The Delayed Departure to Yalta (The Hands Tell the Story)

The time for departure for this train to Evpatoria and the Yalta area

has come and gone, and farewells said, but waiting continues. This

man's clasped hands and arms, rear, are mirrored in his son's arms

dangling from the train window. 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

This is a quiet moment, the train engine has coupled with a big jolt, and then a huge pull forward, then waiting, waiting, waiting, and nothing . . . yet.

 

Goodbyes have been said, and only waiting, until the ultimate disconnection between family -- loved ones.

 

Quiet waiting.

 

Even the young one probably senses it; seems to understand that it's important, keeping a lone eye out for poppa, probably not comprehending the separateness he's going to experience.

 

This is a 'mood' shot that tells a quiet story about its moment.

 

John (Crosley)

Nice capture John.... As always, you have a way of catching the moment.

Thanks.

 

There actually was time and beaucoup moments.

 

This is just one of them.

 

I could do a whole folder just on the train station and this train's depature.

 

None of this stuff in 'street photography' about 1 in 100 or 1 in 250, but nearly every one.

 

I'm in the groove.

 

Today's posting, girl on steps, was made at supermarket at the train station square -- she was on steps leading to underground supermarket.

 

It just never stops.

 

It even amazes me.

 

I love it when you comment.

 

John (Crosley)

shame about his face being so dark.

Whose face -- the father?

 

Actually his face is somewhat lightened after being 'selected' then having 'shadow/highlight' tool applied.

 

In the original his entire head was almost entirely black, caused in part by his having very black hair.

 

No amount of 'lightening' would rescue this as a JPEG, and although I shot NEFs raw, and that might have taken care of the problem, my software currently is not connecting my NEFs to Adobe's system for processing 'raw' photographs.

 

Nevertheless the facial expression would not have added much or anything to this photograph -- I can see it when I apply 'shadow/highlight filter' very strongly and it's a completely blank expression with almost nothing to add except its presence.

 

Shooting at nighttime without flash (available light) has its difficulties, but then it has 'strengths' too, as mom's face here appears to be 'disconnected' - a sort of apparition.

 

The 'strength' of this photo is in his hands and the hands and arms of his son -- Magnum Photographer and legend Elliott Erwitt was a champion of watching hands; for while a face might say many things, it was 'hands' that often told the real story.

 

Here, the story is hands, not faces.

 

Hence, the boy's face has just an eye peeking through his arms and hand.

 

For that, it's a different kind of photograph.

 

I'm sorry that displeased you at first; perhaps you'll give it a second look.

 

John (Crosley)

John

I think the shot was beautifully done. I see an entire story in her "face" (expression). The long shot down the length of the train showing others and their goodbyes. You captured all of it very well.

J

Thank you.

 

You have acknowledged that to you I accomplished what it is I sought to do.

 

I sensed their impending separation, just as they surely did, although the boy can hardly have realized it, he certainly could sense its enormity in his life.

 

Now, the the destination of Krim is near Yalta, the famous Black Sea resort where Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt gathered shortly before the fall of the Nazi Third Reich, and literally agreed to carve up Europe including Berlin which was surrounded by Soviet troops, including carving up Berlin into four sectors, British, American, French, and Russian (East Germany).

 

That was a thorn in the side of the expansionist Soviets for so long as it took for East Germany to fall, almost, and eventually they had to build a wall to keep East Germans from just walking across the border to freedom in any of the three parts of West Berlin, then flying across Soviet-occupied East Germany which surrounded Berlin into the West and freedom. The leakage prior to the wall of East Germans (and others) across the border was a great embarrassment to the Soviets, which claimed they had a workers' paradise.

 

Not so in the eyes of those who escaped.

 

Now, in Ukraine, where this shot was taken, a train ride away, means going to Yalta/Krim/Simferopol, area, and vacations on the Black Sea, a place every self-respecting Eastern European either has been, wants to go, or is at (especially in August when the area overflows with tourists with their fake designer clothes, and men sometimes in fashionable white 'loafers' and sunglasses.

 

So, most likely the mother and child were going away on a brief vacation -- just to the seaside for a week to a month, or to nearby relatives, and to return, little doubt.

 

So, the gravity of the moment is tempered a little by the probable return.

 

Janis, I'm really glad you understood and liked this one.

 

John (Crosley)

John, maybe you are right about it not having an importance (the very dark face) but I think it does effect the picture as a whole. I think the shades are too dark but it's not that important except on the man's face which is a central place in the picture. Anyhow, this is my point of view, I don't think it's a bout understanding or not. The scene is not that complicated to understand; I'm just telling you my view as this site is supposed to be a place where we share views (for the better not to critizice for the sake of it). Some members here _and I'm not insinuating you in particular_ appear to be here just to get praise and I think it's a shame. I wish too I had more critiques on my pictures rather than "wow great" (I dont always but sometimes) as this is why we are here.

You won't find many 'wow great' sorts of comments; those that do, get a short reply of thanks and that's about all.

 

I post for critique to learn more about how to improve my photography -- and to understand it better.

 

That process involves now a continued colloquy with many persons, some for the first time and some who comment again and again and who have become virtual friends. Aside from one or two, I don't even e-mail any members, and then only rarely; my communications about my photography derive from the comments here. (Unlike some of the mutual admiration societies, I don't go on excursions with others from PN, don't e-mail around, don't have a 'circle' except as is evident from those who understand and (some) happen to like my style of photography.

 

I am proud that in more than one case, I have intervened to say to a member/critique who is a supporter of my style to please consider rating lower, and I have done that on several occasions. Not that I mind high ratings, mind you, and by the same token, I have problems with habitually low raters who do so mainly out of ignorance.

 

I was an advocate of someone who was seen as a thorn in many's sides -- Bailey Seals, who was noted for his low ratings. Though he only commented once or twice (and his comment on my portfolio has been removed since it appears he is no longer contributing), and despite my having some bones to pick with him over 'low rating' this longtime featured critic of Photo.net had genuine taste, and for that it was honest and invited him to continually rate me, because of his honest ratings, though they almost uniformly were lower than others rated me-- in effect, I invited someone whose viewpoint I admired (I didn't know the man, or personally like his way with words), to rate me knowing he would rate me low, because his ratings were honest, consistent, and came from a place of great photographic knowledge and discernment. (I am sorry Seals' comment has been removed; I suppose it arises from the changeover in Administration, but I don't know for sure, as I don't involve myself in the politics of this site.)

 

I take all ratings and especially the critiques seriously; you will hardly find me denigrating my critics. If you have a problem with the lightness of this man's face, I try to explain why it's dark, whether to me it makes a difference (not much to me), but I admire your willingness to engage in honest colloquy about its aesthetic importance.

 

People who engage in 'atta boy' criticism have their place, I suppose, but one doesn't really learn much about photography from that. Some of my critics, whom you might view as engaging in 'atta boy' criticism, actually WITHHOLD any positive comment unless and until I post one they really like; and by their absence I know my photo was not successful in their minds' eye. (I am able to read 'between the lines' about such things.

 

Suppose you complimented me on several of my photos and said they were 'good' and rated them highly (and visibly), and then I made several posts and you said not a word, but I knew you actively were rating. I would soon figure out that the uncommented-on posted photos did not meet their high standard.

 

I rate seldom and only in specific areas, but my highest-rated photos have an almost uniform rate of nearly 6/6 and above. Am I a liberal rater? Not on your life; I seldom rate and even to get a rate from me is an accomplishment.

 

My highest-rated page of others' has even been posted several times and even linked from other members' portfolio when there was a 'featured critic' feature of this site, and by one such featured critic. And it wasn't there because I rate highly (though it appears, wrongly, I do). In fact, I would give lots of low rates if I rated every photo, but I prefer to give lots of criticism to one or another photo where the photographer looks like they could really use a thoughtful helping (critique) hand.

 

And it has earned me lots of return thanks by e-mail and even in portfolio comments. I do not do so in great quantity, but almost uniformly, those I critique thank me for engaging in honest and constructive colloquy with them rather than just deriding photos that often are of not such high quality; invariably they are just the starting work of someone with good intentions and they need someone to take them by the hand and say 'look here, that photo maybe didn't do as well as it could and here's why I think so.'

 

Members seem to love that kind of criticism.

 

When I wrote, I loved to be edited well, because editing made me 'look better' in my work.

 

The same with criticism of my photographic works. I am willing to say if I think a point is valid or not, and that does not involve just bowing quietly when someone makes a criticism, but also expressing my point of view -- what I hope is honest colloquy.

 

So, if the man's face is too dark for you, my photo fails in that regard, and I surely will be aware of it next time in a similar lighting/scene setting that it is an 'issue' and whether I seek to try to overcome it, or live with it.

 

One member, long ago, Alex S., noted that I tend to cut heads off portrait subjects. I thought about it long and hard and finally admitted I do that exactly, but to focus on the face; when I pulled back, and the background was important or was thrown out of focus because of Depth of Field issues, then i did not engage in the same photographic behavior.

 

I defended what I did to Alex S., in that instance, but I also was made aware of a very critical issue, which only he and one other ever had mentioned.

 

Dark face/lighter face: if it's important to you, it will be important to others.

 

But what I found lacking was 'how to remedy the problem' since I showed you I used shadow/highlight filter to lighten his head and found that it truly was not particularly useful other than in lightening his head somewhat and thus this guy is not truly as dark as he once was.

 

This issue of taking criticism versus accepting valid criticism but also explaining why and how the critic's point not be remedied, is a fine line; and if i seem defense, frankly I'm not. I value criticism and your criticism too.

 

And encourage you to keep on critiquing my work.

 

from time to time if you make a point i see as valid, likely I will acknowledge that, but if it contravenes some issue that is illustrated by the photo of one of the underpinnings of my photography (or just that photo), I might first explain and defend the use (keeping in mind someone felt it important enough to note to me, which really is a generous act, if it is apparently done without rancor and rancor notably has been lacking in those who criticise me -- with one or two rare exceptions.

 

So, critique away, but don't expect every criticism will automatically be accepted; that's why they give me the ability to 'reply' and then of course, as here, you have the ability to expound on your point.

 

In the end, I have to take the photographs, and I do want people to understand them and enjoy them. Since I am not presently selling them, people like you, aer my 'market', and I am well advised to listen to the 'market'.

 

From time to time, it may appear I comment more than others; that is sometimes so.

 

Other times, others continue commenting long after I have though the ghost probably should have been given up. But nearly every comment gets a reply.

 

Members, many of the new members especially, tell me they value the colloquy that goes on underneath my posted photos as a learning device for them.

 

Even some of the highest-rated members have told me the same thing, but I won't be naming names . . . that is for you to figure out by reading the entirety of the criticisms here (and I won't be opening my private e-mail to illustrate the point, as that defeats the purpose of its being sent privately).

 

I hope you continue to stop by, and I hope you feel welcome; you are.

 

John (Crosley)

 

P.S. I only asked you to take a second look in view of my reply comment; not that you automatically accept my explanations and that's about all.

 

JC