Age Before Beauty

This photo needs little explanation, beyond the caption. Your rates

and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or

very critically, please include a helpful and constructive comment;

Please share your supererior photographic knowledge to help improve

my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Excellent. Congrats !

This was a most difficult shot to obtain with over 90 shots taken of this old lady who was nearly stationary, before I could obtain the correct juxtaposition, here kneeling in the middle of a plaza -- I think she has poor eyesight, or she'd have run.

 

Also, it was difficult because of some other technical factors, and I decided to convert to B&W though the colors otherwise were felicitous.

 

I'm backed up on portfolio review requests - some have asked and I haven't responded and I'm 8,000 miles away from the USA and depending on a dialup Internet connection; the phone line is shared and every minute I am on the Internet is a chance for the other party to complain to the party letting my place (temporarily of course) that I am 'abusing' their phone line, so my Internet use of limited until I return to the States or get other quarters (getting a phone line here apparently is not only expensive but may involve a 'gratuity' which is very substantial -- and cable is extraordinarily expensive -- only the webcam girls (there are many I'm told) have them, and of course that's self-supporting.

 

And I don't know anyone with a webcam outgo connection or I'd ask her if I could share.

 

So, if you e-mail me (my address is on my bio page), I can save it easier and index it easier; I like such requests, and can be very honest but also very constructive -- nothing mean about me -- the purpose is to help other photographers improve, not make me feel superior (that's probably not possible since there are so many other superior photographers around -- just a paucity of 'street' photographers on this service now -- there once used to be many.

 

So, give me an e-mail and be prepared to wait, and don't be shy in a week or so to follow up with an e-mail if I don't perform . . . I'm only human.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Image copyright 2007, John Crosley, all rights reserved.

As noted above, since colors were felicitous, I always thought of this as a 'color photo', but it has been noted that a great many of my 'color photos' are merely black and white photos with color, if you understand that.

 

In other words, the composition, graphic elements and human interest are all there in a great many of my 'color photos' and for many of them, all that would remains is to desaturate them.

 

My rule: If color helps the photo or is an essential element (say one is showing the US flag with its distinctive colors, or a traffic signal) then one should present in color; otherwise, with street photos, black and white remains a viable choice.

 

And thankfully, B&W is undergoing a renaissance, I am told, though I always shot some B&W, and just intermixed it with my color work; now I'm desaturating somewhat more shots, and going for the starker composition and resulting 'impact'.

 

Thanks for the nice comment. (Now I'll go look at your rating -- I always write before I look at rates - that is if you rated.)

 

John (Crosley)

For obvious reasons, my Presentation featuring photos in which 'three' is a major element, is destined to see this photo added at some future time.

 

Threes have played a major part in my compositions for reasons I can explain and reasons that are purely idiosyncratic; not always planned, but sometimes -- it all depends.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo, featuring smiling, laughing young women and an old grandmotherly woman with a serious look -0- a frown, is a variation on the theme from my first posted photo, also found in this folder.

 

You might have a look to see how they compare.

 

It's called 'balloon man'.

 

John (Crosley)

Sometimes I get it on the first and often the only shot -- and in a fraction of a second with no 'do overs'.

 

This was a genuine photo opportunity, ready-made for me, but I just couldn't get it right. The lady was too tall and the poster was too high, and the border of the poster cut the lady in half.

 

I eventually resolved it by kneeling and bending over from that to obtain the correct upward angle, from across a public plaza full of people -- many of whom wondered what the h*** I was doing . . . and what was so important, not knowing the power of my long lens or what I was seeing that was so important. I resolved their height/problem essentially by making myself 'shorter'.

 

But I also had to wait many shots while she eventually turned and also planted herself smack in the middle of the two smiling young poster women . . . a long wait . . . as she was looking sideways almost all the time.

 

And wonder of wonders, she didn't spot me, or didn't know what I was doing (or didn't care . . . which I doubt.)

 

Anyway, all that counts here is results; close is OK in horse shoes and hand grenades as the old saying goes.

 

So, sometimes the good ones 'fall in your lap' and other times you have to 'work for them' (like in the old Smith Barney commercial).

 

Thanks for noticing.

 

John (Crosley)

If one recognizes a good photo, one almost has an obligation to take it well, not to dismiss it with a shutter click and say 'oh, well, she didn't move right, woe is me.'

 

Eventually they either move right, you move right, or they move along and the whole situation deconstructs. Luckily the old woman was planted somewhere near the front of this poster, and eventually she worked her way where I could position her between the poster young women by moving myself and also take out the distracting poster frame, lower, by lowering myself (ouch . . . bad knees).

 

John (Crosley)

John!

For the afford of making 90 pics you definately deserve 7/7 ... but not only for that ... great picture!!! ... I love it very much for the fact that there is a real life story hidden in it and it makes me think a lot ... it seems like the elder woman is looking back to her youth (represented by those two young ladies on the billboard) with some kind of concilliation - knowing that some things will never come back ... while the young ladies are laughing at her, at her age behind her back ... which is quite shortsighted for the fact that oneday they will reach her stage ...

... like that I could go on and on ...

John, there is so much about this shot! ... Congrats and hats off!!!

Pavla

Awesome opossum.

I'm very glad you like this shot; it was my first and only pick from the approx. 90 shots I took of this poster and this lady (or similar posters, almost identical).

 

I've been working on similar work for some time; and the old/young theme crops up in my photos (excuse the pun, unintended), from time to time . . . as it is a universal theme.

 

In fact, my first posted photo, balloon man, with a sour balloon vendor selling balloons with a smiling face in them -- my highest scoring photo ever, and absolutely my definiing photo, was in the same vein, only in the late 1960s or early 1970s (I think the former).

 

So, the style hasn't really changed so much or the idea . . . hence its universality.

 

This was a color photo, but for various reasons, I desaturated it . . . I won't bore you with technical details about why, but it seems to have worked.

 

As noted above, a great number of my color photos are really black and white photos (in color) if that makes sense. I go for composition and message, even choosing the weaker work technically if it makes the point or conveys the expression I want to see and feel will capture the audience/I think you call that substance over form . . . but form gets a great number of the marks on this service, generally.

 

I think this woman is very nearsighted and didn't have any glasses, or she'd have spotted me; what do you think?

 

In any case, it's the end result, here, that counts.

 

Best wishes,

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

 

 

Technically your suggestion to use a shorter lens may have seemed 'on the money' but if I had done that, there would never have been this photo, for it fails for two reasons.

 

A long lens was necessary to create the juxtaposition between the old woman and the billboard women/girls. The 70~200 mm Nikkor V.R. E.D. tele at nearly or complete extension really brought the old woman 'next' to the poster. She was not that way in reality and a shorter lens would have shown that distance and the 'juxtaposition' would have ended there -- there would have been no juxtaposition. I always use the 'correct' lens for 'bringing two disparate things together'. If you understand that, at least for photos I post or think highly of.

 

Also, if I had moved closer, this old lady would have seen me (despite apparent nearsightedness) and after 3 or 4 frames, she would have gone away, and this photo never would have come about; never underestimate the 'stealth' aspect of a 200 mm lens on a digital body -- the film equivalent of a 300 mm lens.

 

I was very far away from her, and she was a decent distance away from the poster; this is the only lens that would at all work.

 

I always take such things into consideration when approaching a shot, especially if I have time, but came up boxcars on using a shorter lens -- I'm much happier having taken 90 or so shots, and getting one right.

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks.

 

I never heard that phrase -- I suppose it goes as progeny to 'after a while, crocodile', a sort of speech I never employed, except perhaps to 'mock' certain people and bad habits with speech, but I think the phrase is 'fun' and I'm delighted.

 

I'll file that one away.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

This is a workmanlike photo, but not my very best, despite my highest scores of the year; the photo posted just before it with hands and handout ranks very highly as do a number of others, including the two men in a Parisian metro on benches -- one of my best ever.

 

So, raters, I'm glad (overjoyed in fact) that you like this one; but I'm off to more difficult and harder to judge work. Take a look from time to time and let me know what you think, please.

 

John (Crosley)

reading your comments and bio you must be a genius, congratulations!

 

regards Stefan

I think you are wrong. Though the juxtaposition would have been there, to fill the frame I would have had to be closer or trim the wider angle shot to tele specs (angle of view), and that seems wrong-headed.

 

Also, by approaching with a wider lens, I would have tipped the lady off and she would have skedaddled.

 

I suspect you ought to go out and study juxtapositions a little with more than one lens. I'm an an expert at one thing: 'juxtapositions' and what you say doesn't wash with me.

 

All proportions would have been changed witha shorter lens as I would have to stand in a different place, and the juxtaposition would have been destroyed . . . or not capable of being captured at all. I went out before I wrote this, to this exact place, with two lenses and proved it to myself, before I wrote this.

 

Can you do the same?

 

I do my homework, you see, before I write, and in this one area, I am accomplished. (Not bragging, either, but I do a lot of this type of shot. Lens focal length is essential as is photographer placement. Try it; you'll learn to like it (after the old 'Mikey likes it' cereal commercial . . . )remember that one?

 

And as I write this, the shot site is 1 block away and on my way home from the Internet cafe I'll check that out again, just to be sure and correct myself if you are correct; I doubt that you'll hear from me.

 

But I encourage comments and helpful hints, even if they are wrong (in my view) for those who read these discourses read them to learn and many read my comments to learn -- and sometimes readers comments are so right-headed they make me wonder how I can even consider myself a photographer.

 

That's right.

 

Many here do teach me serious lessons, which is why I respond seriously to almost everything written and welcome all discussions, and don't object of they go off on tangents. I take on all comer -- but no Battle Royale -- you're comments are greatly appreciated, and some day you will surely show me something that will make me thankful that you do comment and free from being insulted.

 

I just think you're wrong and proved it to myself; if you can show me I'm wrong-headed I'll look at it afresh.

 

With respect,

 

John (Crosley)

No genius, alas.

 

Just dedicated and not willing to take instructions from others that I can't test for myself.

 

I get into wrangles with customer service people who give 'no service' and expect me to 'take it'. They should be fired; they drive business away from their firms.

 

When I get good service, I'm the first to congratulate the person and even call over the boss to commend the employee.

 

I'm that kind of guy.

 

If I say something, I usually mean it.

 

That doesn't require genius, which, alas, I don't have, but wish maybe I did.

 

After all, that plus a MENSA plaque can get you a job with fellow geniuses at the Postal Service, which has a disproportionate number of geniuses.

 

But after all, Einstein was a patent clerk in the Swiss Patent Office, then, wasn't he?

 

Thanks for what I hope was some tongue in cheek.

 

John (Crosley)

Stand there and just take one photograph -- the right one.

 

You are the genius here.

 

I just can't do that.

 

If I did, I'd surely be the genius Stefan R. says I seem to be.

 

Alas, again, I am not.

 

I just try hard.

 

John (Crosley)

""Just dedicated and not willing to take instructions from others that I can't test for myself.""

 

lol!

 

 

well Evita is right in what she is writing, I agree 100%.

People shots involve people moving, changing position, etc., and it wasn't until nearly the end that this woman assumed this position.

 

Then I got a worthy shot; you assume that there weren't worthy shots in the others; but there were plenty of those; just not as good.

 

I went back and tested this with a shorter lens, and it just won't hunt, sorry.

 

Same, Stefan.

 

I generally DON'T crop my photos or more than a little trim if there'a an extraneous feature, or it was a grab shot. You have misread and misinterpreted me and presented a false picture of my usual modus operandi. I DO crop from time to time, but generally not much and pretty seldom. The vast majority are full frame, I think. I'd be willing to go back and look, but the crop tool gets used very little on my computer.

 

Sure, I could use a shorter lens, but also the depth of field would be changed, and I'd have to crop like crazy to get the same shot; I generally like to shoot full frame and I do have a thing against cropping or shooting first then cropping for the shot, except rarely.

 

The way I take people photos is not the same way you might take them; cars whiz in front of me, people walk in front of my lens, lights flash at the wrong time, street signs same, or I coordinate with flashing lights, etc., from street lights, and so forth.

 

There may be 25 elements that have to come together for the right photo, and often when pressing the shutter release, something will happen, or (as here) I might be using a very low shutter speed, then vibration becomes an issue, and holding the lens for a 'sharp' capture requires more than one shot.

 

There are 1,000 reasons for takikng the perfect shot; I'm not the genius who can only take one.

 

Sometimes I do only take one and it's all I want, or I take several and each one gets better, and different, and I hone in on a better shot, learning from each one; or simply my ability to handhold a lens at 1/5th of a second at 200 mm is impaired (I'm partly paralyzed), so it can be dicey.

 

I would like to challenge you to go out on the street with me sometime and show me how to get it all in one or two or three shots.

 

Write me if you want. I don't mind getting a lesson from someone who has mastered the art of street shooting; I'm still a beginner and, though I do a lot of juxtapositions, I am not averse to your pointers (in person).

 

Let me know, will you?

 

John (Crosley)

 

(but I may not reply promptly, I have 8,000 or 9,000 miles to go this week.)

 

JC

I underexaggerated.

 

I don't have 8,000 or 9,000 miles to go this week.

 

I have more like 15,000 miles.

 

That covers a lot of territory; I just did 800 or so of them.

 

John (Crosley)

One is that since I have cropped a photo, I am always willing to crop or should be.

 

Fact: I am mostly adverse to cropping when I can capture something in the field full-frame. I do crop, but as seldom and as little as possible. I have been a strong advocate of exposition of full-frame photos. Yes, there are cropped photos among my 800+ photos, but whenever I can I like to 'nail it' with just one.

 

I am dead against that breed of photographer, (noted well above in my thousands of comments, with an example), who just goes to a likely scene, takes a photograph, then crops to 'find' the right photograph. That's not the way I do it.

 

Another fallacy arises through misinterpretation of my words; since I said the woman was 'nearly stationary' someone assumed she was still. She actually was moving, left and right, mostly turned away from the camera, sometimes glancing toward the camera for a split second, then moving, pedestrians were walking by and the choice was whether to include them in a likely photograph. Her facial expressions varied each time/facial expression vastly helps this photograph/her expression was NOT stationary but ephemeral.

 

This is not an instance where 'the great photograph was in my mind's eye'. It had to arise depending on the circumstances. Circumstances construct and deconstruct; sometimes they deconstruct before I can capture them.

 

I have learned one thing. Take a likely photo now, as the scene may absolutely deconstruct soon, and there will be nothing. So, I take one or a preliminary photo sometimes if the scene appears likely, and sometimes that is the best, as a scene deconstructs.

 

But scenes are organic in a way - they do construct as people move slightly, gets different facial expressions, changes vantage and so forth.

 

You should see the one with this woman, her hand in her face, in front of a slightly different poster. I wondered whether to post that one; I didn't.

 

Many of the 90 shots were likely good photos; this was the best.

 

I did like the movie 'Groundhog Day' though I thought I'd hate it.

 

Practice can make (towards) perfect.

 

The fact is that hand holding a Nikon D2X with a 70~200 lens is a mighty task for someone with a partly paralyzed right hand, especially at 1/5 to 1/15th of a second at a long millimeter setting. (This was 165 mm. not 200 mm as I had thought, but the shutter speed was so low it bent the limits of hand holding a camera/lens combination.

 

Under such circumstances, patience and practice have taught me though they may appear clear on the digital screen, some will be less than sharp, so I may take and redo various scenes, in an attempt under extreme circumstances just to get one with acceptable sharpness (and don't tell me to set up a tripod please!!))

 

The nature of street shooting is much more dynamic than most people realize, as those who set out to do it, often find out.

 

If one can make the perfect shot in one photo; my hat's off to them or even two or three, at times. I do that too, from time to time, especially under daylight, but this was a gloaming shot under a hugely cloudy Eastern european sky with barely enough light for the capture.

 

People move, change facial expressions and so forth. People have written me about 'how do you, John, succeed in caturing such 'natural' expressions?''

 

The answer is I take often more than one shot, as facial expressions can be all, and one can neither predict them, nor absolutely anticipate them.

 

It is a fallacy, under my style of shooting to suppose I even know what the photo will be, until I see it and release the shutter. Sometimes mediocre scenes become near great scenes, all in a split second and the choice is to press the shutter, even if it's been pressed 90 times before.

 

That's how I get such unusual and natural expressions, from time to time.

 

This is the most extreme example, which is why I noted it; and why it should cause distress to someone who thinks she can capture perfection in one or two shots (or three) is beyond me. I can't and I doubt she could too, under the circumstances.

 

I remain committed, also on the issue of the choice of lens. The only other choice is to take a shorter lens and crop, because the angle of view subtended would be too great, and one would be caused to approach the woman = she would walk away, upset, and the photo never would have been taken.

 

And Stefan, now that you have revealed yourself, please refrain from using snideness in my commentaries column.

 

It is beneath you and I am sure you know it.

 

Your snideness was not apparent, until I read your subsequent comment; it is not welcome here -- this is a place for civilized discussion, not juvenile rhetorical devices.

 

If you hve a point, make it; don't make a veiled refernce to my supposed 'genius' unless you are trying to make the point (which I deny) that I am a genius. That was an underhanded undercutting and simply is beneath contempt.

 

Perhaps you would apologize. . . . .

 

I will accpt if you offer it . . . without snideness, upon rethinking.

 

The level of discourse in my commentaries is among the best on Photo.net and you're the first person in thousands who has tried to use 'snideness' to undercut valid discussion.

 

Do you recognize that? Where are your manners?

 

All civilized discussions, including those which disagree with me (even strongly) are welcome here, and will be treated with civility unless they misrepresent me willingly or seek to poke gratuitously at me without presenting a straightforward analysis and/or criticism of the matter being discussed.

 

You are welcome to return, but if your discourse again reaches that level, I will contact abuse@photo.net.

 

Again, you are welcome to comment on the photos and the discussion at hand (it's sometimes not photography), but personal attacks are NOT WELCOME HERE, and you, I think, are the first to do so in three years. Tha's not a good distinction, Stefan.

 

Towards fullness and civility in discussion,

 

I remain,

 

John (Crosley)

 

imperfect photographer (and person)

""You are welcome to return, but if your discourse again reaches that level, I will contact abuse@photo.net.""

 

contact them, go on! get them to delete my comments, I just confirmed what Evita is writing, nothing else, cant read anything personal. if you do it it shows only that you are not able to stand critical words towards your pictures. contacting the "abuse" section will not change my mind. you have to live with it. regards S.

The critical part was against me personally, and instead of being made directly, it was made snidely with the statement that I must be a 'genius' which on its face is neutral.

 

Your subsequent comment suggested just the opposite, that you were actually denigrating my intelligence and impugning my integrity.

 

I won't stand for that.

 

There are straight forward ways of saying things, and such a backhanded swipe at me was quite intolerable. Maybe you mistook these commentaries as a place to write as many once did in the site feedback forum, when it was more out of hand; this is not the place for such a free for all.

 

And, to my memory, your comment/criticism of me personally is singular.

 

I've posted photos with over 6,000 rates and untold number (thousands) of comments; and yours is the most objectionable I have ever received, not because of photographic criticism -- that's no problem at all -- but because it was veiled as something else. That was cowardly, and rhetorically unfair, as well as being very snide.

 

I suggest that your parents, if they were good people, may not have brought you up to engage in such discourse in a permanent public record.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(you may notice that other comments you have left have been treated with the utmost fairness, and no animosity at all. I take on 'all comers' but don't want a Battle Royale with the last man standing. This site is about sharing photographic knowledge and honest critiques, not knocking people -- it's OK to criticize a work, but ad hominem attacks I think are just a 'low blow'.

 

Respectfully,

 

John (Crosley)

PERFECT TIMING!

The only thing I wish is that silly bush wasn't there!

You captured another great moment. You knew this would be a great picture and you waited. Forget all that blah blah blah as I personally think a SHORT lense would have caused the slight out of focus in the background to be wrong and then it wouldn't be YOUR work and have YOUR stamp on it. THIS is how YOU work and it is your style.

If you cropped that bush on the left you would crop off that ear and then you would hear me saying HEY you cropped that ear off shame on you! So, you as always, did the right thing and kept things just as they are. That is why I like your pictures as is. Well done. ~ micki