Un Apres-Midi a Paris, (An Afternoon In Paris)

This couple spends a chilly afternoon at the steps at La Defense, an

office complex on the outskirts of Paris. 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

Very interesting composition and shot - the stairs & blocks on the wall make such a good frame. I think maybe I would prefer the overall look if the couple weren't dead center - perhaps crop the right side at the point where the stairs end, and the top a little lower, to put the center of interest in the upper right side. Very nice as it stands, though - very good eye.

Thanks for the critical comment and suggestion, and thanks also for the accolade.

 

I may return to those steps -- they're very fertile and much photographed.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Photo Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved, John Crosley

Haha.., nearly tears in my eyes..! Was practicing Rachels suggestion. For me the photo was imideately a shot seen by that sight just exactly in the middle. Because of that nothing in wideness can be changed. It's the couple excactly on the right spot, determinated by the strong lines of that "not dead centered" sight! I tried but cropping even a mm. means loosing your photographic war for ever. The boss knows. :) Olaf.

Well, not a secret any more . . . it's a cropped photo.

 

I got the horizon correctly -- not even the slightest rotation was needed -- I have a pretty good eye for that, but I needed to crop a little bitty bit at one side to make it come out correctly in post-processing.

 

This is one of those cases where holding a huge camera and a huge lens to the eye can make one's hand and arm shake, and it's very hard to do that for long and still get a precise alignment, and I was doing this there for a very long time without a tripod (I never carry one of those things with me, -- just never -- I own several and they are never used, unless I'm shooting a landscape at night under moonlight for a one-minute exposure or something like that, and even then, I've shot at night under moonlight handheld and gotten very good results, but had to boost my ISO considerably, of course.

 

The center of this photo comes right at the male's chest, or so (I turned on grids and rulers in Photoshop to test the alignment to 'see' how perfect it was when I cropped it 'by sight' and my sight was, as you suggest 'right on'.

 

I have pretty good cropping judgment, for those I post (I'm not telling you how many 'failures' I take between the 'good ones' but then I'm a former photo editor, so I should know the good ones. And rather than make new photos from old (which is what Rachel suggested basically, and not a bad suggestion actually, I would rather go back and take the photo anew.

 

Extensive Photoshopping is for the photographer who's hired to do something and the client doesn't like what he/she produced and he/she has to please the client, so in comes the Photoshopping . . . that's my view of it.

 

I take what pleases me and for a certain subset of the PN audience, it seems to please them and a certain number or percent of them (small, I admit) are pretty die hard fans, for whom I am eternally grateful (thank you all).

 

Including you Olaf. You see the 'essence' of what it is I am doing -- you understand my photographs and I think, by extension, me.

 

John (Crosley)

Before (!) reading the above story: Cropping did on forehand mean: looking for the stronguest result. What else could you do.. Haha.., indeed: shooting this at once! But we are getting older! So after all, the law of this sight-working here, is the only stronguest (!) option. You just did notice it a fraction later, let's say two fractions afterwards. After the feel.. you had to look for it! That's the real shooter! Congrats! (by "sight" I mean, did mean: the sight of a gun!)

Of course Rachel isn't stupid. Forinstance the upper tree (Dutch for step) and next the two upper layers of stone can be cropped. Nobody would miss them. But for me.. just with that "sigt" in all that space.. this one is, may be not the most "beautiful," but the stronguest. And that's where you are looking for: a- strong, b- honest and if possible: abc- (!) BEAUTIFUL! Greetings to your 2.8! Olaf.

The cropping was very slight, just to make sure the couple was 'dead center' and any extraneous material was cut away, including, I think, a figure of a person intruding on the scene (which would have detracted completely).

 

Other than that, it's pristine.

 

I appreciated Rachel's comment, but she actually wanted to make a new photo from this one -- I don't do that -- I shoot new photos if one is wanting. I have plenty of good ones and don't have to 'transform' 'good enough' shots into compleely other shots. I'll leave that to 'assignment shooters' whose results displease their bosses and have to try to please them -- so out comes Photoshopping and unusual crops.

 

Best to you Olaf.

 

John (Crosley)

John - :-) I was sure you shot or developed it for center as it neeeeeeeds it like that. That unusual wall 'finder line' urges this composition. Maybe I'm still in calibration struggle but the faces may could have more light - one stop more?

 

The attached image is what I want/would like on the button of each pnet page.

 

Cheers John - keep up uploading

The problem with digital cameras is 'blowouts' or areas or excess luminescence in which the digital information is totally lacking because of excess light levels.

 

In a controlled, medium light situation like this, it IS possible to overexpose and get an acceptable amount of light information to write with (photograph -- to write with light), but the problem for the 'street' shooter is when to set the camera for overexposure in a non-studio or noncontrolled setting.

 

At any moment, I might have turned to take a different photo and had it ruined because of excess luminescence (blowout) and I would have paid a price for setting exposure off what was called for in Nikon Matrix Metering, which was perfect for this setting.

 

Now the woman's face appears nicely exposed - she could be lightened a bit, but that also might detract from the composition. And if one is face-hunting (say, for instance, they're celebrities) then one might lighten his face greatly, but here they are more than subjects -- they are compositional elements and the appearance of more facial expression(s) is an element that might even detract -- better to leave them darker, I reasoned in post-processing and still do.

 

Reasonable minds might differ on such things: that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

 

This is my chocolate.

 

You prefer their faces more vanilla.

 

You want to see expressions.

 

I want them as compositional elements, since their faces have no particularly interesting expressions.

 

Chocolate and vanilla.

 

Peace brother.

 

And thanks for contributing.

 

John (Crosley)

 

;~)

Thank you John - YES YES YES I totally agree - your chocolate or someones vanilla - even more the photographer has 100% a different view to it as he still feels the situation and the viewer is far from it.

 

BTW: I now see the image from a different monitor which also should be calibrated correct and the image looks much clearer here. - mmh there is no true image viewing on monitors - - -

 

regards Axel

 

A gentlemanly response -- truly mature and has my respect.

 

John (Crosley)

Gary Winogrand, often went intentionally for years before he reviewed his captures.

 

It is said he would walk a block and take a roll of film. He died leaving over 100,000 undeveloped rolls of film and as many other rolls unreviewed.

 

He felt he needed the 'distance' from his own captures to 'see' or 'not' their 'worth' becausem, apparently, he was intimately tied up in them personally, emotionally, and from other aspects (some were, for instance, of relatives)--nephews, I think.

 

He needed 'distance' for objectivity.

 

I don't think I need so much 'distance' but I have taken to reviewing my old captures anew and occasionally posting an overlooked 'gem' -- witness my view of the Oregon Coast, taken a couple of years ago, or three, at the head of my Single Photo, Color folder.

 

There are others, too I've found from more recently, as I seldom review my several hundred thousand captures, I'm so busy taking new ones

 

The latest involves a giant salmon chasing a recreational vehicle, for a chuckle (really, a giant salmon -- looks like it's gonna eat the RV).

 

(I like humor and absurdity . . . which that has in abundance.)

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you John, Yes I think I heard about him, or someone who did the similar thing, driving around in NY with a car loaded with cameras, leaving tons of material undeveloped.

 

path-goal theory - - -

 

Not a bad thing I think - some day someone asked me - and what will you do with the image - and I was hidden the question - and said: "I don't know"

And it did not change.

 

The other thing is, that I do go back from time to time to older images and see how wrong I did this and that - still having to learn much. But always I have the image in my mind as I saw it when I did it - this part did & does not change - at least for me.

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and images. Regards Axel

 

 

I have in mind that this is a true 'community' whereas many members have in mind that this is just a place to show their photos and nothing more -- maybe get some rates and climb a chart of 'highest rated' this or that. I believe in truly sharing.

 

Maybe that shows in the many responses I get when I request critiques as well as in the quality, quantity and variety of captures I present to the viewers . . . do you think?

 

Remember, nearly everyone is welcome here, and you have arrived at friendly place, open to nearly everything, including not only discussions of images, philosophy of images, but of other subjects related to what is in the captures (or just about anything suggested in the comments and responses).

 

I hope you'll keep on dropping by.

 

John (Crosley)