then passing it off as part of the frame itself, and extending the neighboring table with Photoshop drawing (or another program such as Corel Draw -- you get the idea -- it's possible but why bother.)

 

So, thanks Jeff, for teaching me a lesson about my own photography as well as your consummate praise.

 

I'd blush a little more except this is one of my better shots, and I am proud of it, though there is one more defect in processing that nobody has yet pointed to, and if anyone wishes to have to have a shot at that, let me know and post a comment before I correct by using the 'replace image' function . . . which at the rate I shoot photos (and the very slow rate I edit them), may be months from now.

 

So, critics, any takers?

 

What's the defect I'm taking about? Does it detract? Can you find it and how do I fix it?

 

I think I can.

 

What about you?

 

(Jeff, I'll send you the cashier's check by courier as soon as I return to the U.S. ;~)

 

(reinstating the joke, Administration, in case you are tempted to take things too literally . . . '~))

 

By the way, like many even fairly good 'street' photos, this one lacked the five 'anonymous' (drive-by?) ratings necessary to make the top-rated page, but it stands at the front of a highly-viewed portfolio so it will pick up thousands of viewers that way, but I want many to see it, so my need to have it at the front of that portfolio/folder keeps me from posting the other 200 photos that could be in line to be posted (I make my mind up the minute I post them -- not always the best practice and for which I have a few regrets -- this posting business sometimes is dictated by which folder is accessible, which hard drive is available, which computer is working, which is in the shop,, etc. Posting is far from an exact science, in case you didn't realize from looking at my photos.

 

And, if you're new to reviewing my photos, I seldom post 20 views of this or that nude or this or that style of presenting a certain kind of flower or landscape (but see my **present** five photos of the Eiffel Tower taken from one window) I thrive on diversity and be bored easily, I guess. People say I'm interesting, and I hope that my photos reflect that. In person, I may be somewhat of a dud to meet; hardly a Dan Rather/network anchorperson kind of person and sometimes a bit earthy, but then I have to do things like I did today, to photographic a slightly loony woman dancing her calisthenics to rock music blaring from a loudspeaker in front of a Ukrainian square, her sweater black in the armpits from lack of cleanliness, part of her teeth missing, and because I had the biggest of numerous lenses focused on this slightly daft woman in her 30s or 40s dancing away among the New Year's shoppers (Christmas is a work day), she seemed to dedicate her dance to me and my huge lens (great photos just walk up to me sometimes, it seems just because of me, my cameras or where I am or go, I think.

 

However, this photo, above, is one of a series of three, taken over a period of two and a fraction years at the same tables, same decorator-designed restaurant complex at Charles de Gaulle's Terminal 1 at Roissy, France which is known as a Paris Airport. You might look for the other two and compare.

 

And, Jeff, thanks -- I hope my 'fun' was indeed 'fun' for you.

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you Ruud. I am quite an admirer of yours, and always wonder how you get those supersaturated colors you seem continually to post -- they're beautiful.

 

I'm wondering when you'll go 'against character' and post something truly 'subtle' and it'll be gradations of gray and/or pastels or some such (or have you done that and I just missed it?)

 

And/or is your saturation 'scrubby slider' stuck to the far right (if only after you've used your 'selection' tool.

 

I once asked a guy taking photos for use in postcards if he ever minded deviating from 'reality' to take his supersaturated postcard photos with their very bright colors, and his reply enlightened me and set me straight -- it went something like this.

 

'No lens, and indeed nobody him or herself knows indeed what another person's eye sees. In fact, it is hard to know with any sort of exactness what an eye sees at all as an eye takes in any sort of scene that involves any variance in lighting/color as the eyeball and brain constantly are making adjustments to contrast, brightness, color balance, etc., and so the answer to your question, is that since there is no 'original standard for what is being photographed to compare to' my photograph is just as authentic as yours, even if mine is more saturated than yours -- your choices just were made by Nikon engineers and/or Kodak chemists while mine are made by filters, and the same other people as well as some darkroom wizardry.

 

Well, that put me off my 'high horse', and I since have accepted with equanimity all those who Photoshop (or otherwise 'edit') their photos so long as they do so skillfully and it doesn't detract and instead adds to their attractiveness.

 

And, Ruud, (ending my discursiveness), your photos are 100% top notch and the envy of any photographer on Photo.net (myself included), and maybe if I had your eye and skill, I've just be taking the sorts of scenes you do.

 

You may note from time to time I post something of the sort that catches your eye (and you comment accordingly), but if I felt I had to post only photos of one genre I'd feel trapped, I think.

 

I want to feel I can do workmanlike work in any genre, and if one is reaching accomplishment, I work on that continually, but seek to expand my repertoire.

 

Tomorrow it's models, (and street work) and everyday it'll be something different. (tonight I'm editing landscapes, National Park and urban . . . and so it goes . . . this 15th day of December -- 16th for me) 2006, here somewhere in a place in the world where natural daylight almost vanishes behind the clouds at 3:00 to 3:15 and an ordinary ISO is about 640 just for street shooting in noon daylight almost every day.

 

Keep stopping by Ruud, and who knows what'll show up next. Probably not cyanotypes, or 'snapshots' of family scenes as I've almost permanently banished them as outside my repertoire of available skills, but anything else is 'fair game' (and nobody can see those discards on my numerous hard drives ;~))

 

Best wishes,

 

John (Crosley)

Michael,

 

Pardon me for overlooking your comment, I'm on about 20K dialup only between midnight and 6:00 a.m. as I'm in an apt. on a party line with a woman with a disposition like a gangster, renting from people who are nice but in a prior trip that women had her (and my) line disconnected (by the local country's phone company) because I was on the Internet too much, so I'm very careful to sign on while she's sleeping. (It's a rental apartment for touring people which I take from time to time).

 

About the artifacts: That's a 'dare' I covered in a comment above -- they really are not 'artifacts' as I've discovered -- and in the large view they may not be so prominent, but indeed they are from using a 'feather' when one uses a 'selection' tool when one seeks to select figures to work on a foreground and/or background, and it's exactly the thing I will (one day) find the original digital file of and work up and correct (probably saving this photo, maybe in both large and small views) and appending to a comment so this comment is not rendered meaningless and also so it teaches posters a lesson about using 'feather' and the 'artifacts' of using a 'feather'.

 

Sometimes I'll use a 'feather' when I select (and I 'select' seldom), and often the 'feather' is a leftover from a prior work I edited for something that was quite unrelated, and I just overlooked it, as I probably did here, so it was just an 'error'.

 

So, you see, the 'real' Jeff Moody and you both have pointed out substantial flaws in this photo -- the one you point out I already had noticed and pointed out voluntarily myself as I commented to Jeff's comment fliply, and the next one Jeff pointed out and I missed completely (shame on me -- and I thought I was a 'good observer' -- hah!)

 

I am very thankful for your continual watchfulness and for 'keeping me honest'. When I was a beginning writer, I rankled and was hostile at seeing my words edited (after all they were mine -- I WROTE themm), but a fellow writer pointed out that a good editor meant to make my words look better and convey meaning in a clearer and better fashion and to keep my style deliberate and clear and was paid to do just that professionally.

 

I stopped rankling at that point and since then have loved discerning critiques (and critics); which may set me apart from many others.

 

If you ever see something wrong with a photo of mine, I may already be aware of it, but also may entirely have overlooked it, or just thought it wasn't important but it may have lowered the public's ratings a 'notch' and I might have the same photo without that 'glitch' on my hard drive, just overlooked because I felt 'nobody cared'. That's one of the problems of working alone.

 

I have an assistant (at least for now) who offers me some non-professional but excellent advice about a few things and is helping me review a few old photos and resurrect some overlooked 'gems' (we always seem to stop at the same photo and say 'why wasn't that one worked up or posted?), so some 'oldies' and never seen 'goodies' may pop up from time to time.

 

I hope this assistant can 'assist' me for a long time; our chemistry is great, although this person is destined for future greatness.

 

John (Crosley)

Just a general disclaimer to "admin", as well as any other casual visitors.. I am in fact "real", occasionally "too" real even for my own tastes :-( but that's a whole 'nother story.

 

Thanks for the long and thought provoking/provoked response. Among the photos and photogs that I typically view and or comment, yours is one of the few that I can nearly guarantee an actual response... and usually a good one at that.

 

So, to keep my brown-nosing session to a minimum lest I be accused of not existing again (completely aside, but could there possibly be a worse occurrence? I obviously didn't take it that way, not even close, but can you imagine a worse put-down? Anyway, a bit too existentialist (sp) for this early in the West-Coast morning)

 

The clipped jacket is by FAR a complete perfectionist jab at a 99.9% perfect shot, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the other 'defect' might be. And as far as the first being a defect, keep in mind (you may actually even remember from being there) that an inch or too more on that side might've instead lead to a much more garish defect such as someone else's leg/jacket/bum etc... So, back to the other defect... I find myself constantly drawn too and surprised by the bottle of what appears to be metamucil or something similar (uh oh. Just realized that I must be getting older :-) . Seems a bit out of place, but by far, not a defect... if anything, a point of interest and curiousity. Let's see...how bout the yellowy sticker/piece-of-gum/reflection on the right of their table? Not a compositional thing, more of a post processing nit (though I'm not really that much into "cloning" and the like)

 

Did I get it? :-)

 

Anyway, again, great shot, jaw-dropping material in general throughout the rest of your portfolio...

 

If you get a chance, could you stop by my "street" portfolio & add a 'pointer' or two? As with many of us newbies, it's something that reallly catches my eye as fun and exciting, but get from that point "a" to the results of point "b" like what you get ("A. Kochinowski", "Kent B", and others), is nowhere's near easy so...

 

Thanks again for responding. Enjoy your xmas!

The 'defect' was revealed in comments above your posted answer -- it's the artifacts (if they are that) from compression of my 'feather' from 'selection' of the two men for slight enhancement (or holding back) during processing for contrast so they'd continue to stand out and and contrast with the background -- the 'feather' was too large when the image was compressed -- it's not so bad on the 'large' view but when it's compressed to 'thumbnail it's very objectionable.

 

I took maybe 500 photos today and am about 20 chips (some five of them are 8 gigs apiece and the others are 4 gigs apiece) away even from downloading but have to do that just to get space on chips to shoot tomorrow when models show up (12:30 and 5:00 -- one unknown one (pig in a poke?) (addendum Jan 30: She was NO PIG -- a stone-cold beautiful amateur model answering an ad, blindly) and one known one, a very nice young woman whom I like very much (no pig she for sure) and none of the models ever are treated or look like pigs -- we screen too thoroughly (but now never use agencies -- I find 'em through cheap classified ads in this 'eastern country' unnamed and even my assistant's hairdresser today may become one. (my assistant is very clever and likes what I do, and my models keep returning now that they've worked with me -- they see me on the street and call my usually dormant cell phone to see if there's work, how's that for engendering loyalty -- meaning surely I pay too much. . . . )

 

Jeff, the 'art' or science of street shooting is gleaned for me through a lifetime of reading Colliers, Life, Look and other photo magazines as a youth, I discovered, as well as National Geographic, and when I picked up a camera I was a full-blown photographer - taking important images (though not too many) but I knew them when I saw them because I'd grown up on 'important' images -- see my 'Black and White from Then to Now' which contains still (and always will) a photo from my FIRST ROLL OF FILM.

 

Where that came from always was a mystery until I realized I grew up in the golden age of photojournalism and cut my teeth on magazines with images.

 

So go out and buy books (or read them at the library) of images by Doisneau, Erwitt, Cartier-Bresson and memorize their 'devices' and all the other 'street' photographers

 

This service has apparently lost some wonderful 'street' photographers, far better than I: Edmo was great as was Balaji of Boston for one was a standout and there were some others that I could name. Others such as Pogue Mahone come to to mind, but that was a pseudonym for a 'street photographer' from Chicago who moved to Springfield, Ill. (Andy Eulass) who had stunning work as well as more ordinary work -- but his wonderful stuff was absolutely superlative.

 

The 'key' to street shooting is to use your 'mind' and as 'Andy' (Pogue Mahone) advised me, it's all previsualizing what you're going to take before you take it - not just looking in the viewfinder but anticipating circumstances, expressions, placements, etc. of people based on a broad knowledge of human emotions, expressions, behaviors, etc., and then watching people and letting those behaviors come to fruition and aiming your camera to where they will come into conjunction with your ability to press the shutter release while the lens is properly focused and framed. (whew, I actually put it into a sentence or two.)

 

It's enormously hard work and early on I used to 'sweat' hard and not enjoy it, not understanding exactly what it was I was doing to do such 'magic' but seeming, from time to time when I went out shooting, to come up with occasional great shots, and only after joining Photo.net analyzing the process and being able to replicate the process and after being critiqued, to know how the audience reacts (and the able critics such as yourself).

 

The critiques are the key, and my key is to treat them like Gold -- they are part of the key to my successful shooting; I keep critics in mind whenever I shoot, wondering how they'll respond to most good shots I take (and I'm one of those critics, the most hard to please one, and at the same time the most giddy and easy to please and pleased with good shooting critic you ever came across -- but in the end I know when a photo's excellent or not -- this one was and when the 4's started to come in I scratched my head at the raters, but sure enough it got 'discovered' but not soon enough to catch the 'top rated' engine and get any rates.

 

But it's at the start of a very highly-viewed folder with millions of views, and at the start of a large group of folders, so there'll be plenty of browsers to stop by and see it (or pass by it) so it will not die in ignominy.

 

I only had 10,000 views my first month and didn't know about posting for critique for a month or two; and during that time posted photos that formed the basis of a folder that now has 2 million views or so. Think if I'd posted some of those first 40 for critique, including 'balloon man' my highest rated photo ever and now approaching 100,000 views and almost my highest viewed photo, never posted for critique, taken when I was 23 years old with the most rudimentary lens possible -- the lens didn't even have auto stopdown. One focused at full aperture then stopped it down to the shooting aperture. Essentially it was a barrel with an iris and about two pieces of glass, but it was 'good enough'.

 

I knew that photo was good from the moment I took it.

 

Other photos are more problematic, appealing to some and not to others and some please only me.

 

In the end, shoot to please yourself, but hold yourself to a high standard; and judge yourself by the classical 'street' photographers -- the Cartier-Bressons, Erwitts, Doisneaus (and note Doisneau never got a vertical, vertical,, always tilting his camera from the horizontal this way or that as though he were a little dizzy, and I think he mean to shoot his verticals, vertical.)

 

Of course there are others -- the entire Magnum group. Join the Magnum photography web site -- user name and get a password to view the published works for free of Cartier-Bresson then view his unpublished works (and see some of his less popular images and know that they were far from masterpieces).

 

I shoot a variety of styles and 'street' is just one of them.

 

It helps to have an able mind and a Renaissance education, for the use of a full mind and education can help make 'analogies' between knowledge you have and 'street situations you see', and help you explain your more obscure photographs to others (as I often do).

 

In the end, enjoy your shooting; I now do which is why I shoot.

 

Before, I didn't like it much; it was too hard work and I tried too hard to get those good results not knowing how I got them.

 

View my Presentation: 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' or similar name and see if that doesn't help enormously. I intend to try to publish that after re-working it and tracking down a publisher -- maybe make it an installment set or work it through a periodical (not Photo.net regrettably) and it may have to come down -- it's over 300 pages long if you print it, I understand -- I never have and intend to do just that within a week.

 

It's really a partial and disorganized manuscript for a book, blocked from further work by poor software from Photo.net that never was improved despite numerous requests. It's been well received and explains the process of 'street shooting' in part by distilling critics comments with my own knowledge. -- a shorthand way of tackling the 'juxtaposition part of my portfolio up to last year (many additions planned soon).

 

My best wishes to the real you (as well as the virtual you).

 

And best wishes for your shooting.

 

I'm limited in my hours of Internet access, so a critique may have to wait a while, but ask again in a week or three and it probably will come.

 

Poka,

 

John (Crosley)

Great image with very candid moment captured excellently... I love the strong red and black colors, contemporary design of the tables...!

Because this photo only got four anonymous rates, it never made the 24-hour or three-day top-rated photo list and at this time has 872 views in total after three days of posting, going into the fourth day, yet has 12 comments (some of them mine) and some very high scores from well-regarded non-anonymous raters.

 

This is an anomaly of the rating system; it's one of my better photos, and maybe I should be practicing more 'tit for tat' but I just don't have time to produce my voluminous output and rate others' photos -- I've done just less than 400 or 500 since I've joined the service, preferring instead when I can to comment, but even then somewhat rarely, though often at great length.

 

I really appreciate your fine remarks -- this photo is among a batch that were the first on my arrival in Paris, and made me feel good about making the (cheap) trip. I often travel 'on the cheap' with discount tickets, cheap hotels, etc., and eat at local panini shops etc., just so I can meet guys like this instead of some restaurant with many etoiles (stars).

 

The reward is obvious, isn't it?

 

Thanks for the affirmation.

 

John (Crosley)

It has occurred to me, after reviewing this photo, that the word about 'feathers' and 'selection' above, may not be the true cause of the 'artifacts' that show on this photo.

 

In fact, the artifacts may be a result of something that has come from using Photoshop CS2's shadow/highlight tool to highlight contrast, which is similar to 'selecting' a subject and then playing around with it separately for contrast and other things.

 

My general approach (I don't recall which I did here), is to evaluate a photo and if I apply any editing at all, to go to Image>Edit Image>Shadow Highlight tool and then first (if dark areas are too dark) to first reset the shadow scrubby slider to 0 from 50 so I can see how the photo started, then adjust to personal taste. If highlights are an issue, I'll do the same to the highlight tool, suppressing highlights as needed, watching the histogram, right.

 

Finally, I use shadow/highlight tool in the Advanced mode and that turns on the color correction and mid-tones contrast adjustment which is another way of 'selecting' parts of an image for work, only it does so by intensity or tonality rather than by using a 'selection tool'.

 

'Selection tools' are anathema for Photoshopping for me because of difficulties in areas such as selecting heads with bushy or sparse hair and issues as whether to 'select' or not to 'select' the entire hair, part of it, or just the scalp, for instance. The shadow/highlight filter eliminates that difficulty in many instances.

 

So, if shadow/highlight is a form of selection and I usually use it (and don't recall using a 'selection tool' on this photo and see from the white curve, upper right, the same 'artifacts' as around the guys, where I never would have used a 'selection tool' then it appears confirmation from the artifact's size and placement that this artifact is one from the use of Photoshop CS2's shadow/highlight tool and not from using a 'feather' when using a 'selection tool'.

 

Question: If that is so, does a pre-selected 'feather' sitting on the top bar give a feather to the shadow/highlight tool? Anyone know the answer or know where to find out if my suppositions are correct?

 

Please let me know here or by e-mail, if you know the answer or even if you think I'm all wet.

 

John (Crosley)

It is clear from an examination of the uploaded file that this file was absolutely free of artifacts when uploaded and, moreover, probably never had a selection tool applied to it, although, like many of my photos, it may have had 'shadow/highlight' tool in Photoshop employed, just as one might use contrast/brightness/curves/levels or other tools to adjust the histogram or all and/or part of a photo. My first choice usually is shadow/highlight tool, and in using such a tool it actually may leave a 'feather' around image contrast changes, but such a 'feather' is absolutely not visible on the uploaded version I sent Photo.net for posting.

 

It appears that Photo.net JPEG'd or otherwise crunched this file and somehow added these artifact marks; the original file is entirely free of such appearance of 'artifacts' which previously suggested to me that I used a 'feather' which was magnified in the posting process, and/or the the shadow/highlight tool, at the edge of a dark/light edge itself made a 'feather' which in turn was magnified by the posting process.

 

All that seems wrong, and now the peg has moved into Photo.net's arena for explanation. My original file now has been re-uploaded to 'replace' the badly marred image which was rated, and only time will tell whether it successfully made the post (no error message was received on upload, but I also did not see a 'success' message). And according to PN posts, it can take at least 24 hours from the re-upload for the PN servers (there are several) to 'refresh' themselves with new images/versions of images.

 

Let me know here and if possible by e-mail (address posted on bio page) if the new image if as bad as the old (or if there is no apparent change) in the next two days as I'll be traveling, though reading my e-mail but may be unable to sign on to Photo.net.

 

John (Crosley)

If you still are 'troubled' or disturbed about 'artifacts' from JPEG compression or otherwise in this photo, please click on 'larger' to see this photo without artifacts at all.

 

This photo seems to suffer from a bugaboo.

 

I located the original, uploaded version, and it was free from compression, selection, shadow/highlight or other artifacts, and somewhere in the upload/display process the thumbnails and 'smaller' versions got loaded with artifacts at certain delinations.

 

Later, and a number of days ago, I uploaded the same original version (I am quite sure) of this photo, and it did NOT supplant the damaged photo being displayed, unless it got substituted on the servers for the 'larger' version.

 

Thoughtlessly, I had originally failed to check the 'larger' version when there were complaints about quality, to see if that version had the same issues.

 

Now I don't know if the bothersome artifacts are from the original upload only or were replicated on the smaller and thumbnail versions even from a replication of the second upload, which I absolutely saw to be artifact free -- nor do I know absolutely that the 'larger' view is my second upload -- it might be the first.

 

In any case, for a less troublesome view and to see what this photo SHOULD look like and as it looked to me as I uploaded it, please click on 'larger'. I hope you like it, without the distraction of 'artifacts'.

 

John (Crosley)

... John, I analyzed this image (the larger version) and it is clear that there is artifacting in the original, although clearly not to the degree that exists in the smaller, recompressed version. It appears to be of a couple of sorts; both compression artifacting (the shadowed red behind the left hand figure is very complex and not so easily compressible as the right hand side, and it is clear that PN makes multiple versions of the larger images for routine purposes of display, and recompress in doing so, probably over-compressing) and perhaps processing artifacting like unsharp masking (look on the back of the dark lines of the figure on the left). It seems to be too uneven to be feathering, although I can't say for sure. Meanwhile, here is the over-manipulated image to show how I did the analysis.

 

Of course, I got involved in this because I loved the shot!

... here it is. Sorry about being such a geek.

By one of the kings of images -- a pioneer in image reproduction techniques, no less.

 

I'm honored and also honored that you do 'love' this shot; I do also.

 

I was a little surprised when it got so little attention, but then there have to be some treasures to reward people if they go spelunking in my vast portfolio.

 

Yes, I think you're right, though I must say, that sometimes I don't even 'unsharp mask' which always for me (or almost always) means 'smart sharpen' in Adobe Photoshop CS2 and I'm awaiting CS3 to see how it handles 'sharpening' or if it's changed or added to its approach; which is pretty well presented and now easier to handle than 'unsharp mask' (a misnomer of course, as applied to digital techniques as the unsharp mask only could be used, I understand, in an analogue and therefore real darkroom.

 

(One in which the light is kept out, hence 'dark' room.

 

Or at least various colors are left out > red having been permitted in most B&W printing darkrooms for paper not sensitive to red light.

 

I'm greatly flattered.

 

(oh, got to stop, my photomodel date, 26 and gorgeous has just arrived.

 

gotta go.

 

I'll get back to you and other less important things later.

 

John (Crosley)

 

... what is the effect of recompressing. The attached image shows an image compressed as a 10, then recompressed as a 7, and then a representation of the data that was discarded in the recompression (if no data were lost, the result would be values of 0 for every pixel, and 0=black; therefore the image would be completely black). But even a cursory glance at the first two images should make clear how images change with compression.

This is a wonderful comment and post.

 

You form an opinion and back it up with solid evidence.

 

That is great and it is clear to all those who see the post.

 

If only others were so clear-headed . . .

 

You are genuinely heroic in my mind, for this post.

 

I've never seen anything like it anywhere else, the facts are new to me and seem incontrovertible.

 

Thanks so much.

 

Now I'm off on that 15,000-18,000 mile trip and looking for some worthy fine art (human) printer if I hit California . . . hint, hint, hint.

 

John (Crosley)

... in my email to you awhile back I mentioned someone in California who does superb work (and also taught me a great deal of what I know about imaging in general). You have Mark's URL. This guy is a true guru.

I'm in his neck of the woods now, and my e-mail was not then available; I think it is now.

 

Thank you for your help and inspiration.

 

It means the world to me.

 

John (Crosley)