black and white: then to now 'Classic' Mirroring

This is a study in 'mirroring' or 'reverse mirroring' in my

photography. The title comes from the photo itself. 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 knowledge to help improve my photograpy.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

Nice one John ~ in your quickly recognising the general shape of the hands in both instances, and even to some extent the positioning of the two torsos within the image. Thank you for reminding me to look for such 'pointers' towards successful photography.

~ Mike

Sometimes one fires the shutter by instinct.

 

I actually had spotted the window display a few seconds (less than a half minute) before, and waited for a passerby.

 

I knew basically what I had in mind, though not exactly.

 

In Henri Cartier-Bresson's 'lexicon' or that of his critics, this is what they might have termed (had he taken such a photo -- beneath his level, but hypothetically), a 'waiter'.

 

In other words one finds a situation to complete.

 

I didn't know exactly if I would find any situation to complete this possible composition, and then this guy walks by, dressed in white, naturally.

 

Sometimes the photo gods just smile.

 

They smiled on me four times today (it's actually nearly sunrise the next morning where I am, as I write this.)

 

It can hardly scare up a rating, but then I notice other good photos are having ratings difficulties (few raters on the service this 'Spring' day at this hour).

 

I appreciate (you really cannot believe how much) greatly that you found something to like in it and that you 'understand' this photo. It was a 'winner' for me when I saw it, and I rushed to post it, however, 'droll' and 'insignificant' it may be -- just a moment in life rushing by.

 

I place great thought into some of my photos trying to match the foreground with the background to make a connection (See my presentation: Photographers: Watch Your Background -- a work in continual 'construction' but extremely extensive. If you have not viewed it and like this photo, it may give you some insight into the process of how to take such photos instinctively, yet at the same time, knowing exactly what it is you are doing and even 'previsualizing' the result, as here.

 

Remember, this is a slim moment in time, enshrined forever, and of no particularly moment to anyone but those who might appreciate it for its 'drollness'.

 

I almost tried to work the word 'subtle' into the caption, but thought better of it.

 

Thanks for commenting.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Copyright 2007, All rights reserved, John Crosley

Something I did not notice at first glance was the panoply of signs prohibiting some thing or another on the glass. The "kid," by comparison, seems so much more free, with no restrictions on his motion.

 

Another great one, John. . . .

 

--Lannie

That was the decision regarding those signs prohibiting everything.

 

I looked at them, trying to figure out the meaning of each, decided I could understand all of them, and thought: 'Well, this is a clothing store, and the owners are *very picky* that no one engage in any sort of behavior therein that would be detrimental to their sense of decorum' so I figured it gave a clue to the nature not only of the store (no ice cream) but also the owners (no anything at all) and therefore made the photo richer.

 

The result was I didn't crop out the 'prohibition' signs on the door, and felt they made a richer photo. I'm glad it worked for you.

 

This photo worked for me on one major level, but it is a subtle one, and not everyone 'got it' or even 'liked it', but those who do, really do like it (I'm a big fan of this photo from the moment I took it -- one of those cases where my opinion of my photo is not shared by everyone.)

 

But that's why we expose these things to raters -- to find out popular taste. Discriminating commentators are people very important to me, also, as I learn so much about what makes (or breaks) a photo, that I can't figure out for myself because I'm much too close to them.

 

Thanks for an enlightening comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Addendum: I'm glad this photo pleased you so much, as it was soooo subtle. I like that you are attuned to such 'nuances' as this one.

 

JC

John, the rating system as it operates on any virtually free and open website seems at times to attract participants who check their brains before entering the site. Photography--and the appreciation of photography--are obviously certainly more than mere sensory experiences, but this seems to be lost on so many raters.

 

Imagine what we would post if we went by what we thought would bring rave reviews? I cringe when I think of that, and I am reminded of Keats' claim that he never gave one moment's thought to public approval while composing his poems. In spite of that, he became very popular over time. You could be well on your way to being numbered among the great ones, John.

 

Again, John, thanks for this great work--thanks especially for putting so much thought into what you do.

 

--Lannie

Very nice work, John!

Your comments mean a lot to me.

 

Thank you for the compliment.

 

It was a little 'subtle' or maybe too 'insignificant' to draw the attention of initial raters and commentators.

 

But others are stepping in, now; for which I thank my more regular viewers.

 

John (Crosley)

What works well for me (aside from the compelling composition) is the "classic" vs. the street nature of the shot, Madison Ave. slick being passed by by the real guy, the disinterested and static model left behind by the intent man on the run. This is not just visual composition, it is social commentary. Seems like an important photo to me.

Great street John. A classic and strong.

When I took this photo, I was convinced it was the most exciting photo I'd taken for several days, and during the last several weeks/months, for 'street' work, I've been pretty 'hot'.

 

So the competition for good stuff has been pretty fierce.

 

A while ago, when I was using primarily a sort-of-wide to tele and tele zoom as my primary lenses, I got into the habit of focusing up close, to catch detail in people's faces, etc.

 

Then, some time ago, I looked at, then studied, my Early B&W Photos, nearly all of which were taken with a 50 mm, or a 52 mm or a 55 mm (normal lenses), and I understood that the 'shot' for street often was just as much about the background and the subject within the background as the 'subject'.

 

Part of that was revealed when I created my mammoth Presentation (still in production but visible if you have several hours or days t look at it) 'Photographers: Watch Your Background'.

 

It was meant to teach me the 'how' or what it was I was doing so I could articulate that, and it has succeeded for me, the writer.

 

Spoiled by zooms and teles, I had to rediscover what had made my photography successful when I was in my early '20s, for I had a great number of good shots then when I owned a 55 mm. lens and a 135 mm lens on a film cameras (and the teles were manual stop down, meaning to view depth of field, one had to twist the aperture ring, and also to make a meter reading, then twist it down again to fire, after opening up for focusing).

 

It did not make for highly productive sessions, and I sweated (perspired) a lot due to the sheer physical exertion of making my match-needle exposure cameras work plus having to work with balky lenses, not of high quality -- maybe $35.00 for one of my 135 mm. lenses, and I remember spending (my last) $28 in Hong Kong for my (super wide then) 28 mm. lens with which I took a photo of Richard and Pat Nixon.

 

But in reviewing my past work and trying to discover what was the 'magic' of it in 'street' I just came to the conclusion that I had to include the background as an integral element of the photograph.

 

This particular photograph was taken with a 70~200 f 2.8 Nikkor (a heavyweight on a D2Xs camera, but it could have been taken with any lighter-weight camera/lens combination.

 

I was a very substantial distance away, on a slight rise next to a huge boulevard/arterial when I waited for this shot--in fact I may have been standing in what would have been traffic, but the boulevard was sooo wide, that I was not a target -- there were maybe 3 lanes in each direction and enough cars to fill one lane, so people just went around me (Ukrainians think I'm idiotic to stand like that, but people who drive don't want to spoil their new cars with bloody stains and dents from hitting a large American fool of a photographer . . . which I know . . . since their insurance may not pay ever . . . being Ukrainian and all that, and also being 'insurance' which means only pay those claims you're forced to.)

 

So drivers there worry greatly about hitting things, and for all the drunkenness, even while driving, on city streets there are few traffic accidents, despite some rather insane driving at times.

 

People value their vehicles and I'm a beneficiary when I'm shooting or in the streets.

 

So, I was some distance away, spotted this window display, framed it as I wanted, then waited for someone in sparse pedestrian traffic to come by, as it was not a busy day, a Sunday and hot and late.

 

But soon enough, this guy came by and I was able to fire twice to attempt to get him in the proper position, with the correct stride and the correct arm placement.

 

He just happened to be wearing 'white' or whitish garments for which I thanked my lucky (photographic) stars.

 

I did work on it a little in Photosohop to even out the intensity of the mannequin's suit and the strider's pants and t-shirt, but not enough so it could be called 'manipulation' -0- just tonal adjustment with brightness/contrast adjustments made somewhat selectively.

 

Now to the point of your critique.

 

An Important Photo -- Well, I don't know, since I didn't set out to make a 'contrast' as so often I do. Maybe I just do it while sleepwalking, now, because it seemed too subtle to me that I wasn't sure PN members would 'get it', and when I put it up for critique, the rates were veeery slow and seemingly disinterested.

 

I decided I had taken this 'great' photo in my estimation solely for my own understanding and pleasure, and rued that other would not 'get it', and I think I said so in comments.

 

But discerning critics and raters have stepped in. Posted in a 'stuff' folder because I didn't know where it belonged, I have just moved it into the front of my premier Black and White folder, where I felt it belonged, but hadn't posted it there because I felt others just wouldn't understand it, it's so subtle. (It satisfied my own sense of 'wryness', but I felt others wouldn't share it, and early raters showed me to be correct, . . . at first.)

 

I guess that's where I was eventually wrong, and once again, in the end, raters have proved me wrong, Although painfully slow to take off, this photo has entered my most-rated list with respectable ratings and good critiques (for which I am very thankful)

 

Your critique adds some 'importance' to my understanding of my own photo, for I had not concentrated on the 'contrasts' but rather on the mirroring of which this was supposed to be an example.

 

Yours is another instance of where a rater has taught me something.

 

I frankly had not thought of this as an 'important' photo, even though I was excited about it so much that I rushed to post it.

 

Thank you for your critique and sharing your insight with this myopic photographer.

 

I now understand my own photo so much better because of it.

 

John (Crosley)

I hadn't thought of this as 'strong' as viewed by others, but was so excited I caught the mirroring aspect, I felt that alone would carry the photo.

 

When I went to edit it, I was overwhelmed by the happenstance that the passerby was wearing white, and made sure they 'matched' in this black and white rendition, by a little Photoshop adjustments (very minor).

 

I used channel mixer to convert this to B&W because of some 'color' in the bottom of the shop window and in the sides, and just 'desaturating' wouldn't have worked, so well at converting the window bottom to 'black'.

 

I'm glad you feel this is strong; I was so concerned that this would be viewed as subtle and when I put it up for ratings, the rates were very, very scarce, but others have stepped in and apparently like this photo (it's nice to have regular followers who seem to enjoy my work . . . I enjoy what I'm doing immensely.).

 

So, important or not, I'm glad it has 'caught on' so I have been able to move it to the top of my portfolio with the 'good stuff'.

 

Best to you, Ed.

 

John (Crosley)

I do put so much thought into what it is I do, because I think a lot and make a lot of associations -- that's just my way of being.

 

I learned photography during the period when I didn't take photos by periodically perusing my huge book of masterpieces by Henri Cartier-Bresson ('The Photography of Henri Cartier-Bresson' I think, all threadbare with a broken binding from having been scrutinized maybe overmuch over 20-30 years.

 

I always got 'excited' about photography whenever I would look at that volume, for I gradually came to understand what that photographic genius was up to in his mind, (although I do not have his 'art' training or share the longing he had to be an 'artist' to which he retired to when he was little older than I).

 

I'm not retiring and just getting going, health permitting, and if I live to as old as he, I feel I'll still be taking photos. I suspect for a man who had walked around the world with a camera, he simply had physical problems with his joints, etc., as he got older and he did long to be a 'serious' artist.

 

Photography for him was a passion, but it was not then respected as it is becoming now.

 

I have 'switched' my style a little recently, as I have begun to master my superwide angle lens, but I still use a tele, as here, or even a medium lens.

 

(Usually i have two cameras, one with a wide zoom and the other with a moderate tele zoom which makes stepping off of buses, vans (mashootkij), and such difficult -- even going down an escalator can be an adventure with so much hardware around my neck).

 

But people are friendly to my photography, generally, and I have worked on my street feints and mannerisms, to make my winding through crowds and into groups that much easier (and less dangerous as a result).

 

As for becoming a 'great one' . . . that is my wildest dream (Notice I didn't say 'beyond' my wildest dreams).

 

If I live long enough and am as productive as now, it may be within sight.

 

(There was a period, early on, when I just posted photos and didn't even ask for critiques; I just wanted to share my early work, but now everything's going up for critique, as I no longer am afraid of serious down rating and don't care so much about rates (low or not).

 

Thank you for noticing my ambitions and my work.

 

(all this writing would be horribly narcissistic if it weren't that so many people tell me they read it and learn from it . . . and it makes me articulate to myself what it is I am doing, so I can seek to improve myself, as well as share the photographic process with other members.)

 

John (Crosley)

Xanadu

 

A movie made back in 1980 with Olivia Newton John where she was a MUSE and was a painted picture on the wall that came to life. This picture reminded me of that movie.

 

The "CLASSIC" picture of the man on the window/wall looks like he is about ready to walk away. Walk of course the other way that the man is walking as if to walk in a different direction.

 

The contrast and the eye just seems to just feel like this picture was suppose to happen. The eyes feel safe with this picture.

 

This was a great capture and the color adjustment was perfect. I love the title and love the mirror effect of how the match each other.

 

Wonderful job! ~ micki

Though a friend of mine was 'in love' with Olivia Newton-John, because he had seen her in (was it?) 'Grease', and he absolutely wanted a wife like Olivia Newton-John - pretty, petite and with a great voice (and maybe some fame). Unhappily for him, when he met that women (who was not a blonde), I married her -- but he married her sister and that was a pretty good deal too ('sister' in Russia, actually means cousin).

 

But his Russian wife, last I heard was going to law school here (she was an attorney in Russia) and mine just ended up with brain cancer at 29 . . . and that ended the marriage.

 

No Xanadu, regrettably (for me).

 

He got the better of the deal in the end, which for him I am certain was 'Xanadu', only I don't think he recognized it until it already was happening.

 

(I introduced them, made sure she missed her train home, and assigned them the only remaining bed - a single for the two of them to sleep in -- as strangers -- overnight, and she woke up and went to breakfast wearing his shirt . . . and last I heard they have been together ever since.

 

Truly Xanadu! if you ask me . . . . )

 

I do some good things from time to time, and that is one thing I was proud of (my then wife helped too, of course -- it was a joint effort).

 

I'm glad the photo pleased you -- I like(d) it very much . . . but just felt it would NOT be popular when I posted it, and initially it could hardly scare up a rating . . . it's surprising how things work out though.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

this is indeed a wonderful "mirror" shot. One can read so much into it...I am glad you did not crop the "prohibition signs" They almost belong to the "button down" appearance of the man in the glass. I can understand "no smoking", "no dogs" but "no lollipopps???"...anyway: It's a shot, well waited for...Bert

Didn't wait long; from 30 seconds to a minute and a half; the photo gods smiled on me that day -- I waited and watched after I shot this and nothing even close happened for a while, as I worked my way around the area, then across the broad boulevard. I just caught a magic moment (luckily).

 

(I shot this just before leaving for America, only to return again shortly.)

 

I might have caught such a moment again, or it may never happen again. You never know with these things. Sometimes it's on the first try and sometimes on the 72nd try.

 

I once was soundly denigrated by critics for not getting it within 3 or so tries, but I think that was off the mark and I was intentionally misunderstood -- in that case the figure was the same subject, but she was moving around, and there had to be a careful juxtaposition, but what juxtaposition could not then be known -- it depended on where she went (and my placement; lens zoom length).

 

For every one like this one gets ('one' meaning 'me', the photographer), there are maybe 100 or ten times that that are just so-so or even that completely miss the mark.

 

Sometimes I just shoot to keep my coordination up; something I am sure Henri Cartier-Bresson never had to do, or Elliott Erwitt. I need the practice to ensure I get the capture -- even putting camera to face in a 'street' situation requires some gumption and one gets that first by doing it with 'insignificant' shots, and sooner or later one gets something more significant.

 

At some times, one gets 'in the groove' and everything takes on special meanings and 'relationships' just stand out with everything. It's a special way of seeing I haven't seen written about, but it's a very special 'place' for a photographer like me, and comes from practice, practice, practice (and good critiques).

 

Sometimes those relationships are hard to find; as here.

 

Other times I can hardly walk along without finding them everywhere.

 

I read tonight that Cartier-Bresson focused (literally and figuratively) on the working man, eschewing 'technological man' except in rare circumstances, and I think he did that because it was easier for him to see the relationships, and, being of a certain age, the technology had not been part of his life -- he said the 1800s stretched into the 1930s, which according to one learned commentator meant that technology and mechanization did not take hold of the world until about that time.

 

I spend the majority of my time in Ukraine in part because it is less technologically advanced than the West, although parts are quite advanced and certain individuals are electronic and technical geniuses (where besides Russia do all those software pirates come from who 'crack' software? -- I met a guy at McDonald's who said he did that for a 'living' and didn't get his name or ever see him again.)

 

It's a different, more elemental world in Ukraine and without a 'social safety net' yet, which existed when it was part of the Soviet Union (which fell apart, Christmas 1991.)

 

This is the capital, Kyiv (Kiev) at a large suburban/exurban market place where they sell building supplies mainly through stalls, not unlike storage lockers in the U.S.A. except set up for business. (The Porn business does that too in the San Fernando Valley except with larger spaces, I understand, and some even film in those places -- ugh).

 

The presence of such a market place foretells great building going on in Kyiv, especially the outskirts, where new (and sometimes very modern) buildings are going up at a rapid pace for the more prosperous residents (great poverty exists in Ukraine, but less so in Kyiv, which can be a very pleasant place to visit -- although it lacks sufficient hotel rooms and housing for tourists and guests, making finding quarters a real challenge if the town is 'full'.

 

Ukraine has both 'ugly' and 'wonderful' people, but it has a real 'society', and I read that in the US, many people are so wrapped up in jobs and the Internet they don't even have one person they can call a friend (that would be unthinkable in the Ukraine -- I can hardly photograph at night without being offered a beer by someone, or getting many handshakes, and slapped on the back lots of times -- even hearing my name called out by people I met once, months ago.

 

There's something to be said for not being so technologically advanced and 'marketed to' all the time.

 

Thanks for wading through my prolix comment.

 

And you can be sure I read your comment thoroughly and am very grateful you took the time and effort to leave me your thoughts.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

 

It needs more time, not enough relation.

recomendation

Interesting and fun link. Worth while viewing.

 

But for my taste, color is not good for those photos and not well reproduced; that aside, however, too much apparent posing and Photoshopping (image editing) as far as I can tell, so I can't tell what is spontaneous and what is not.

 

But definitely fun to look at; a true black comedy store of images.

 

And thanks again for posting the link (I put it on favorites so I can have a second and third look as it's very fertile.)

 

John (Crosley)

I went by ths scene on a Monday, and realized that I recall taking this photo on a Sunday.

 

Why does it matter?

 

Because the background to the white, short-sleeved shirted man is white, and it's a roll-down door.

 

Any other day but Sunday, that roll-up door is rolled up and there's a shop inside.

 

Hence, there would be no white background, any day but Sunday.

 

Taking street photos is like that, and it's one reason there are almost no repeats of street photos involving people.

 

If I hadn't been able to take this very good photo on that particular Sunday, it never would have been taken in great likelihood -- not at all or ever.

 

And not by me, since I have been to that neighborhood maybe twice in my life -- that day and today, a Monday.

 

But if I can't get this particular capture or didn't get it, there would be another capture somewhere else. It might occur at the same time and day, or even in the same country, but there would be another very good photo somewhere.

 

And for all the very, very many spoiled photos I try to take but come out badly, I remind myself that for each time I punch that shutter release with my finger, the results likely will be not good, but every once in a while the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars will all be lined up, and the photo will come out very good, or even great.

 

One has to play the odds in 'street' photography, since, unlike studio work or cinematography, one has little control except the choice of equipment, where one goes, which way and how one points the equipment and how one sets the equipment.

 

All the rest is up to the vagaries of the (usually) human condition.

 

And we all know that much about the human condition is unpredictable -- which maybe why for some 'street' photography has its fascination.

 

'How?' I asked as a youth when I thumbed through the pages of 'Life Magazine' or 'Colliers', 'did the photographer ever get that shot?,' I remember asking myself. I couldn't imagine anyone had the foresight and/or patience to get certain shots, and I admired the talent of those photographers very much, little expecting that their experiences and their photos would stay with me in some sort of ingrained and inchoate lesson which I learned from them as a youth and now, only on my dotage, is it coming to fore.

 

And what if I'd taken that photographer's slot with Associated Press, or alternately the one in Portland that United Press International also offered me?

 

Would I have a photography Pulitzer, as many AP photographers got, including some friends and acquaintances?

 

What if I'd stayed as a writer and taken the proffered AP job in Washington D.C. as a Washignton Bureau writer just before Watergate. Would my name be famous for writing Watergate stories? Would I have had my own 'Deep Throat?'

 

Likely, no matter what, though, I would have had a short and/or very unhappy marriage, since journalists -- especially with Associated Press with its round the clock deadlines -- have very poor potential as good spouses, especially in major cities, where they must work 'shifts' which keep 'shifting' -- calling for early morning work one week, and overnight work another week, until one's seniority allows one to hold down an editor's desk with a set schedule -- which for many news writers is an unfathomable luxury.

 

Pity the poor AP newsman who was resident of an apartment building where they were building a new building next door -- about 48 stories tall and a two-year job -- with construction workers yelling to each other all day long, and managing extremely noisy equipment such as mammoth air compressors, all during the long work day, and that poor AP worker had the overnight shift, which required that he try to be a day sleeper.

 

That, in a paragraph, is a depiction of hell, and a reason AP staff marriages so often failed (and probably still do).

 

I left AP soon after I got married, and it lasted 17 years, in part because I chose a profession (law) where I could set my own hours and even be home with the family at unusual times, or as required (though I worked often 18-hour days, I had a home office as well as a downtown office, and both were fully equipped, so my children could come in and sit on my lap if I worked late (at home), or I could easily be interrupted from my work.

 

Pity the poor AP newsman (or photographer) who has to work 'shift' work, or who is subject to being called at home, like a fireman, to come to the office (or -- for staff photographers -- anywhere else in the nearby world -- and trying to make family commitments or even manage a sleep schedule with such demands.

 

Wire services have a 24-hour deadline; some newspaper around the world is always closing its pages at every hour of every day, so every 'breaking' story is done with a 'rush'.

 

(The good part was when an AP newsman in a multi-man bureau left his desk after work, the next person finished all the undone work, so when one returned to work, there was nothing left unfinished from one's own work -- in essence a 'clean desk' and a 'fresh start'.

 

(For those thinking of becoming journalists or photojournalists).

 

A 'street' photographer, on the other hand, gets to go out, either when events are scheduled, when the mood strikes the 'street' photographer, or when there are commitments for one's time, which one can simply refuse if one is an amateur, as I am.

 

I often only photograph minutes to an hour or two ever day or every other day, to get the captures I want, with the rare exception being a day like today when I went out with a friend (who is friendly to photography and an aid in pointing out likely scenes), and photographed in a far off place for two and a half to three hours including travel time and took several wonderful photographs (out of two 8-gigabyte chips, but those several are truly worthy photos -- keepers for a lifetime.)

 

It doesn't get much better than that.

 

Someday I'll have to try to figure out how to make a living.

 

John (Crosley)