faces in time 'Got Jesus?'

This woman continually proclaimed her love of Jesus and His Salvation

as she proclaimed a litany of the absolute worst tragedies that had

befallen her and her family, all with smiles. I turned away for a

moment and then turned back, and this is what my camera saw.

 

Your good faith 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. (I know it's rough, but

consider the circumstances as well as the outcome and weigh the two --

inside a laundromat at night -- surprise capture) Thanks! Enjoy!

John

Precious expression you got here John, which makes the rough look of the photo not that important, although it really could use some more fine detail on her face. When I see this kind of spontaneous moments I can't help but thinking about the (pseudo)purists of street photography who find shooting with a long zoom some kind of a dreadful sin. Here's a proof from you once again that they are the ones who lose by limiting themselves. Cheers!

I'm a purist about one thing.

 

Get the picture.

 

Little else matters.

 

Just get the picture.

 

Tele, normal or wide angle.

 

The early Leica photographers shot with Leicas because that's what they had. They had no choice. That's all, and Leica did make wonderful optics which kept them there. They learned on Leicas so they stuck with them.

 

There was no real reason, other than unobtrusiveness, to favor a Leica -- that plus its optics. It could only shoot one frame and the viewfinder was so small one could not see and focus through it (there actually were two viewfinders in the IIIs I have, one for viewing and one for focus.

 

Early Leica photographers just stopped down and pointed their cameras/that's all.

 

You can do a lot more with a SLR. Leica lenses get in the way of the viewfindeer, often cutting it off. Bright line frames don't always tell you which lens you're shooting with. The M3 had to be cocked before it could be shot, alerting your subject.

 

They were superquiet, which made them stealthy. I'm sure Henri Cartier-Bresson was a most stealthy man (a mutual acquaintance, Jimmmy White, told me so, when he was in China.) He guarded his image so he would not be killed, as he was in the center of politics in times of great turmoil and nearly at Gandhi's assassination -- almost minutes away, it seems.

 

He sometimes hid his Leica under a napkin (serviette) in restaurants, and probably had 1,000 tricks to avoid being detected. Good for him.

 

But he did not set the standard for all good photography or all good street photography for all time (though he set the standard for his style of photography and that will never be matched -- he was the master of his style of B&W photography, even though from time to time, I will knock out somoething I think might have pleased him and conformed to his style (look at my recent postings for a reclining man, a curb and three seated men.)

 

I'm a fan of H C-B but not a disciple.

 

I love his work and study it from time to time (that which is NOT committed to memory, which is little, indeed.)

 

But I take my own photos in a variety of styles and genres. I won't be pigeonholed, though more and more I'm converting to B&W to avoid color problems and issues.

 

I'm glad you posted your comment, and if you post some more I'll be ecstatic; yours are always on point (whether or not I agree!)

 

John (Crosley)

Have you Got Jesus?

 

This woman had spent a long time telling me how, amid her tragedies, Jesus had brought her true inner peace and she never thought about her tragedies. hooh, hooh, hooh! and other fictions, as the photo reveals.

 

Sometimes photos do speak many words.

 

This is one of them.

 

John (Crosley)

It is ironic how her words tell you one story but her expression tells you something completely opposite.

Of course, that's the point of the whole photograph -- its very reason for being.

 

I deal heavily in ironies of life and life's contradictions.

 

Henri Cartier-Bresson who founded the school of 'street photography' (in my book) wanted to call himself a surrealist photographer because he was ultimately aware of life's surreal nature.

 

This is one small example of that.

 

A woman who's all smiles as she talks and when you turn your back, turns to frowns (but sports her 'Got Jesus?' hat, which she fronts to all concerned to explain her smiles).

 

I just caught her with her 'pants down', so to speak.

 

John (Crosley)

Nice NEW hat!

 

HA!

 

The funny thing is this at is so crisp and clear and the face just needs something else. Well, Oh I hate to be mean but she just needs a hug!

 

I have Jesus, well I mean I like him and I do feel that I have the "relationship" that I want with him but I would in no way EVER wear a HAT like that! Maybe something that says GOT Lipstick?

 

GREAT capture... was it in humor?

 

I did giggle! That was what you were looking for right! Other than that the eyes are really fishy ~ EEEEEK ;) And don't ask me that means as I have no idea except it looks a bit like what I ate last night for sushi.

I don't have a relationship with Jesus, but if he's in the neighborhood, he can stop by and we can work on it, perhaps over tea and scones or some kielbasa, or maybe sushi -- he's pretty good at producing that, I understand (and wine, too).

 

This woman uses Jesus like a crutch, and she needs a Jesus in her life -- her personal and family blows have been crushing. How neat to believe in an afterlife, but I am sure I'd transgress and the sulfulrous one would be waiting for me below; I'd have the wrong thought on my mind the moment I died and be condemned to eternity of paying for it the hard and painful way.

 

I believe in being good to people and treating them right in hope it will come back and, if not, well it feels good anyway, personally -- the Judeo-Christian ethic, but without the follderolll of chapter, verse, psalm, etc. that are supposed to mean much to so many and which are somewhat contradicted by other major religions (not the main idea, but the tedious details).

 

If God wants me with him during afterlife, he will make sure I am there; and if not, well . . . you can wave at me from your perch behind St. Peter's gates and say 'I told you so'. (a very unChristian act, if I do say so myself, but then who am I to say, since I have no cachet; I was reared an Episcopalean.) (Waspe)

 

The new fundamentalism and being 'born again' confuses me. Why does one have to 'lose' Jesus before one qualifies to 'find him' again?

 

And other brain twisters.

 

Yes, in jest, and not over this woman's troubles; I deal in contrasts and hers was great (and serious), but her usual smiles -- 'everything's peachy' were belied for this one moment.

 

John (Crosley)

The contrast between the hat which is so sharp and her face which is so NOT sharp is so satirical.

 

Much like the word "born again".

 

My relationship with God/Jesus/the Earth/my husband or even you or anyone else on this earth is really up to me. I liked what you said about losing Him to gain Him again. I never really heard it like that.

 

Not that this picture is where you want to start a conversation like that and "heaven" knows I am totally not that person to start that one with as my discernment tells me I would win by saying you win.

 

Of course I would still be all smiles because in the end we would both win because we both are happy and this frown is still not on our face but on hers!

 

We both remain friends. I could care less about what she wears but how she is feeling. THAT is what makes me wonder the most.

 

This is a great picture because of this contrast that you presented not because it was a great in focus picture.

 

And no, I would still NEVER wear this hat. Maybe a hat that says GOT BANANA!

I won't comment on most of your wise and well-thought-out comments.

 

I'll just note that part of the reason this woman's face appears so out of focus is that it is brought out from 'shadow' using shadow/highlight filter in Adobe Photoshop and not from a NEF (raw) capture. So, the hat got adequate light and was properly lighted and being well exposed shows well.

 

Her face completely was in shadow -- you hardly could discern her features before I brought them out, but when I did, OH BOY, was her face revealing.

 

I could see her unhappy looks in the shadow of her cap's bill, and when I applied shadow/highlight filter, I knew this was dreadfully sloppy looking, but still, somehow, a winner.

 

I don't adhere to one 'standard' for photofinishing work; the more important a capture, the less stringent I am about technical details, as you have seen many times.

 

Best wishes to you.

 

John (Crosley)

THAT is what makes this picture work. In my humble opinion. That is this pictures contrast. I don't think it would work as well.

 

It is almost like the face "broke" the camera. HA

Many times, in my travels, and especially when I am with young people relaxing (e.g. drinking) they want their photos taken and sometimes I don't feel like it; it's a waste of my time as they're not good subjects and I'm 'focusing' my mind on something else. And I don't speak their language always.

 

So I just point my finger at them, point to my camera and lens, pretend like I've taken their photo and it's broken my camera (complete with breaking gesture of my hands on camera/lens combo). Laughs. Result: No need to take the photo and everybody's happy.

 

But if you indicate to some people you want to take their photos, as I did yesterday, they'll say 'catch you next time' to which I say, 'I'm from outta town and there'll be no next day . . . you can look at the photos' and then the new objection: 'I haven't got my (suit/best clothes, etc.) on.'

 

My reply: 'I want you just as you are; if I wanted to take photos of people in suits, I'd go to your church on Sunday, but you won't find me there; the dirtier and grittier you are for me, the better; it makes great photos'

 

And I sometimes thus talk my way into getting my sought photo.

 

Not above, however.

 

It was taken entirely candidly (though she did see me photographing and I showed her smiley ones of herself.)

 

John (Crosley)