The Real and the Surreal

Scene in San Diego Recently; one which suggested to me both reality

and surreality. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most

welcome. Please do not rate the photo for any striations or 'image

quality' defects in the sky (query me if you have any misgivings

about that and I'll respond). 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 ;~))

Hi, dear John. This is realy a very interesting shot and I like your title too much.I think that you may try in B&W and the surreal is more obvious. Friendly Michael.

Michael -- not only are you friendly, but you have given me a great idea.

 

Some photos just beg to be desaturated, but this one stood alone as a color photo and it just never occurred to me to convert it to Black and White (blanc et noir, chernoye y biele, schwarz & weis, and so forth) and I simply overlooked its possibilities.

 

I was a little more worried that people would mistake it for a 'sandwich' where a photographer simply stacks two transparencies (or transparent layers) over each other and then just 'creates' a new photo out of that -- the lazy artist's way to photography in my opinion -- a fine way to say 'look, I made something' instead of braving it and going out on the street and actually looking through the viewfinder and having the courage to press that shutter release at the exact moment to get something as surreal as this.

 

And, this is an exact capture -- it's entirely untouched and unretouched. This is the scene I saw through my camera viewfinder and on my image review screen.

 

I simply liked it; it's surreal in a way, yet it represents one moment in reality. Life can have its surreal moments; I've seen plenty of them in the course of my lifetime -- moments that can hardly be described and maybe that has prepared me for taking (or at least recognizing the possibilities of taking) photos such as this.

 

Probably few people can 'understand' this photo, and I notice that no one has even asked 'What the he** is this?' and 'how was this achieved'. People who know my work know it wasn't Photoshopped this way, and others may simply not care since it's not a standout. I have a second, laptop computer open next to me and it has a lifetime best photo on it that is assured of top rates and ratings as well as comments (one I knew from the moment I took it -- even before that as I moved into position to take it as I previsualized it) and that's one kind of photo -- a photo for the masses.

 

But a lot of the best photography is not or the 'masses' or for people of ordinary sensibilities -- just go to a gallery and/or a photo expo as I did in Paris recently, and you'll not only find some crap (or stuff I just didn't understand, but then many didn't understand Picasso also) as well as some stunning work.

 

I have others of this guy and the same background, but what made this photo postable in my opinion was the guy's head, the other hand, his outstretched hand, the ball in the air (mirroring the shape of his head, kind of free form, as well as his right hand and arm (with finger extended like on the arm behind him, and the two arms intersecting at right angles.

 

It's that 'intersection' of arms, and the double mirroring (head shape and arms with outstretched fingers' that caused this photo to be posted. Having the rest be 'cut off' -- the house, the 'fence?' and the woman's head with the earrings, is just like icing on the cake for a surreal photo.

 

And or course, he appears to be looking directly at the camera (which I think he was not, since it's a 200mm telephoto at full zoom extension, from far away, and he's only a small part of the frame, indicating I was at great distance and many things were happening between me and him -- there were people his arm was trying to communicate with.

 

(The background is actually a photo, posted in an outdoor exhibition, but it's not 'protected' in any way, and I didn't expropriate it, but in any case, my grateful thanks for the artist/photographer for allowing it to be posted where it was to form an interesting backdrop to help make this particular shot -- an entirely new use of his characters, scenery and buildings. Most would be proud of such use, (provided I'm not making a million dollars off their shot). In any case, it's publicly posted, so it's 'fair game'.

 

I really can't remember whom he was trying to communicate with, except I think they were family members on a family outing (at San Diego's Balboa Park, not very long ago (a month or maybe just slightly more).

 

I thank you for remembering me and making such a fine suggestion.

 

Would you be interested in posting a desaturation that posts in-line?

 

I think it might be helpful (My Photoshop is not 'saving' all my processed work, and sometimes I have to save files as .psd (Photoshop) files to get them to save until I can get to the disks to 'repair' the program(s).

 

My best to you in the land of rocks, sea, olive oil and retsina.

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for your very interesting thoughts. Unfortunately in the brave new world of PS and digicams everybody is going to be a great photographer. I read many times the posts on the forum that make me sad or having fun with the ignorance of people that are going to buy expensive gear. That is the reason that few people can admire pure creative work like this or your excellent work in Paris etc. I post you the desaturated image. Friendly Michael.

More to come, this time from Ukraine, and if I get time, a newer genre -- beautiful women this time photographed beautifully (I'm learning how now).

 

It's fun to have an apartment full of late teen and early twenty somethings vying for my attention, even fighting for the time for an appointment to be photographed. (Wow, if I'd just discovered this a long time ago . . . . !!!!)

 

And it's not just BS--my skills have increased exponentially with each new model and the improvisational skills I learn and use on the street directly carry over to the 'studio-like' setting I can set up anywhere with a suitcase of studio-type portable lights. (What a discovery, as before when I wanted to practice with 'monolights' I had to rent a studio -- now I AM a studio and a portable one at that, photographing 'available light' by day and 'monolight' by night.)

 

And the women: Maurice Chevalier had something to say about that, and the Russian language expresses it well (kraciva genshena) (beautiful women), which every Russian man holds in high regard.

 

The semi-secret Russian (Ukrainian) weapon which never was argued about by Nixon in those famous 'Kitchen debates' in which Nixon argued the superiority of America and Things American while Khruschev (according to legendary photographer Elliott Erwitt who photographed it) yelled back at Nixon '*uck your grandmother' (probably had Khrushchev thinking not only that the Russians had the thermonuclear bomb, but they had an abundance of beautiful women everywhere -- though the women might then be pulling water from wells and never have a 'machine' -- a car, or even ride in one unless their boyfriend happened to be a general.

 

My best regards,

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)