No (Written) Comment

This man, who works for an 'adult movie company' apparently, sits

with the detritus of a meal, disregarding the HD TV display behind

him of two women engaged in photographed 'lovemaking' at a

recent 'adult entertainment' expo in Las Vegas. The site's Terms of

Use were consulted before posting. Your ratings and critiques are

invited and most welcome. Please do NOT turn this photograph into a

plebiscite on whether or not you are for or against 'porn', as that

is not the purpose of its posting. 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

I had to look at the photo for a little while before I could make up my mind as to whether or not I like it. In fact, I do. I like it, a lot. Good job john. I would, however, make the crop a little tighter, taking out the 3 for 10 sign ... perhaps right to the water bottle. This might make the photo a little more poinent, a little less snapshotish.

Well, I have to admit that this one stopped me in my mouse tracks. It is because of reading some of your posts that I now pay so much attention to my background and I must say it sure has helped out. When I posted my series from the strip bar, I got a lot of flack (even though there was no nudity) for several reasons. Content, use of flash, etc. when what I was going for was more of the documentary style of shot. I personally think this is an extremely powerful docu-photo. I don't run across this much in small town south, so it is very interesting to see street work in what I think must have been urban. I can only say, I wish the shot was mine. Bravo again John, and thanks for the share. JH

To crop out the movie display with its garish come-on, in my mind, would help remove this contextual photo from its context.

 

The idea is to show so much of the 'directory' as it necessary to show that he's one of many, not alone.

 

And the title of the DVD shown behind and to his left (our right), makes a suggestion that backs the subject and places it within context (again), and I think that is helpful. Perhaps we disagree, or you were just looking at the photo from a point of view that disregarded its context.

 

This is a photo, for sure, for which viewers are going to ask 'Where was this taken, and why'?

 

I want the photo to answer the question; plus the quotation in the advertising about 'vixens' speaks for itself -- raw commercialism and crassness at the same time; a form of 'pandering' without the prostitutes.

 

(no comment) means, in this context, 'no comment at posting', as this photo is ripe for discussion. I just don't want to steer the discussion too much; as I'm interested where it will go.

 

Thanks for expressing your view; all helpful views are considered here.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Image Copyright 2007, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved

I'm glad my Presentation: 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' has had such a profound influence on you.

 

I have no monopoly on shooting or 'good shooting' when I attain it, and for me, the reason for being here is not only to get viewership but to share.

 

That's why that 'Presentation' was made and from soon on, I'll probably post a 'link' pursuant to a recent suggestion I do so.

 

I'm glad you like this photo; I have lived in a small town too. It involved going to Las Vegas to take this capture . . . as did thousands of heartland 'porn aficionados' (notice I didn't say 'fellow porn aficionados')

 

My feelings on the subject are more complex than this photo might suggest; it is not necessarily a reflection of my personal views, but of life (and the sex business).

 

Jim, it takes some 'guts' to post a photo like this; but a recent post suggested the average viewer (according to Josh Root) is 40 years old, and apparently can handle viewing such work, and it seems to fall within the terms of use as he quoted them.

 

Shown elsewhere, one viewer suggested this ranks with my all-time best. I am unsure as I am too close to it, but it does represent what I wanted to say.

 

Show me a juxtaposition and I'll try to make a telling photo of it.

 

;~))

 

Thanks for your contribution and the ultimate praise -- (e,g. that you wish you had taken it). ;-)))

 

John (Crosley)

Great! Made me stop and take a second look. I like the somewhat surreal juxtaposition of the two scenes. There's a connect and a disconnect which you've captured and conveyed simply. It's straightforward, yet interesting, clever, and a little jarring. Instead of possibly being chided about "pornography," you should be recognized as using pornography in just such a way as to rise above it or at least to make an observation about it. This is photography, creatively used, not pornography.

 

By the way, sorry for not getting back to you on the other photo I commented on (the color one of the woman in blue on the screen with the guy sitting adjacent and surrounded by red). You were right there, we were not really in disagreement. After thinking about it more, some of what I was expressing was a more semantical point. I think we both recognize that the "subject" of a photo is important and I was a little stuck on making that point. The point you were after, if I now understand you correctly, is that the subject has to be looked at in context and not just superficially. In other words, as relates to the photo on this page, of course the subject does matter and no one will judge this without noticing what the photo is "about," but just because a scene from pornography is included does not mean one can stop right there and label this or see this as pornography. There was a recent controversy about high school girls using the word "vagina" when reading aloud from The Vagina Monologues. One wonders how they were to avoid it, but that's another matter. The point is, there should be no static rules about what's what and what's appropriate. Everything, including photographs and their subjects, has a context. Using the image on the screen in your photo in a dark, smelly room which guys have paid to enter would probably fit most people's definition of pornography. That same image, here, is not. I assume by your comments you are suggesting you've had experience with those who don't see that difference. That's regrettable but, unfortunately, given today's somewhat misguided preachy climate and bass ackwards understanding of "morality," not all that suprising. In any case, thanks for some compelling images.

Yours is truly one of the great comments I have received, not the least in part because it presents a view of this photo and of what I try to do that correctly reflects my intent and purpose,but also for its rising above the idea of 'critique a photo' to a world view -- that is something I do regularly on these pages.

 

I go from the specific, to the general, sometimes in a prolix manner, but eventually returning to the point. Tangents are allowed here in the 'comments' columns and I greatly encourage them; people have difficulty sticking to the point; I don't except I like to 'go around Robin Hood's barn' in getting to a point, because when I make the point, it is often made all the better and because of my way of illustrating points, there is less resistance.

 

Your comment reflects the same attitude. Discuss the specific, then discuss the specific within a limited context, then within the greater context (here, perceived 'morality', preachy climate, etc.

 

Go to the head of the class.

 

You have earned it.

 

John (Crosley)

Very nice photo.

I think it's a great shot. I am sure it would be published in National Geographic if it were two elephants doing it in the background.

Cheers, Tony

It's a boring job but someone has to do it! I bet he would prefer to be part of the movie!

A remarkable image. The contrast between his expression and the onscreen action behind him is perfect. A classic "captured" moment which pulls the viewer in and tells a story that can be interpreted in many (authentic) ways. Bravo.

Soooooooooooo glad you decided not to with hold this picture. wonderfull.

Hi, in your Bio you say: so I put my cameras down. - - - but gladly you continued - - - this one is again very strong - real image - too often the subject is taken candid from the rear - this one is clear - true - straight foreward - I did not look if 'FullFrame' but I'm sure YES. A pitty that we - you - have to struggle with rigths to be able to present this - is one part of this image - much truth in it! Thank you for sharing! Regards Axel

When initial ratings and comments were posted, I was astonished this was barely breaking 5.o for originality and aesthetics were in the high 4s.

 

Just goes to show you what time can do, especially with such an image as it gets recognition.

 

I think for candid photography, this is one of a kind . . . you can see other 'takes' on the same subject in my portfolio, but I held this one back, uncertain of its reception on PN and not wanting to jeopardize my good standing, so I posted it elsewhere.

 

But Josh Root re-iterated the Terms of Use on nudes in the site feedback forum the other day (I think if was Josh) and the result seemed to be that the Administration (which I have no contact with) was receptive to serious 'adult' images -- emphasis on serious, and I remember the word on nudes - the more x x x it is, the better it had better be . . . or words to that effect.

 

So, the result is, after holding this one back, I finally posted it.

 

I went away a while ago, and there were 10 rates, and now there are 21, 2/3 of them anonymous with a lot of 6s and some sixes and sevens and a few 7s, which echoes my feelings about this photo. Someone said it may rival my most famous photo: Berkeley in 1969, the photo, 'Anti-War, then and now: (Fixed bayonet) (punctuation not in original, as I haven't looked up the photo for comparison of spelling of the title).

 

Of course, if there's a contrast, I am sure to want to take it and try to make something of it, whether or not it represents a 'viewpoint of mine'.

 

Thanks for the recognition.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(I have no need to be known as the one who posts 'controversial images' -- I just take 'em as I see them, and have no need for such notoriety).

 

John (Crosley)

I would like to see two elephants doing this. They are a special species and apparently have a certain brain structure and chemistry that places them (like Simians, whales and humans) as having ability to 'see' and 'feel' certain 'emotions' more than other animals.

 

That is clearly 'new' information from scientists, too.

 

And, you bet National Geographic (or Discovery Channel at least) would send the image worldwide if it were elephants (Discovery Channel is on satellite in an amazing number of countries, I've found by turning on hotel/apartment televisions.

 

Now, take your tongue out of your cheek, please.

 

John (Crosley)

While the 'act' itself may be highly pleasurable to those who practice it and like such acts, I think 'acting' in such a movie, even for a guy, might be pretty distressing.

 

What if you couldn't perform because of a cold, sore throat of something? How would you explain that or would you just dose with Viagra and hope for the better.

 

What if the director said 'cut' and 'everybody take lunch, back in two hours' just as the stagehands were smirking in the background about something personal to you - say your size or endurance . . . .

 

It's not all glory or good feelings, I suppose on a porno film set.

 

Now, of course, the women have it easiest; they can 'act' their way out of any circumstance, while a guy actually has to perform (Source: Ron Jeremy in an interview. He's a phenomenon: author, musician, actor, teacher (he holds three degrees, two bachelors and one masters), comedian and, of course, porn actor who's been in 17,000 such films ** also known as the hedgehog ** and apparently a source of great fascination to women, I've found.

 

Who can figure such things out; the most famous man in porn looking like a hedgehog, having a huge gut, and a 'look' that I would think would turn me off, if I were a woman -- apparently things are not so simple in the world of sex and sex films.

 

(and there's hope for me after all . . . )

 

(which is the apparent source of his 'success' as well as the fact he 'delvers' where it counts, when it counts).

 

But this guy, who knows who he really is? Or what his relationship is to the film showing behind him, except he's seated in a private area in front. Is he an actor, producer, salesperson, gaffer, or perhaps just a passerby befriended and sitting there innocently, the subject of a photo that could become famous for his own 'look'.

 

There a line between 'adult' or 'porn' acting and the real world; sometimes people cross that line in their lives, and it's an 'iffy' thing to do.

 

I'd warn you before suggesting you take your own wish seriously; these things generally are 'fantasy' and your post suggests you are directed at the fantasy aspect.

 

Imagine if you had to 'deliver' 17,000 times without fail, and if you didn't, your career would be 'washed up'?

 

For some it may be a dream job/for others a nightmare.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

John (Crosley)

Famous images often are made of contrasts; and the greater the contrast and the more impact it has, the greater the chances of a great capture.

 

I did happen to be at the right time and place, but I had planned ahead for such a capture, if it were to exist, and I took several other images in a similar vein, suggesting the anomie of the porn 'expo' in Las Vegas, but this is by far and away the best, an image I'm proud of.

 

I did not think it would be so almost universally well received, and at first on this service it was not, but overnight things changed.

 

Happily.

 

I am glad the 'image' pleased you (without regard to your judgment on the behavior depicted).

 

John (Crosley)

It's a street shot. And it's a good one. And like most street shots, composition and lots of other things we like to consider part of the craft of photography gets some kind of special dispensation, if and only if, the image "moves us." This "street shot" captures the juxtaposition of the bored attendent and the highly sexually charged image behind him. It's good photography because it has tension in it.

 

RSC

I DID withhold this image, since early-mid January when the 'adult' expo was held.

 

I did attend it, for the better part of five days, walking around with my cameras, talking with people, joking, being serious, interviewing sometimes, and generally trying to 'hang out' while I took lots of images.

 

I had in my mind that I might find such a contrast, and there are several other 'attempts' shown in my portfolio, if you look at them, but I sat on this because of its apparent 'explicitness', but one can wonder if it really is all that 'explicit'.

 

 

In any case, I paid a big price in sweat, fatigue, aches and pains carrying heavy equipment around my neck, with the hope of getting worthwhile captures and only had hopes of getting a 'great' one, which one person told me this is.

 

And it is, in my view.

 

(And, to those who are interested, this took only one to three shots, and maybe only one, unless the 'scene' behind him was changing, as I did wait for a good scene to depict -- see my Presentation: Photographers: Watch Your Background.)

 

Without choosing the background for contrast, this would have been an 'empty' photo, devoid of meaning (or attempt thereat).

 

I thought there just 'had' to be such an image at such an event, and my intuition didn't have to be well honed to make such an anticipation, but actually to capture it is a very good feeling, as well as having it well received and not heavily criticized.

 

(Makes me feel good about the critique process, which seldom -- almost never -- fails me. (not quite the same for 'ratings' but I'm not really here for that; I'm here to improve and show my images, in hopes I'll get better.

 

I'm still improving even since I took this two and a fraction months ago, and will soon begin posting (other) more recent images. Some have been posted, others are delightful, I think you'll find. I'm taking new images almost every day.

 

(Who knows? Maybe some day I'll be famous and deserve those 100 pages in Google devoted to 'other references' or some such.)

 

In the meantime, I don't sell my images, but maybe in the future I'll publish and otherwise distribute; PN is my principal testing or proving ground for my images to judge their popularity as well as get valuable feedback.

 

Yours is very valuable to me, and for that I thank you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

I mean the fundamentalist Christians who are anti-sex, as well as other religions, not just Christians who have similar views.

 

They have a significant place in our government right now, and they use (and abuse) their power to try to strangle free expression.

 

Moreover, this is a proprietary site, and I did self-censor until I had 'proved' this image on another service (which I won't name), while I got valuable feedback to back up my position that it 'SHOULD' be seen, regardless of one's politics.

 

It can be seen as 'pro pornography' or 'anti-pornography' too, although the very act of exposing it suggests a certain liberalness on my part, but that may not be true.

 

One attorney I knew who was famous for representing defendants and exercising his free speech rights was thought by judges and fellow attorneys to be extremely 'liberal' while in fact he was a hard rock Conservative, who just provided the service of defending (I don't judge 'em, I just defend 'em is the motto often heard by defense attorneys, but this guy often judged his clients harshly, but he kept his thought private from all but me.)

 

Free speech can be exercised on the street and there are protections, but this is a proprietary site, and I awaited some 'sign' since there is no pre-censorship option to get an opinion or a directive before one posts, so one takes a chance when one posts something 'controversial or that might engender controversy, and I got that when Josh Root made his references mentioned in a comment above (I think it was him, but it was some moderator speaking for the Administration.

 

And the Administration is to be congratulated; this is in my view one of my best images, and I practiced self-censorship for a while so somewhere I could get the necessary feedback, since this is apparently a groundbreaking image on this service, and I am not noted for breaking ground or even want to do that much.

 

I just want to take good photos of whatever sort, and especially 'street' captures.

 

So, I posted it with trepidation, but it had a trial run 'in Boston' and did very well, and didn't need a major 'rewrite' so to speak.

 

Thanks for the kind comment.

 

John (Crosley)

I had a certain amount of tension two months ago when I prepared to post this on Photo.net but lacked any way of finding a clear signal from Administration on whether it would jeopardize my good standing and my hosted images, so I exercised self-censorship and posted elsewhere.

 

But this probably is the world's largest photo-sharing site and I did hear encouraging words through what appeared to be an Admin. spokesman the other day on Site Feedback Forum, so I posted it and awaited results.

 

They're in now, and I hope for the better.

 

It's one of my best images ever, although I have lots of ones that are 'favorites' and this won't be on the cover of 'Time'.

 

Or Newsweek.

 

Or even on the cover of any book that might be published with my name on it, sadly.

 

The booksellers and publishers couldn't stand the heat; the book would be pulled and never get distribution -- cities might try to rate the entire book 'xxxx' and consign it to being sold in porno shops, as wrong-headed as that would be. I don't want to suffer the fate of Jock Sturges and live a life to be 'vindicated' after a trial over my right to depict this image.

 

In Germany, porno shops are on major streets, and part of life.

 

Not so in the United States.

 

Maybe the Germans know something.

 

But then, I am informed that in Munich (Munchen) prostitution is highly organized (something I just learned) as well as in the more famous Hambourg (Hamburg).

 

There's a contrast between life in the US and other highly-developed societies in the Western World.

 

And a tension, too.

 

I'm glad the Administration took this for the serious image it is; it's for the better of us all if we can post and discuss such things and the 'right' or 'privilege' to post them here. The site's better for it, and has been raised in my personal estimation by the lack of a negative reaction.

 

(and again, I am not on the 'making controversy' business. I'm quite complacent taking photos of any sort, just trying for good ones.)

 

Thanks, Robert, for the encouragement.

 

John (Crosley)

I thought I checked the 'nudes' box when I posted this, but except for perusing the entire 'nudes' postings, I don't know a way to confirm this.

 

In any event, as requested, it was my intention to check (tick) the 'nudes' box, as I have no wish to contravene the Administation -- the nudes category results in one way for those who 'need' to filter, to be able to do so, and I am not against that. (the whole subject of workplace 'harassment' is way out of control, if you ask me, but then I don't work for anybody conventional, and never have . . . . I think in actuality, such rules are laxly enforced until an employer is 'looking for an excuse to do something that otherwise is probably not called for under the circumstances, then the IT department comes up with a URL of a photo of a bunch of nudes or this which has been 'browsed' by some employer at work (and they do know what you're looking at, and keep a record, just for such purposes, and for their own protection against 'workplace harasssment' (sexual) suits. Sexual harassment DOES exist, but it sometimes is used to 'justify' something that really is a chimera -- and to get rid of someone who is producing but unpopular with his employer and otherwise not able to be terminated.

 

And I am AGAINST workplace harassment; I just think the yahoos who really engage in such despicable behavior (and I know and have heard personally for over 20 years of such cases), have ruined a good feature of the lives of the rest of us who are Americans; the ability to speak and act freely when one has no harassing intent and a 'safe harbor' for those who with to view 'art', which I think this is (any folks who think this was posted for 'prurience'? -- let me know, and please justify your remarks with some research, OK?

 

John (Crosley)

John, his posture of boredom with mild aggresion is an excellent juxtaposition to the background. Great comment on the mainstreaming of porn, which goes on all around us.

 

But the biggest thank you is for reminding me to have another look through your portfolio, which I haven't looked at for a long time. Brilliant is not the word. Your sense of connection with people and your stunning use of composition and colour is inspiring to me. Best thing I've seen on PN for several years - keep it up, cause i'll be back.

I often look at the work of those who dispense praise, and consider the source. I looked not only at your work but also the work you rated highest and not only was impressed, but made a few 'finds' myself there; your persual of the Top Rated Photos engine has certainly made you aware of a great number of posts I've missed because I'm too busy shooting to 'wander' through these pages, too much.

 

I am a little flushed by such high praise, not that I don't hope for it, but that I actually have attained that from you, whose taste I admire. Thank you.

 

I shoot for myself, with no one to please but myself, but use PN as a place to get feedback; I can be myopic about my own 'captures' sometimes, as I quickly admit.

 

For instance, though I liked this one very, very much, I didn't think it would score well here; a place where tastes run all over the place, and sometimes 'nudes' of any sort are attacked, even if they are not 'endorsed', something which this image does not (endorse either nude photos or pornography). This is a documentary/street photograph and I do want to thank you (and most other raters) for heeding my request; please do not turn this into a plebiscite on whether or not you like pornography, as that is quite another topic, and this photo may be seen both as pro-pornography and anti-pornography, depending on the viewer's mindset.

 

I'm still a little flushed; thanks for the kind words.

 

John (Crosley)

... at least for me ... brings it all down to one single level. Reminds me when I was a boy living in France, saw a small travelling gypsy circus with its "glamourous" wire walker (about six feet off the ground), its hilarious clowns, its dashing animal trainer (a couple of threadbare lions who seemed anxious to get through the routines so that they could go back to sleep). Even so, I was still transfixed until I snuck into the tent (where they prepared and stored their props). What I discovered were tired people with thick makeup plastered onto their sweating face, threadbare and patched costumes, and the smell of dirty animals and dirty people. These were people who worked their asses off every single day so that they could be part of this glamourous world of show business. Your photo gives me the same feeling, that this guy woke up one day to see that he has been traveling in a sweaty gypsy caravan. He'll end up some day like Zampano in Fellini's "La Strada". Another of your shots resonates, John.