Five Figures (Count 'em -- Five)

'Five Figures' actually are in this photo, and if you see three, or

four, you're missing its point; it has to be seen 'very, very large'

to appreciate (and to find) the fifth figure -- I hope it'll make you

smile. 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. (Did you really look

carefully and find the fifth figure before you rated?) Thanks!

Enjoy!!! John

Three on the billboard, on on the bus stop advertising and one on the walk sign?

Do I win a prize?

Congratulations -- you are first in the sweepstakes.

I planned on the four figures, and got the fifth as a bonus.

Life is sometimes that way.

There's no prize except the knowledge of knowing you're not a drive-by sort of guy and you actually opened this picture and viewed it 'large' to see the real point of it all.

This is one of those photos that wouldn't ordinarily do well on thumbnail exposition, without such 'warnings' but it might do very well in a gallery blown up pretty large, where people can walk past and say 'wow, did you see that?' I think.

Or maybe not.

John (Crosley)

Thanks for the encouragement about the composition. Of course you found the fifth figure.

And many raters are just not looking (or don't care, no matter what).

I am proud of this, and am not shy about saying so.

(from last night).

A single shot photo.

(I went back and tried to 'do better' when I saw the screen review, but I couldn't get the exposures right to save my soul. This is the one and only.)

John (Crosley)

I find it very original and as far as the exposure, I like it as it is. Everything, for me is in the right place and the lighting emphasises the exact perspective of all of the figures.

I Like it as is.

Hello John,

Guilty, I like to look at the full sized image and even to look at the folders and portfolios too (and then I sometimes don't rate).

I'm always pleased to look at your work.

P

It's a gamble when I have put up something like 50 images that clearly explain themselves in a row -- for my largest unbroken string ever on Photo.net, and usually to pretty good ratings.

Then I post this, and it gets less than a 4/4 and just a few ratings, and I know it's a 'structural' problem and not the 'worth' of the photo itself.

But how to square that with maintaining the integrity of my strongest, most durable and most well-viewed portfolio?

Well, I have a bunch of followers that have learned to follow my work over time, and I simply don't waste their time when I post to a highest-rated folder, and they know to look for hidden 'charm' when it's to a highest-rated folder.

I post more off-beat (crap) also, as I take and want feedback on all sorts of photos, so I'm not a Yuri Bonder, who posts a photo and everybody assumes it'll be a 6 or a 7 and nothing else.

But I am very thankful to my loyal viewers, who have learned to trust my judgment -- you included.

Very original -- yes indeed.

I daresay you'll never such a photo again in your life, or if you do, it'll be someone who saw this photo first. (fat chance!)

Thanks.

John (Crosley)

I am thankful for viewers like you, who seem to pop up with regularity in my folders and portfolio.

It must take an act of dedication to see what Crosley's up to next, as my grab-bag of 'tricks' is never-ending -- just what I see is pleasing, and I have a lens/body combination for which I'll try to capture just about everything.

Pity the photographer who tries to emulate me . . . . (but who would want to . . . )

Thanks for letting me know you stand by me. It's a little scary posting an image and getting a bunch of less than 4/4 returns on something I feel is pretty great and knowing it's because most didn't look and never will be persuaded that's important.

Also, I'm glad I got the exposure correct, or I might have given up on this subject, and that would have been too bad, or I'd have consigned it to Photoshop, to 'select and bring out' this element, or suppress another ... )

Thanks for hanging in there as a viewer when a puzzle as this arrives.

;~)

John (Crosley)

For a photo to be successful, under one view, the eye must linger on it a while, and what better way than to create a steadily growing level of 'discoveries' -- little treats that rewards the viewer -- as here, smaller and smaller 'figures' until the smallest figure of all. Without that fifth small figure, this might have been posted, but I wouldn't have treasured it.

And the eye must be 'engaged' with the photograph -- the eye must 'seek' something from the photograph -- a rewarding experience, and the photograph must deliver.

I think this photo, as oddball and one-of-a-kind that it is, fulfills those requirements.

I'm encouraged to find I have viewers with patience to find a photo with 'hidden treasure' like this one and not feel cheated in some way ( at least no reports so far.)

;-))

John (Crosley)