No Comment (Enjoy!)

This photo is posted with no comment or information other than some

technical information: Your ratings and critiques for this 'street'

photo 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! (I did!) John

Raters, if you're looking for anything better, you had better look in someone else's folder and/or portfolio.

 

I'm afraid, that despite some small details that are peculiar to 'street' photos -- particularly those that are uncropped except in the viewfinder, this is about as good as I can do on any given occasion -- the best of what I can produce.

 

So, if you're looking for better, e-mail me, if this doesn't meet your satisfaction as a 'street' photo, and maybe I can recommend some better photographers . . . . as this is about all I can do. . . .

 

John (Crosley)

No smoking allowed. 'Fume Interdit' say the signs, and there is a large punishment (fine) and being kicked out of this place (wherever it is--I'm not telling). It's open to guessing. This is one place where you never see anyone smoking. However, (and sadly it's in another photo without the couple, left, entering the scene) --the girl, center of the three seated ones, is drinking from a bottle (see it in the guy's hands, centermost of the three -- in his left hand as he views us -- right as we view him). That's an alcohol bottle. It would be even better if at this moment, she had decided to hoist that bottle, but frankly that's asking too much of the photo gods, isn't it?

 

Thanks for the comment; I take it you liked it. . . . ;~))

 

This is one of those shots I just love (and I'm not afraid to say it). (Sometimes people love shots I'm just not in love with at all . . . . but they rate 'em highly -- I just post 'em and see what the ratings are . . . )

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

I think the focus is too much on the background image. Consequently, the people in the foreground do look a bit unsharp. Especially on the right side.

I do not like the cropping on the right side.

Maybe you could consider, making this a square format by cropping off the people on the right side. I think it would make this picture somewhat stronger.

 

An interesting image.

 

regards BdM

Bram.

 

Ain't gonna crop it.

 

No I hain't. (That's the way they talk in Pike County, Kentucky). Ain't starts with an 'h'.

 

This is full frame, taken from an angle, around midnight hand held with an open tele lens at 200 mm., thus some unsharpness, but frankly these people also were moving, accounting for some unsharpness (I know the people at left also were moving, or appear to be moving, but their bodies weren't moving forward; the man's leg was bent and he was actually stopped about to step forward.

 

I kinda like Cartier-Bresson's concept, though I'm not wedded to it; he was so against cropping that if he misloaded the film onto the takeup sprocket of his Leica, and the exposure included the perforations for the sprocket teeth, he insisted that the entire frame, including the 'holes' where the sprocket teeth were exposed over be reproduced. No exceptions: None. Look in his work in Magnum.com and sign up for an account, then start paging through his life's work (that which is shown, and see for yourself, and you'll find yourself staring at photos -- some with sprocket holes and all, and the stricture -- 'no cropping'

 

I'm not nearly so strict as that 'stricture', but I am against cropping unless something is destroying a photo or simply doesn't belong in a composition. Here it isn't even a tossup.

 

So, I'll keep it as it is.

 

I have another of this poster which is pretty good, and it's different in a different vein, and humorous. I'll post it one of these coming months, I think -- I actually have about 12 and I want to post the very best one, and wait until this one isn't 'fatigued'.

 

Thanks for commenting; yours was actually helpful, but I'm just bullheaded.

 

John (Crosley)

And if this is a 4/4 shot, I'll eat my hat. (First I have to bake it with cake flour and confectioner's sugar.)

 

It's one of my very best; at least according to me.

 

Maybe it's because I judge my shots differently; I plan my shots and post them to be 'interesting'.

 

Almost everything else is secondary.

 

By the way, 'impact' is another form of aesthetic richness; something those who photograph flowers and landscapes don't always appreciate, since some look for overall sharpness before everything; that's just not possible in 'street' photos except those taken at f11 in full daylight, especially not photos taken around midnight.

 

John (Crosley)

With the very strong background, the dividing of colors and figures is this the "best" one can shoot! (for different possibilities.. one should make a video and afterwards study for at least half an hour in -may be- getting/noticing a "similar" satisfying scene!)The sharp,blue jeaned, flying bomb.., the sharp grey figure are giving dept! That, with the rest, including unsharpness.. is just the charm of street here. A satisfying "balance" is of course always needed, the same with "every" aspect of a shot/composition) Difficult?! Not when having the intuition and feeling. (myself, I "enjoy" people taking an instrument and start playing music) Enjoy, not admire, for the talent is "simply" a gift. Respect (!) yeh, for the attitude and "work" during and around it.., in getting the chances and results!) Sometimes a small detail is giving, nearly unnoticed, a strong composition/photo the finishing touch. Here IMHO the purple bag on the left. Cover it with a finger and nearly all the color-power has left. I'm enjoying John! Thanks!

Of course you are free to neglect my advice :-)Not too long ago, I visited a Cartier Bresson exposition in Amsterdam.

Although I like a lot of his photography, I must admit I could not see the beauty of his visible sprocket prints :-)

But, as I understand, most of the time the developing and printing of his shots was not done by him self.Regards BdM

You have a good attitude about street shooting. Especially street shooting indoors at night. Did you ever notice that Doisneau and Cartier Bresson did not shoot much indoors or at night; for obvious reasons. They were French and were having a good meal no doubt. Un bon repas; if I understand the idiom; something I could use right now; quelle bonne idee!!!

 

But other things are in the way and the idea of street shooting is to accommodate the unexpected and that breeds that ability or maybe the ability to shoot street comes from the ability to meet and not be buried by the unexpected in everyday life but sometimes I wonder if I have so much strength in me as my photos suggest.

 

I make it by willpower; hook; but not crook; and sometimes sheer gumption when others would give up, but sometimes I have gotten very close. That is when rest, a day or two absence from shooting renews me and gives me zest; so far at least.

 

Olaf; I do like your attitude.

 

Bless you my friend. More than you know.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Did you NOT see the visible sprocket photos or did you see them and not enjoy them? I never saw one worth much. Maybe his attitude was all bluff and bravado?

 

Who knows?

 

I do know he liked to bag a good photo and move on. He did start as a big game hunter. By the way, I paid a huge price for this photo; but I can never complain publicly. I love it, and I am glad I took it, whatever the price.

 

Cartier Bresson s (foreign keyboqrd) second book said he had his own private printer usually; which I wish I had.

 

Who knows; there is this guy in Lvov; Ukraine who wants a shot at the job. . . . ?

 

John (Crosley)

 

I DID see some visible sprocket prints, some of them not even horizontally / vertically correct. Although the prints were interesting, I could not see the added value. It just looked like "nonchalance".

btw You have an interesting portfolio here.

BdM

As a matter of 'art' there really was no 'added value' or any thing of 'interest' in those prints. They were a cantankerous man making a point -- Don't F*** with my photos. Period.

 

That's all.

 

He meant, even if I make a mistake, don't F*** with my photos.

 

And he meant it.

 

He was born rich, heir to a thread company that was present in spools in every sewing basket in France, so he could afford such 'insouciance' I think. At least, that's my take on it. He had his philosophy, and it directly related to his place in live where he was born -- he grew up with an English speaking nanny and/or tutor, though he was French. He was NOT the typical Frenchman; he converted to Buddhism and married an Indonesian in an ill-fated marriage before his better second marriage.

 

So, his sprocket holes did mean something, but only a statement from the artist, I think.

 

What do you think?

 

John (Crosley)

Cropping on the right isn't possible at all here. First,the repeating orange is needed and secondly: Look at the eyes of the poster-girl, where she is looking at.. The right! That's giving the dramatic space, speed and wideness feeling! That's, with the color the reason why the photographer directly did choose this stage and angle! And.. haha, that bench of course! The scene had only to wait for suited victims. OK that long haired dark lady is a bit "in front." But in front of all.. what is needed here. I'm not mean, haha. The few mm. of black hair on the right.. Without, there would be a more open ending.. Hmmm..: that's personal! And.. now John, street is indeed accommodate the unexpected! And indeed some more I suppose. But that unexpected.. nearly every time it's there! Even in the same place/streets! Caused by.. the different situations and people. I'm very often surprised by that! It's the same what's helping our photographer in keeping moving! Crop and you will crop that! Olaf. (at older age learning to be a friend)

Yes, this is not a 'perfect' photo, but it indeed is a quite interesting one, at least from my perspective. And my rule is 'keep all the interesting stuff in the frame and keep all the uninteresting stuff out.'

 

The disagreement point is what is interesting and/or necessary to this composition, taken in a fraction of a second, and what is not necessary.

 

When there is such a discussion and it is for or against cropping, I usually make the decision against cropping, unless I am aware of a lens limitation or some other limitation that prevented me from getting the 'shot' I wanted.

 

Here, that wasn't the case.

 

This is a case where 'selective sharpening' may have worked wonders and eliminated part of Bram's concerns. It would have been all to easy to 'select' the center-most three and sharpen them greatly, but I didn't. I wanted this to post as-is, generally with overall sharpening. This is taken by Metro lights, available lights, across Metro tracks and down some considerable distance, the film equivalent of a 300mm lens at a short shutter speed and a high iso.

 

 

If my entire career were to take shots of no greater caliber than this, I'd be quite happy. (But not the same shot, or necessarily the same genre, of course).

 

Olaf, thanks for the friendly gestures, they have been greatly appreciated in ways you cannot imagine.

 

John (Crosley)

.... of course you can't crop the right hand side, silly. Where's the falling woman gonna land if you do? Out of frame? Can't you see she's falling at an angle? Great shot, John, makes me laugh aloud. Come on, where did you take the shot and what price did you pay?

Can't tell you about the price; it was very high but potentially could have been disastrously expensive but wasn't; it's something that never will be published or publishable; not scandalous in any way, so far as I'm concerned -- just a misstep that caused a mishap that interrupted my life for a brief while, and caused disruption and delays until I was heard and it was resolved. (and no, I wasn't arrested or accused of any criminal acts.)

 

The wonder is that I as 'heard' amidst sometimes wrong-headed and wrong-minded people, but in the end, I was heard, and special thanks to the person(s) who 'heard' me.

 

In the end, sincerity and simple truth won out; as a former attorney I can assure you that sometimes truth has a way of getting trampled by those who try to sort it out, causing all sorts of unwelcome and inequitable behavior and treatment, all in the name of 'Justice'.

 

I often had thought that the blindfold that 'Justice' wore (as a younger man) indicated that Justice often was simply blind to the truth, before I learned the supposed 'proper' interpretation of the blindfold worn by 'Justice'.

 

(I know this sounds pretty mysterious, but it will remain that way; it's sort of a code way of speaking only to the 'hearers'; kind of like those BBC broadcasters before WWII's D-Day, who broadcast all sorts of interesting messages to their operatives in France like 'The Bread Is In the Oven . . . I repeat . . . The Bread Is In the Oven' and other coded messages that flooded airwaves before the Allied invasion -- all meant only to be understood by those who were capable of understanding in a specific audience, so forgive me, if I use this photo as my own personal BBC.)

 

As to your comment about cropping, silly me, why didn't I think of that -- of course she's falling at an angle and would have no place to land?

 

My eyes and mind saw that and took that into consideration without ever having it pass the subliminal stage.

 

Bless you, Dennis, for bringing it into my consciousness.

 

As to place, I'll let you figure that one out -- a sort of puzzle that you easily can solve if you put your mind to it.

 

John (Crosley)

... it just sounded so mysterious and under the influence of this shot, I had to ask. I will continue to listen close for my own message, that my own personal landing has occurred. It probably has to do with not being so serious about my own work and subjects. Meanwhile, thanks for your diligence in replying to even the most light-hearted commentary. Now for the mystery ... curved tile wall ... France ... it's the metro somewhere in Paris, mais ou?

On essaye trouver les places photographer tres interressante, et je crois que j'ai decouvre un telle place, ici, dans l'environ des trains du nuit, entre les avertissements (advices sp?) et publicite. (pardon the high school/lycee spelling, it hasn' been used in more than three decades.)

 

Write me or post something here, if you can't understand, but your familiariety with curves et la langue suggest that you might be at home with the tongue employed above (or attempted, at least).

 

(anyone else, feel free to attempt to correct my meagre French.)

 

Best regards

 

The puzzle solver prize goes to: YOU

 

John (Crosley)

... c'est magnifique et il me plait. This is very odd, John. We are carrying on, intermittently, three or four different conversations asynchronously, but almost in real time. We are both old enough to know how absolutely revolutionary this is, how this contact can be made in the first place, and then maintained, and supported by illustration. It's an amazing world.

et il me plait, aussi.

 

Il est aussi tres agreable, pour tels raisons.

 

(again, anyone step in and critique the French, as I only had two years in high school, a very long time ago, and am less sure in writing than in speech and in speech must choose my words from my extemely limited vocabulary with great care -- strangely, my pronunciation often fools the French, who wonder how I can be an American . . . . ? However did that happen?

 

Dennis, you have a sense of history, which few people actually have, and it is clear that you have a place in that -- something that will certainly overlook me, as I'm no 'world historical individual' or anything even noteworthy, except for this oddball ability to shoot 'street' which is kind of like being able to skip rope and chew gum at the same time . . . a kind of perverse oddity.

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks, I am glad you liked it. As for the smoking interdit -- it's posted at every entrance, and NOT in the frame. You didn't miss anything, though it might have been something snuck in, like a Waldo in 'Where's Waldo' series of books, this is so 'busy'.

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)

John.. I did never asks such..! Would like to share.. (being one of the first) my tenth pic.. in portfolio section "street.." (Can't sleep, my son Sander got me a brand new D50 !! Now I have speed!!! And an older 24mm AF D F/2.8.) Photo is called: Smelling.., Barking and Running.. (not arranged! never use burst!) Haha..! ;) See you! Olaf.

You are at once the most indecipherable and clear-headed guy on this service; and how you manage to do that, I'll just leave to my personal appreciation.

 

I do like your photo, and I'm sure you are enjoying your new D50. I started with a D70, but am now put off by its small viewfinder -- it inhibits 'seeing' the full scene and exploring small details within a scene -- that was a major criticism of the D70, and I understand the D50 has the same viewfinder, but I can't personally vouch for that.

 

I've graduated to the D200 (several) and the D2X, D2Xs as well as the D2H, D2Hs, and my D1X, etc., though their photos are not visible here, as well as my Leica collection which I do not use for this service or my larger cameras or older collector items or even large format cameras, awaiting the day when I tour America's national parks and those of other countries.

 

I'm awaiting the day when I can afford the digital equivalent of the new Hasselblad with 40 Megs per capture/that really will take the place of many 'film' views/it's sure to be a pro necessity, just as digital has become a pro necessity because so many publications are dependant on digital processing from intake to output -- so much so that even film photographers are forced to 'scan' their film to digitize it rather than printing in a regular darkroom.

 

Imagine that.

 

I shot my D70 so much that it's probably 3 times or 5 times what it was designed for, yet it's still going. What I thought was a real problem that disabled it, turned out to be a bit of battery corrosion. The shutter remains strong -- a sure sign of Nikon superiority in that field.

 

I'm not comparing to Canon, but I did compare it to the early digital Rebel and the early digital Rebel did not capture colors nearly so accurately or display them so accurately on the rear screen in a side by side comparison over hours' time (on board a plane with a fellow passenger) -- a real field test with identical lens lengths, identical subjects, etc., and the difference and Nikon superiority in the 'color' was surprising to me.

 

It's then that I knew why I paid more for a Nikon and did not complain (plus all my older lenses fit and now Nikon is turning out great digital lenses for which I have no complaint at all.

 

And with some 'film' lenses such as the 70~200 E.D. V.R., today I took about 1/32nd of an image from one of those at f5 taken in the afternoon from the edge (the least accurate part) and blew up an old woman's face and you could see ever wrinkle -- an astonishing view from a lens NOT designed for a digital camera -- nevertheless one of Nikon's sharpest lenses ever (same for the 80~200 of which I have three or four, but they're non V.R., and V.R. can save the day (V.R., is the same as image stabilization = Vibration Reduction and is Nikon's proprietary term -- it works 'great' and even today is being improved.

 

My very best to you, Olaf.

 

I'm sure you will have loads of fun with your new Nikon. Such a thoughtful gift!

 

John (Crosley)

It seems as though the guy in the gray coat appears to have his head up the falling woman's rear end -- or that's about to happen ;~))

 

That's either very good or very bad news, depending on how you view such things (and perhaps the force at which she's falling . . . )

 

And it may give the 'old saying' about 'heads and rear ends' -- if you know the saying -- a whole new meaning.

 

(addendum: well, at least he's not blowing smoke!--see comment of M. Barbu above about somebody possibly smoking and improving the photo, him I think.)

 

John (Crosley)

With all your stuff, they left you one camera on board.., I suppose. Being able to shoot that rope.. (the connection with your special stuff-plane behind.)If one is a finder of views, one does indeed need a proper one. Two years ago.. bought me an F801s because of the viewer. Tariffic with spectacles! I was so stupid staying to believe in film.. Still do, but the scanning is the "problem" indeed. And for an amateur the costs. I feel so free now. Not shooting exhorbitant more.., but easier. Did change the "older" 24mm AF 2.8 for an haha, older AF 70-210 1:4 this afternoon. For zooming there is at least something to lay your hand on! Fun.., I felt back in the sixties! Like it a lot. A different way of shooting! Not "in" the victem but more isolating.. him. Nice! The more artistic feelings did came up. Will leave that connection for sure! And about seeing: my brave Pany FZ5, and that nice anti-shake,I've 90 percent done with it, has a very tiny viewer. It's just to avoid one does walk in a canal, but I did shoot everything. Now it's better with the faster AF! Street shooting is rather intuitive and I dont see always the details. Will improve again because of that "turning by hand zoom" now, instead of a "button" But.., I'm seen earlier.. Would be after young girls.., I did hear today. Am curious how long free shooting will stay possible in the western world. Haha.., have work to do. (first looking for a different dictionary instead of the pocket.) Yes..: indecipherable.., that's the word, for me being a problem. May be just leaving it. Haha.., I'm just playing John. Smelling, Barking and Running.. thanks, up to the next "luck." I do think you brave..! I never feel honoured, talking to an older guy. But this is different. It does cost you something.. and that's what I do more than appreciate. Shake zooms! :) Olaf. (Heee.. look! That pale stuwardess.. she is showing a piece of rope..!)