Peek-a-Boob!!! © 2007-2012 All Rights Reserved, John Crosley/Crosley Trust

The title says nearly all. This fellow may or may not have been

posing for a friend at a convention, where they were selling sex -

related things, including these life-size 'dolls' which I believe

were for 'display' purposes for a 'real' look 'up top' if you get my

drift. He certainly seemed to be 'checking out the goods'. 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

Haha very nice shot! Since it wasnt a planned shot, i'll forgive the blurriness hehe :)

Haha.....this is brilliant. Well done!

I was taking photos of a Japanese guy on a lounger chair reclining in front of nude mannequins, and sticking my butt in another guy's face, for an awkward moment as I bent to get the right angle. The guy and I spoke about photography and as I was speaking with him, I kept speaking and saw this guy doing this. It might easily have been posing for friends -- I can't be sure, since everybody was posing for everybody else, but the mannequin in the back, turning like that can't have been in their photo, if they were taking one, due to the angle.

 

As we spoke, and without interrupting, he was unaware I squeezed off about 11 shots of this guy and the mannequin, zooming and reframing. He was surprised when I showed him the digital screen showing the photos and said 'I took these as we were speaking.'

 

All he could say was 'amazing!'

 

In any case, the lounging man photo was great, but not 'arresting' as this one is.

 

I have this one, not blurry, but omitting the 'backward glance' of the bystander mannequin, left.

 

I'll post it some day.

 

My vibration reduction feature on my 70~200 mm Nikkor lens inadvertently got switched off, probably by being rubbed as I moved through a crowd. Hint: check your equipment periodically!!! Thumbnails won't show blurriness or not.

 

Thanks for the foregiveness.

 

Even if he was 'posing' it wasn't for me.

 

 

 

 

John (Crosley)

You have given both well-considered rates.

 

Both were very thoughtful and outside the mold.

 

I applaud you for thoughtfulness and keeping in the spirit of rating fairly.

 

John (Crosley)

For sure, this one will end up in my Presentation on 'Threes' in my photography.

 

John (Crosley)

...here's your decisive moment for you! John, your eye on the human race is really inspiring and I don't say it lightly. I'm new to Photo.Net and still stumbling though, but the most interesting people for my money are the ones like you, who, no matter how diverse, take chances, keep it vital, and have a strong point of view at all times. This piece, along with your whole portfolio, has inspired me to turn my camera back to the street. Many thanks....Oh, as for rating, well, I agree with the folks above- excellent moment, so so image quality. Who cares

As noted above, I actually have a very good quality photo of just him and her, with him peeking just as above and good focus and no blurriness (or acceptable at least), but the mannequin, left, is out of frame, for less of a photo.

 

I decided to go with lesser quality and a better composition, in keeping with my idea that it's the 'impact' that counts over the beauty when posting a photo of this sort.

 

The other photo will show up, however, probably in a higher-rated folder.

 

For the record everyone, this one is copyrighted, 2007, John S. Crosley, all rights reserved as is the other one.

 

Thanks David for the compliment; I don't know where I get it; maybe by growing up with the great photo magazines in their heyday; my parents subscribed to them all and I read them voraciously. When I bought my first camera, I began taking 'important' photos from the start -- one from my first roll is still in a folder here -- my best folder -- and it's so good I wouldn't take it down.

 

I always knew a good photo, and it's just something 'natural' to me. Like a gift, but how to see a good 'landscape' is harder for me, but I try too. They're just so much more boring.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo illustrates the importance of carrying a camera and appropriate lens with you at all times.

 

I was able to hold a conversation, snap 11 frames and never miss a sentence during my conversation as I took this series of photographs.

 

Of course, this photo also stands for a corollary: Always check your equipment. My vibration reduction lens had its vibration reduction feature switched 'off' apparently by having the switch brushed against someone in a tight crowd and I hadn't realized it. There is no viewfinder indicator to warn of that, that I'm aware of, and no real way to check on a digital readout screen to see if a view is 'fuzzy' or not when one starts with in-focus, and sharp, photos, and then a focus aid goes out, as here. Live and learn. From

now on, I'll be checking my VR 'on' indicator more frequently.

 

In any case, it's a good photo for composition. A better one for focus awaits upload but lesser composition (only the guy looking and without the mannequin, left).

 

John (Crosley)

 

Oh! Ha. Ha..!! Shocking!!!

I had other photos without the rear-most mannequin in view that were more in focus (one also posted).

 

But this one tells a story, and a very humorous one at that, so in my view, the story comes first, unless the photograph is unviewable.

 

I'm glad you liked this one. I certainly do.

 

John (Crosley)

This is one of my most-viewed photos.

 

Obviously someone has linked it to somewhere on the web -- I just looked and almost jumped out of my chair - 80,000 views.

 

It's out of focus/and/or blurry from camera motion, but it does tell an effective story.

 

It's a moment well caught, however poorly it's recorded.

 

Obviously people want to see this one.

 

John (Crosley)

Where is this linked on the web?

 

Can someone send me the URL? My e-mail address is on my bio page.

 

This photo is copyright, all rights reserved, registered, John Crosley, 2007.

 

Or, if necessary, post the URL here.

 

John (Crosley)

This particular shot, which 'tells a story, humorous and sexual' was hidden away in a decidedly secondary folder, because it is 'out of focus' or at the very least very fuzzy, though it tells a very interesting (and sexual) story.

 

Now, I look, this Dec. 29, 2008, and it has just vaulted to the most-viewed single photo in my entire portfolio.

 

I noted extremely high views near the end of October when it had 80,000 views, and now in two months it has increased by about 40,000 views -- 20,000 a month!!!

 

It has low rates for aesthetics -- just 4.0 and mid to high 5s for originality, but only seven rates at that.

 

Members didn't think much about rating it.

 

And the 'views' here are mostly 'clicks' under the new system where a 'click' counts as a 'view' and not the old system where a 'view' could be any thumbnail showing of the image, no matter where.

 

People have gone to effort to view this photo -- and they have not just passively 'seen' it but they have actually 'clicked' on it.

 

So, these 'views' are almost all 'clicks' which assuredly makes this the most 'clicked' photo by far in my entire portfolio, including even my highly-viewed Photo of the Week from October a year ago which has just under 50,000 clicked views.

 

My most 'viewed' single photo (not image, but single photo) until now was 'Anti-War Then' depicting a campus protest with the National Guard and fixed bayonet versus campus protesters, but now it falls short of the 121,000+ viewers of this photo, and climbing daily.

 

Where are all those clicks coming from?

 

I would be very grateful to anyone who can point me to a place on the web where this photo is linked, as the cause of all these clicks is a mystery to me, and the computers at Google.com are no help in unraveling the mystery-- other most-clicked photos often end up with their own Google.com listing, but not this one.

 

Or is someone with a computer and a 'bot' just playing an elaborate trick on me?

 

Still the record for my most-viewed single 'image' is a photo of a man in Bangkok, fourth in 'views' as a black and white image and with about 50,000-55,000 views at a color image as well, for the overall record as my numerically most-viewed photo, at least if one counts 'views' including the old system in which a thumbnail appearance counted as a 'view' whereas a 'click' now is required for a 'view' to qualify.

 

It's a little ignominious that caught in a crowd, my vibration reduction switch got brushed and thereby turned off, or this photo might have been more clear - what appears to be out-of-focus is an artifact probably of camera movement, OR since I was shooting 'wide open' it is a combination not only of slight camera movement, but also from extreme selective focus with my focus point having been on the man, right who is doing the breast peeking, while the mannequin who is being peeked at, is mainly just out of focus as well as being subject to camera/lens movement artifacting.

 

I regarded it as largely a failed photo but a very, very good and most interesting attempt which if successful would have been a pretty fabulous photo, but alas it was not perfect, and so I posted it here mainly for the amusement of my Photo.net audience, never in my most wild dreams expecting that it would become my most-viewed single photo.

 

It's more than a little embarrassing that among many very, very good to even 'superb' photos (as stated by critic George Barr in his photography blog), that this photo should become my most clicked.

 

Who would've ever thunk it?

 

John (Crosley)

After making my copyright part of the caption more prominent, the clicks have suddenly ground almost to a halt, and at less than 152,000, with this my most clicked on photo, it no longer gets 500 to 1,000 clicks a day.

 

Obviously (to me) someone finally has seen my copyright notices, and so far as I can figure understood that there may have been copyright violations by posting this or a link somewhere, and have taken down the photo and/or its links from some unknown site.

 

Good.

 

Now this photo can stand on its own and not just be part part of some unseen collection of maybe smarmy sex photos without my getting paid for it.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(If it's gonna be most-viewed and smarmy, I should get paid, as I am certain that the web site had advertising, or I just miss my bet entirely, which I'd be surprised to learn.)

 

JC

I looked at this, and the story is so well-told that it appears 'staged'; it was not.

I assure you this  is a 100% candid capture; the man was unaware he was being photographed.

john

John (Crosley)

John,

Excellent my friend. It says it all. Congrats.

Yes, it's a complete story.

About the differences between male and female sexuality.

Voyeurism vs. exhibitionism.

Being 'hot' vs. 'not' (the chosen one vs. the 'not chosen one'.

'Outrage' or 'fake outrage' or just being 'startled' as shown by the rear-most woman (mannequin).

Overt sexuality as shown through exaggerated display of physical attributes/muscles/breasts/bodies, in an almost comic book fashion (viz. 'Little Annie Fannie' of Playboy, a takeoff on 'Little Orphan Annie' but incorporating the Playboy view of sexuality).

'Threes' as I often use them in my compositions, when they present themselves for simple and easy composition.

Women showing, then withholding (here holding back on the withholding, a double negative hoped for by most males).  In fact, female withholding is part of the sexual equation -- keeps the males interested and 'in line'.  Imagine what the world would be like if females almost never withheld.  It would be 1968 all over again, except even then the prettiest hippie chicks chose the handsomest and most stoned males to bed . . . . even then withholding in a sort of hierarchy of desirability.

You can finish this list by yourself or others can too.  Contributions are welcome.

There are reasons why this photo has flourished with so many views, despite some blurriness and it is not all just because of 'wish fulfillment' (though I acknowledge that is a good part of it).  The 'story' is also a major part of its success I think.

john

John (Crosley)

This photo was put in its separate folder from its 'burial' deep in another folder where it was getting over 200,000 'clicked views' (almost exclusively) since being posted three years ago.

Since that time, approximately two weeks ago, this photo has garnered another three thousand views, indicating its enduring view worthiness.

Some photos are magnetic or entirely view worthy.

It's my blessing (and my curse) that this photo should be such, since it's both a little smarmy and more than a little blurry that it also should now be by all accounts my most viewed photo, whether in color, black and white or both.

(not my most important . . . but my most viewed).

Views:  219,273 times at midday US time. August 10, 2010.

john

John (Crosley)

Hey speaking of twin peaks and other monuments....this is truly fun! Congrats on the spectacular hit count. Love to see you getting some more notice.. Wouldn't it be nice to turn those hits to dollars...hmmmm--cheers my friend. Lee McLaughlin

 

I tried telephoning you last I was in the US and got no reply and figured the number was no good so deleted it.

My number now has changed (stolen phone).

I'd love to be in touch again; I think I had e-mailed you but got no reply.

Yes, these are 'Twin Peaks' and if I had even 10 cents for each 'click' on these, I'd have enough for a whole new top of the line camera outfit or a very, very good automobile.

If you (or Jeff Lee for instance?) thinks of a good way to market this image.  I think if it Jeff Lee who is the photo sales guru, but I'll check, perhaps not, but someone on the service claims a way to market nearly every image worthy of a 6/6 and although this is a 4/and 5+ approaching a six, it has an outstanding number of hits, appears very view worthy, with about four thousand 'hits' in the two or three weeks since this folder has been up.

Until I placed my copyright notice right in the caption, it was getting about 600 to 800 clicked hits a day - not 'views' under the old system but actual clicked hits.

In fact, almost every 'view' here is a click, since it was put up almost when the new view counting system was adopted.

And to think I almost was embarrassed to put it up, since it was slightly blurry/had movement disorder (motion sickness?), but in a perverse way since the upper line of the viewed breast is absolutely straight (not Photoshop), it may be that I was rotating the camera and that is the only thing in the view that is absolutely SHARP, making the viewer's natural inclination to focus on it be reinforced.  What a happy 'error' when one mistakenly has his Vibration Reduction switched off by someone in the crowd brushing against his lens and his body, turning off the V.R. switch . . . or some other similar even that turned it off.

This is the ultimate wonder of wonders, especially since for three years or so I buried it in one of my least viewed folders and sharp-eyed viewers and those who linked it found it anyway.

Now with goggle images, people find it right away, even if not otherwise linked.  No fooling anyone any more, or hiding anything 'interesting' once it's been viewed a lot of times.

I'm abroad now, but will return in a couple of weeks, I think or three and would love to hear from you.  My e-mail is on my 'bio' page if you don't have my 'better' one.

Do it twice, if I don't respond to the first one, as I view the PN e-mail far less often or things get thrown in to SPAM.

Your friend and fellow 'street' shooter who is thankful for your comment and aways lustful of your perfectionism with your wonderful images.

john

John (Crosley)

I think we could actually cash in on some of our work. My email and phone info are always on my www.xart.com website in case all else fails. I think when you're back in the states we should really try to hook up and chat about some opportunities for mutual profit. I am signing uo with a rep this month and about to get a big burst of PR for my Physics for Kids book.... so I'm getting a bit wiser... You've been my hero street shooter for years and I think you and I should plot....so lets try in September....Thanks again for your sweet encouragement about my work.  You're a valuable member of this community!  cheers - Lee

Lee, send me an e-mail address where I can make attachments.

I'd love to preview some stuff with you, including the most insane potential posting I've ever worked up (the mad accordionist, I found in a download from 2008 along with 19 other post worthy photos in 7 downloads, just from a week one month --Jan., 2008, a very productive month. 

I'll be working some of those into my uploads, when I get a chance, in addition to my usual heavy upload work from present work.

I'm horribly prolific and have turned down some stuff previously because either (1) I didn't see its potential but now in light of seeing galleries, publications, etc, I now see the potential, or (2) I didn't then have photoshop skills but now do, or equipment was too primitive with digital noise, but now 'filters' are at my disposal to bring that under control so I can now work those things up which otherwise might have been passed over -- literally lost.

I'll watch my photo.net e-mail (I won't post it here for fear of auto harvest of e-mail addresses and getting thousands more erectile dysfunction ads (how did they ever know, since I've never bought the stuff?)

john

John (Crosley)

This guy may have been posing for a friend or just goofing around, and I was elsewhere focusing on the mannequins when he did this unusual thing.

I focused on him and the one mannequin in all but but ONE FRAME where I caught him and the second mannequin looking on with seeming disapproval.

All the other frames1 are tack sharp, and because of that I almost posted them, as opposed to this which has some subject movement, camera movement, and/or focus/camera rotation issue (who knows for sure) but the top half of her left (as she looks at us) boob is dead on in focus, which is exactly where our gaze is directed.

That is supremely lucky; if one is going to shoot a shot with a technical deficiency, it should be in a way and manner in which it directs the viewers to the subject in a place where the subject is in tight focus. 

Hail the Photo Gods!

Instead of damning anyone for switching off my Vibration Reduction switch and me for not catching it in time.

I'm a steady holder, even at low shutter speeds, so that was not readily apparent to me.  How I got at my advanced age to be such a steady holder, even when not planted firmly, is beyond me -- it may be like the innate skill that a great quarterback has (just born with it and played around with it a long while to get to know my capabilities).

In any case, this is not a 'planned' shot or a posed shot as far as I was concerned. It was seen, framed and taken in an instant. and there was never any chance for a do over even if I had recognized he V.R. deficiency.

Later, I recalll approaching this guy and showing him this capture and the others. and he was very impressed (as he should have been), then he just walked off - didn't ask for a copy or anything.

My thanks to him for his savoir faire there at the porn extravaganza in Las Vegas (where there really was nothing sexy going on at all if one really thought about it, just things 'sexual' but nothing really 'sexy').

john

John (Crosley)

At last count 228258 times viewed. What a capture! Very funny!