Jump to content

Check Out the Viewfinder Image!!!


johncrosley

Nikon D2Xs, Nikkor 12~24, f4, full frame and unmanipulated (shadow/highlight adjustment applied for contrast/brightness -- no sharpening.


From the category:

Street

· 124,944 images
  • 124,944 images
  • 442,913 image comments


Recommended Comments

'Check Out the Viewfinder Image!!!' says it all -- you'll be well

rewarded, I bet, if you click and view this photo large ;~) 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

Link to comment
great image ! Only one remark, the red "bracelet" takes too much of my attention, maybe You can desaturate or retouche. cheers Jana
Link to comment

That's not the view finder...u can call it LCD/TFT...most probably this point&shoot doesn't even have a viewfinder(and that was only to be a little mean);). Anyways I stared at the bracelet to...composition is quite good but the background is out of focus ...(maybe is what u wanted)...

Overall a funny capture taken in the right moment.

 

Regards,

 

Sorin

Link to comment

I think the others were losing the concept of this image?

 

You are portraying the whole image and he has concentrated on her Boobs......

 

The image is here to entertain us, not to say if the red band is annoying. Sometimes only sometimes do I wish people actually look at an image for what it is saying.

 

Kind regards and respect.

 

Rob

Link to comment

I suppose the 'red bracelet' does take a little attention. I hadn't really considered that, but that's what these critiques are for. I just learned something.

 

If I show this, it will be shown blown up 'very large' so anybody walking past it in a gallery can walk past the viewfinder image (this LCD image is the 'viewfinder' in my book for this digicam) as it used for focusing and framing and thus serves the function of a 'viewfinder'.

 

So, if I do exhibit it (which I might, though it'll have tough competition), I'll probably give strong thought to desaturating the bracelet -- though I seldom Photoshop anything. Desaturating something that is distracting is something that I don't look at with as being a major problem, as it can be done pretty easily in a non-digital darkroom -- or something else done in its place, such as holding it back.

 

Thanks for the useful comment; you opened my eyes.

 

I am glad you enjoyed this little bit of humor . . . I did . . . in fact convulsed a little bit when I took it and when I looked it in my captures on review.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I addressed the issue of whether this LCD/TFT is a viewfinder, and for my book, it is a viewfinder. We can agree to disagree or you can reconsider. In any way, it's just semantics. We both get the point.

 

As to the out-of-focus background, that's exactly what it was meant to be.

 

The eye does not 'focus' on things that are 'out-of-focus', and does focus on those things that are 'in focus'.

 

Here what is in focus (in addition to the wrist band) is the viewfinder, and the background is meant to show, roughly the subject, while the viewfinder view is the 'punchline' -- the whole point of this 'joke' of a photo, for this entire photo is a visual 'joke' -0- photographic humor.

 

I'm glad it amused you.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I actually think the people assumed, since they were amused, that they 'got' the photo and found it funny, but quickly jumped to ways to help it be better which is the way to help me be a better photographer and to get higher scores and better satisfy my viewers. Whether or not this is a 'viewfinder' is a nit, but the 'red' wristband interfering, being brought up by the first two commentators, indicates a problem and I should consider desaturating it.

 

So, I think your irritation would be well placed if the two earlier commentators didn't 'get' the photo, but if you 'read between the lines' they actually really did get it, were greatly amused and quickly moved to help me try to make it better -- all in the best Photo.net tradition.

 

And your comment is in the same tradition, for which I thank you.

 

This is not a 'big' photo; just my 'little' joke, which amused me and I thought I'd pass it on. A tiny touch of human (masculine) nature.

 

There's actually a bit of universality about this photo -- a comment on the nature of the way (certain) men view women, and why certain women present themselves a certain way. Do you agree? All with some humor.

 

I simply love this little joke and am glad you liked it too.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Link to comment

In re-reading your comment, my photo's purpose was not to focus on the 'whole scene' but to focus on the guys' viewfinder and to contrast the fact that he 'sees her as a 'pair of mammaries' while the 'true' view of her seen by me was that she is a voluptuous woman with a large head and physique to match her breasts.

 

It says something about this particular male's world view of the female of the species -- he went to a 'porn' convention and apparently he had 'boobs' on his mind and that's what he's photographing -- heads are superfluous, at least to him.

 

And maybe for a large subset (maybe not even a subset) of men. I like my women with faces, preferably pretty faces and inviting ones at that, but apparently this guy is satisfied with a large 'rack' probably filled with silicon. I had a girlfriend once who was 'enhanced with silicon and learned to hate it; she did too, as he turned lumpy and moved over the years and caused her some considerable pain -- she looked 'great' in a sweater, but as they used to say in the commercial 'It's not nice to fool Mother Nature'.

 

Apparently, he doesn't even know the difference, or if he does, he doesn't care; larger to him apparently is better, which is what sets American 'porn' apart from European porn. European porn has bosomy women, but far less of the silicon enhanced, and thus 'harder' breasts -- for me it's au naturel.

 

After all, who wants to walk down a street or go into a club with a woman who looks like this? Some men of course, and they probably sell automobiles and wear gold chains. Some of the rest of us prefer what God has dispensed.

 

But I'll tell you, my side was vastly underrepresented at the 'Adult Expo' in Las Vegas this January.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

I posted this shot strictly for ME!

 

I'm surprised to get a good reception.

 

It's hard to get people to stop, look and 'see detail' in a photo that is essential to understanding the photo.

 

Maybe there is a 'boob exception' to that, and in the request for critique, I requested that people would be well rewarded if they did click on the photo.

 

I hope no one is disappointed, though I note there are a few 'threes' in the ratings. I presume either these raters didn't look at the camera 'viewfinder' or photo, if it's already a capture, though I think the guy is framing the photo, or they're registering disapproval at the 'subject matter' of boobs, rather than the specific photo technique, or just 'don't get it' that I'm critical of this guy's myopic view of women -- in other words, I'm a critic, and this photo is my criticism, but unlike those who dispense 3/3s, I have a good and puckish sense of humor. (and I understand that 3/3s go with the territory -- I think there should be some training for raters beside just 'looking' at a rating sheet where ratings are explained. When I joined, I didn't rate for a long time and then only very carefully.

 

Others should be well advised to do the same, I think. Wait, learn to understand a photo, then rate with knowledge.

 

Ruud, a rate from you, of any sort, (high or low), is always cherished by me. You are a photographer I look up to; you have defined a 'style' of photography, unlike me -- I'm all over the place -- 'the chameleon of Photo.net, with a little of this, a little of that.'

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

First off let me say HI MOM. My mother will be quite amuzed that I am commenting on this picture. I don't normally go for the "big" boob pictures to comment on and my mother does have a PN account and does follow my work and what I say for fun but does not rate. I think she will get a HOOT out of this picture!

 

 

Let me start off by saying BRAVO!! AND I of course love the red bracelet as it shows he got into the place and is, sorry John, part of the pack of wild animals and had to conform and be a GEEK frothing at the mouth to bring his pocket camera in to take pictures like this.

Don't worry your safe as YOUR camera is much bigger and your manhood is ok for now (sorry I have to stop giggling because I really am visualizing this poor guy excited about this event).

See... What we're missing about this picture is HE really IS here for this purpose to take picures of boobs and well that other picture you took (I suggest every one go look at it even tho I didn't comment on it I really liked it with the man under the girl and the guy getting getting his picture taken).

 

It just shows how people are so excited to just be here.

 

 

Now about these colors, Red ~ Red matches the red stripe in the middle and that red behind her (and she really almost looks like a transvestite more than a beautiful woman anymore). The reds compliment each other. The fact that you cropped half his head off by taking the picture the way you did is perfect as his black hair would have distracted us. The little bit of black hair compliments the black stripe and the darkness around her chin. The colors are VIVID and I love all of them. The flesh tones are perfect.

 

 

I like that her image is a bit out of focus as it brings the focus back on the VIEWFINDER. Yes VIEWFINDER, that is what I call my point and shoot. I also like how vivid his picture came out. WOW! You could almost crop his picture and rate it and get a 3 here on PN. It is that worthy.

 

I think this is a great picture and very worthy of being put on a wall in an exibition somewhere.

 

 

Well done and you even made me comment on someone's enhancement, impressive (with the enhancement I am not impressed). ~ micki

Link to comment

This was, as written above, a complete surprise in the audience's reaction, as usually small features in a photo, which help make the meaning, get buried in thumbnail and, as suggested above, perhaps there's a 'big boob' exception, and I did call attention to this and suggest in the Request for Critique that anyone who clicked on this would be well rewarded and I don't 'cry wolf'.

 

I swear you examine my photos with a microscope, whereas I'm sort of a gestaltist sort of guy; If I examined every element with the thoroughness you do, I'd never get off a capture; I just 'point, frame and shoot' often in a second or two, as here, and then move on, and my philosophy of shooting (or practice if you prefer) is in a few words: Try to cram all the interesting stuff in the frame and keep all the uninteresting stuff out. Simple as that: That's my in-frame cropping philosophy. So, I had to look twice at the photo to even see if I got the guy's head and what color his hair was, not realizing of course, I HAD to take his head to show it was a man, but NOT TOO MUCH, as HE is not the subject, of the photo, but he is the subject of this joke (if you get the difference).

 

And this is a visual joke, from start to finish -- a display of my puckishness, a bit of wryness John-style with a poke in the ribs at an 'institution' that's starting to become a little overblown (see above) and because it's male-dominated (girls preferring to have cuddly friends and more complicated friendships and relationships than just mate), and the men being prepared to 'mate' anytime, anywhere, or so it appears here.

 

And who's to say this 'female' isn't also a 'tranny' as those SPAM ads which hit my e-mail in box for a long time kept offering me. Some men are surprised to find that 'she' is really a 'he' but I had a college roommate, now a very prominent and monstrously highly-paid attorney of high stature, who forever was drawing male genitalia on stick figures of nude women (that's hardly even Freudian, since his meaning hardly was disguised, even though he didn't seem to know it, as he always laughed when he did it, thinking it funny when he made his 'joke' which no one ever seemed to get.

 

In fact, those who seem to get the most upset at homosexual and homosexuality, seem the closest to being attracted to the gays -- those who are closeted and have not come to grips with their gayness, like the Colorado Christian fundamentalist church leader whose gay lover 'outed him and his methamphetamine habit, and whose church determined he had 'only deviated with one man'.

 

We're forever hearing stories of how the Swaggarts of this world are found in back seats of cars 'converting' prostitutes, also. 'I be healing you', one can almost hear them say, 'but first one for the gypper, I have to know mine enemy to understand him . . . . so I must succumb.'

 

And one can imagine all those evangelists cruising the streets of slums looking for hookers and gay prostitutes, all the while preaching holiness, chasteness and 'family values'. Or Newt Gingrich preaching family values as a way of life and then when his wife is suffering cancer, serving her with divorce papers so he can marry an aide or secretary or some such.

 

At least this guy is not a hypocrite.

 

Now, imagine that this is a digicam viewfinder -- that is used for framing and focusing and he's just scoping out her chest as part of preparing to take a head and shoulders shot, and I captured just one moment (then how did I see just that moment long enough to shoot it of course?)

 

Well, in that case, I caught his most subtle thought -- having a peak, before he took the expected photo -- his innermost thoughts, if he's so complicated as to have taken a full face and chest photo, but one suspects he just took the chest.

 

One to show the boys at the garage in between transmission jobs -- maybe to put on a wall there at the machine shop, or to put on his mine worker locker inside door.

 

Notice how the lighting on her breasts is different in his viewfinder photo than it is in 'real life' indicating perhaps he's used his flash to take this photo already, or he has a 'different view' where the lights fall differently and more dramatically -- he's got better lighting than I have.

 

And again, for the guy who suggested that I caught the 'girl' out of focus, of course that was intentional -- the idea was not to capture her, but to draw the viewers' focus to the camera screen.

 

And it worked.

 

Surprisingly well.

 

I'm totally surprised at the reaction to this, my private joke.

 

I imagined I would take people through my portfolio and say 'now this is a photo that busy raters didn't get, because they are too busy to look at detail' then blow it up large and wait for the viewer to laugh as they 'get' the joke. I do that sometimes with my humorous photos, and universally, for some photos, people do 'get' them.

 

I'll keep taking strange and unusual photos of whatever it is I see.

 

More than being a photographer, I guess, I'm an acute observer with a camera.

 

Maybe that's what my kind of photographer is.

 

I think you might agree, Micki, being such an acute observer yourself.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

Link to comment
And well I had my 14 year old daughter look at it (why not) and even tho she thought it was a not her "cup of tea" (thank god) she thought it was a pretty good picture. She loved how the VIEWFINDER was so crisp and clear. She also asked if the man taking the picture was a man. Hmmm, I never even thought of that. Since you were there I assumed you know better than me but from this picture it does look more like a "Pat" figure. It does change the picture some doesn't it. ~ Well done! ~ micki
Link to comment

Yes, Micki, I remember 'Pat' from her first incarnation on 'Saturday Night Live' and just howled until I was out of breath -- a touch of asthma triggered by deep laughter is the devil.

 

Well, this is a guy, you can reassure your daughter, but there was a smattering of lesbians or bisexual women there, also, so just about everyone was represented, except possibly the gay males -- but who knows -- someone has to make up the camera crews and the stagehands and maybe the gays are represented there and also on the production teams.

 

Also, I remember that some very famous 'porn' stars, including one famous movie star who was featured in boxing movies, was reputed to have got his start not only doing porn but 'gay' porn, but that's pure speculation at this point on my part, since I have no firsthand knowledge (though certainly it is 'common knowledge' or knowable to some, and the issue has been tested somewhere -- just not by me). Other famous individuals, including our governor, are dogged by rumors that their careers were started by catering in some sexual way or another to the gay population, whether just posing or something more, is something that is unknowable to me, if the persistent rumor is true at all.

 

In fact, all those things are rumors, but their persistence bespeaks more than 'urban legend'. Even the 'biggest boy of them all', John Holmes, actually took part in gay porn, before he got his start in heterosexual porn or at the same time and became the biggest thing (in porn) since sliced bread - until finally he collapsed and died from AIDS, dogged by police who were trying to get him to confess to a murder they believe he committed or took part in (he died without any confession, and the case remains unsolved so far as I've heard).

 

There, equals rumors for all; Hollywood was full of rumors and many of them are true; Rock Hudson spent days and years in swimming pools entertaining young men, yet expected the Hollywood propaganda machine to feature him as a leading man -- a heterosexual hunk, all the while insiders knew he was quite gay, and eventually he died of AIDS, an acknowledged homosexual.

 

Not all or porn's children are simpletons, morally bankrupt (well, maybe they are after all, or just plain stupid, -- Jenna Jameson has managed her career extraordinarily well, despite having looks that are no better than many high school/college cheerleaders (I can personally attest, having seen her close up last month.)

 

And Ron Jeremy, the hedgehog, who has featured in 17,000 sex scenes (or is that sex movies?) as well as a number of legitimate movies, some music videos, who has had a Billboard hit song, and is billed as the ('hardest') working man in movies, as his book proclaims, and which the New York Times endorses, has become a national sensation even among women who seem fascinated by him, despite his sloppy demeanor, yet he has two bachelors degrees and a masters degree in special education and is a former teacher with an incredible wit who sometimes takes a turn as a standup comic (he'd actually have you laughing -- he did me, when I heard him on the radio recently, and I was certain not to like him, having heard rumors that he was 'full of himself'; he hardly seemed so on the radio.

 

Porn is a strange business, Jeremy observed, with the many female stars, (with few exceptions such as Asia Carrera, etc.) having little higher education, as they bypassed university for 'the business', and sold off access to their bodies for film/videodom for the highest bidder(s), while, as Jeremy observed, actually having to work less hard than men, a contention that appears well grounded.

 

But this poor guy, seems to be enamored only of one thing; this woman's breasts.

 

A look at the lighting on the view screen, suggests that the 'flash' photo was already taken and he is reviewing a photo already shot; see the highlights that aren't present in my photo, on her breasts and dress, which are consistent with his having hit her with a flash from his camera?

 

My best to you Micky; maybe you should not share these comments with everyone; parental discretion advised. And no I haven't seen a full-length porn feature in God knows how long, and hardly even know what the 'stars' look like in performance, but I do know their names -- they're household words.

 

I also have a 'great' photo of male photographers craning to get a photo of Jenna Jameson, some with pretty aged cameras -- or they'd look like paparazzi.

 

My best to you (and yours if parentally appropriate).

 

John (Crosley)

 

P.S. I accept a '7' rating for 'originality, but for aesthetics, I am pretty sure it is not the 'highest' honors for this photo. You can change your rating by going back in and re-rating this photo, if you honestly agree; otherwise do as you wish. Rating is your business; and you don't need to rate me high at all or even rate me to have my attention.

 

J ©

Link to comment
Just we have the policy in the household, we don't rate the "girls" (if you know what I mean). But then I had to go back and rethink this and if I could show this picture to my daughter then I could let it be rated. It is, in my opinion one of your best works. Something aout the angle and the VIEWFINDER. Again crop that picture down and it is better than alot of the pictures here on PN. The colors and the contrast in this picture alone are worthy of the rating and if people are not SMART ENOUGH to look at a picture in LARGE before they rate then they don't know what they are missing. ~ micki
Link to comment

Good joke, however contrary to the facts regarding Silicon Valley it may be.

 

As a long-time resident of of Silicon Valley and the neighborhoods and communities that make up Silicon Valley, (Wozniak built his Apple Computer blocks away from my former home and Apple Headquarters was built blocks away from houses I owned and my first California apartment), I can say that Silicon Valley is one of the least likely places to keep a secret -- information flows around the valley 'like wildfire' -- rumor, innuendo and occasional truth -- all in the close knit community of doctors, engineers, salesmen, CEOS, entrepreneurs, and the service professions that feed them and feed off of them.

 

But I am sure this is silicone (not silicon). (there's a vital difference, even if the underlying element is the same) For instance, one cannot hook up her boobs and make a giant computer, no matter how much silicon is in them; or even an i-pod. ;~))

 

 

It's far too outrageous for my tastes AND unnatural which for me is a turn-off.

 

Which is why I was photographing him photographing her.

 

Maybe someone was photographing me photographing him, photographing her and so on.

 

I'll watch for that one.

 

John ;-))

Link to comment
This made me laugh out loud. A wonderful comment on our pneumatically obsessed culture. Don't like the red bracelet, but she is just the correct amount out of focus. Got any more like these?
Link to comment

This is my sly little jest, which seems to have 'caught on' very well, much to my surprise, thanks to the proper captioning.

 

Sorry about the red bracelet, but that was the 'admission' proof.

 

Of course, this is my comment on pneumatics in our sexual culture -- I'm ag'in 'em, having had a girlfriend once who was pneumatized and who had troubles with her implants . . . . and I just like natural . . . . and what's wrong with small? Small can be very sexy. While large usually is attached to a woman who's 'fat' or at least gonna be very overweight soon.

 

Personal predelictions aside, I couldn't pass this one up, and was surprised it did well, but am very pleased it carried over so well - that people were williing to look in the viewfinder.

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment
Yes, it's very sad that women don't seem to realise that having a bag of silicon put in each side is a lifelong ongoing commitment. As a doctor, I'm beginning to see the tide of returning women who had implants ten years ago. They develop capsules around them that are painful or the implants leak. They then need to get them replaced (expensive) or removed (an empty sack is not a pretty sight). The later is done for free on the NHS in the UK but the thousands of pounds each 10 years to get new ones doesn't seem to have occured to them before. Bigger isn't always better!
Link to comment

Maybe your comment will make some difference.

 

Men seem to be hard-wired for bigger breasts. Even I will turn around when I see a woman with a certain figure (full-figured = large breasts) but personally, I do not prefer them.

 

I prefer breasts more like those of Rita, seen under the folder 'Fine Art' in my portfolio, whose breasts are the most perfect I have ever seen and the perfect size, between an A and a B cup, western sizes.

 

Larger breasts that are natural tend to indicate a woman will have a larger body, e.g. she will turn fat, but that's not always the case. One small woman I knew had very large breasts and remained diminutive all her life, and was very attractive.

 

It seems, for reproductive desirability, men are aroused by a certain 'shape' in women, and that 'shape' may vary by men and the culture they experience when they grow up and mature.

 

However, even my tastes have changed somewhat as I have grown older, I think, although I have to reflect on that.

 

And, I am not 'stuck' on one particular shape; more than one is pleasing.

 

But overblown or 'blowsy' as I would call this woman's figure, is a little much for me. As the sailor's joke once said: 'Too much sail for such a small craft'

 

And a girlfriend once who had implants had just the problems you complain about, and her breasts were hard as rocks, almost -- very unsexy.

 

Heed his words, women.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...