The Outside of the Looking Glass Looking In

This is how 'the other half' looks when they've come to the 'big

city' to explore or visit (except possibly the man, left). They are

country people who've come to Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine (the big city,

pop. 1.1 million) to explore or visit, obviously from the country.

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

Excellent work here !!! Great composition, bright colors.

It might have been easy to crop all or part of the sidewalk, but that would have destroyed the 'aspect ratio' (ratio of width to length - or is it verse vica?)

 

In any case, I have a general aversion to cropping until it's absolutely called for.

 

Do you have an opinion about that, based on an understanding that I am VERY averse to cropping any capture that might look OK without cropping?

 

John (Crosley)

The story is recounted in a commentary to Jim Baker under my last B&W post about how my original pass by with a wider angle had these folks hiding their faces, so I went into the street with a tele, waited 15 minutes for a couple to disassemble their vendor's pipe and canvas tent, then turned and rapidly fired -- speed shooting I called it.

 

Before the third frame, they had covered their faces -- babushka (grandma) had alerted all the females in her group, and they had their faces buried by the third frame of a fps (frames per second) capture.

 

I waited 15 minutes for this shot, amazed it didn't 'fall apart' in the long interim. (I had to wait while a couple disassembled a vendor's stand - and no I didn't pay them or encourage them -- the stand was in the way from my more distant vantage.

 

I did miss the guy, left, hoisting his beer, which he did occasionally, because I couldn't just raise my camera/lens combo and fire when it was 'absolutely perfect', so there is a 'might have been' aspect to this shot.

 

Thanks for the vote of endorsement. I'm glad you weren't 'put off' by the subjects.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo desaturated very well in Channel Mixer.

 

Eventually this is one that may end up in my B&W From Then to Now folder.

 

I've made an attachment, but it will NOT post in-line as I am not going to resize it.

 

If I post it again, I want people to rate it then, but here's a sneak peek.

 

John (Crosley)

Very interesting capture John. The Babuska appears to have captured the photographer whilst he was capturing the family. I understand your distaste for cropping your own pics, but does that pertain to "others" as well?

My distate for cropping my own photos has to do with the discipline of framing in the camera. It partly stems from my acquaintance with photographer (in quotes) 'Marilyn' who worked long ago for a Reno newspaper. She used a Rolleiflex or Yashica 2-1/4 in. square format camera with a flash.

 

She went to scenes and just stood back and fired with her flash and her aperture stopped down, way down. Everything was in focus from front to back.

 

If she went to a basketball or hockey game in Reno, she kind of understood there was action in front of her and she fired the wider angle square format camera and then she went to the darkroom and cropped out the interesting photo.

 

She couldn't have been bothered by framing withing the viewfinder (or even using the 'sportsfinder' -- which is formed when one looks through the square hole inthe back of the viewfinder through the square hold in the front -- those are the parts of the metal frame that open up when one opens up the cover to the ground glass of such cameras. One has to frame looking down at the ground glass -- almost impossible, but the manufacturers had built in a 'safety' viewing device for speed framing -- front and back holes which 'framed' the

scene.

 

Well, Marilyn couldn't frame a scene or as I recall even get a horizon straight, yet she was taking photos for a major newspaper in the state, principally by extracting the interesting part of any scene taken from far away, by 'cropping' with the enlarger the best parts of such captures.

 

To me, who cropped in the camera and took pride in it, that wasn't photography, and although she was a nice enough person, I had a hard time thinking of her as a photographer.

 

A photographer to my mind then (and mostly now), can 'see' the composition when framing and focusing (not always, but usually).

 

Cropping is necessary sometimes when one misses, or there is a wrong 'aspect ratio' to best show the subjects (possibly as here), and sometimes a lens isn't long enough to capture just the good part and one has to leave in extraneous parts that should be cropped out. And, occasionally, to save a good photo one didn't see or couldn't frame, one must crop, just as one crops when one takes a photo that needs to be rotated.

 

I don't dislike that others crop -0- it's my own prejudice about my own shooting, and it's not like Cartier-Bresson who disliked cropping so much he forbade it, and even had his printer print the frame around each shot (even if the shot showed sproket holes from mis-fed film . . . .

 

I'm not so altruistic as he or possibly as stubborn, but there's discipline in 'seeing' what one is taking and only taking that.

 

I'm also a 'tight cropper' as has been obsserved -- I don't like extraneous things leading into or out of a scene. Even the white box and the refrigerted vending machine here were left in intentionally because the subjects needed sufficient 'room' around them to 'frame' them right, even if it mean putting in only half a refrigerated machine and part of a white box.

 

So, no, I really have no problem with others making called for crops to their captures; but crazy cropping where all the 'photography' is actually done in the darkroom is just like what I hear is going to happen to photojournalism. All still photos in the future, it has been predicted, in newspapers will be 'still frames' from videos. That will be a sad day for photographers if it happens and for photography in general, I think, as the disciplines of video and still photography are somewhat different; in that one emphasizes movement and the other seeks to encapsulate important or significant things within one frame (not a series).

 

So, there you have it.

 

Crop your own photos how you like.

 

I will occasionally crop one of mine (one of my recent B&W posts was a crop).

 

But I dislike it generally, and partly because it leads to lazy photography where it isn't a result of the several exceptions I noted above.

 

Thanks for asking.

 

Glad you liked the photo -- I took it today two hours before posting and also desaturated it, and the question still is whether to crop it because the subject doesn't fit the aspect ratio of the 35mm frame.

 

Thanks for commenting.

 

John (Crosley)

 

My view on cropping is that I consciously strive to frame it right in the viewfinder, but it's not always possible. Sometimes I miss because the viewfinder only sees about 95% of the image and some other times it just isn't possible because I can't get position and I know I'll have to "fix it later."

 

Like you, I prefer to keep the original aspect ratio so I generally select the whole image and then use the Transform Selection tool to crop, instead of using the crop tool.

 

In this image, the foreground sidewalk doesn't bother me at all, I would have considered cropping to remove the portion of the white box protruding from the left, but would have debated the value of that over losing too much of Coca-Cola sign above it.

Thanks for the info and example. The reason I asked is I know this (non-cropping) is what makes your photo's appealing to me. My short time here on PN has had comments made about my non-cropping. If we all shared the same idea of ?what makes a great picture? what a bland and boring place PN would be indeed. We all could ?design? a template to insert our photos into and alter them until they reached the correct mathematical equation, if that program is not already available.

I would appreciate you viewing my portfolio and letting me know in your opinion if I am following my own eye, or my eye is being directed into a pigeon hole.

Respectfully,

shadetothetrade

 

 

I did take a look.

 

You have a somewhat similar aesthetic (minus emphasis on color) to member Ruud Albers.

 

You might want to have a (new) peek at his portfolio.

 

Aesthetic situations are where you find them, and the question is did they exist at all as aesthetic 'things' before you made them so. That is

'were they found' or 'did you make them aesthetic?'

 

You might ponder that question.

 

For one, I might often never have seen what you have seen, certainly would not have photographed most of it, and absolutely certainly not in your way for almost all your captures.

 

But as a whole, it all hangs together.

 

That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

 

In the whole, you have been true to your aesthetics.

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

and peanut butter. . . Thanks for a refreshing view. BTW I am a fan of your photo work.

B. McManus, if you're a fan, there's plenty more to come, almost daily, as I'm photogaphing daily or so when not doing other duties which are very pleasant.

 

And where I am can bring quite wonderful captures just by walking outside my door or going a few blocks by jitney bus or tram.

 

I can see things with a perspective locals cannot, and probably they'd see the US as I cannot (or you either even with your particular vision)

 

So, welcome back anytime.

 

John (Crosley)

Wonderful picture, John--one of your best, I think.

 

I can't wait to see what else you are snapping over there.

 

--Lannie

You just never know with me. I take my camera(s) out daily, go somewhere and just start walking or at least moving about likely places. I go places Americans never go because they're dark alleys, places where in Ukraine people go but aren't main streets, as well as those main streets, as here, almost in front of the main train station -- a train station is a big deal in Ukraine because most don't have 'machines' -- autos.

 

A vote of confidence from you means a great deal to me; you have good taste, and are not a sycophant -- you'll withhold a vote or a comment if something is not to your liking, and I know that.

 

This photo's strength is that there are so many things going on -- and it's a tableau, I think.

 

Cropping might give it increased strength, but there's plenty of time for that later (I hope for gallery representation, and I'll consult on such things, probably with a top expert.)

 

My best to you, Lannie.

 

John (Crosley)

Some have observed that the best photos are those one can't dismiss with just a look.

 

Snapshots usually are 'seen' with just a look; often several people lined up together. If one lingers, it's because one has a special affinity (or might have) for one of those faces or bodies lined up.

 

I've just been looking at this photo, examining its detail, something I don't usually do to my own captures -- after all, I was there.

 

But in this one, I found myself looking at least ten minutes at it and not even realizing it. Most often I just move on, especially after I've Photoshopped something for contrast, brightness, etc., and resized it.

 

Not so, this one.

 

Somehow, it draws me in and my eye moves around the capture.

 

it's been said that if a photo can ensnare the viewer like that, it most likely is a good photo. For me, my own photo is a 'good photo' no matter what the issues with 'aspect ratio'. The details are very absorbing to me, and I think not just because I have lived in Ukraine.

 

What about he guy with one leg?

 

Why not a prosthetic?

 

A: Because in Ukraine, you do not get a prosthetic unless you pay for one -- he undoubtedly doesn't have the money.

 

What about Babushka (grandmother)? Why is she traveling with the grandkids? Is mother working in Italy or another country, making money for the kids' education and support. Such things are common in Ukraine and Russia. Parents willingly give their kids to trusted grandparents to raise while they support everybody. The family is like a body and each member is like a cell -- helping other members (not like in most USA families).

 

The girls are better dressed - one has more expensive boots, and she's kind of pretty for a younger girl, and it appears she is aware of her good looks -- if one takes into account her grooming.

 

What about the guy, left? He's got his beer on the building abutment (near the Coke sign of a woman drinking a Coke). That white thing in his hand obviously (to me at least) is a food package for 'takeout' or fast food. He's eating his meal and drinking his beer (few drink Coke and beer is actually cheaper and safer than the water which is anybody's guess how healthy it is, since it comes from a hundreds mile long river full of things from upriver, including probably waste from towns as far as Kiev, nine hours bus ride away.

 

And where is this family going? Have they arrived or are they going?

 

One can only speculate.

 

They were there for a considerable time; they didn't change position for 15 minutes (while a vendor removed his pipe and canvas stand that was interering with my telephoto capture).

 

This photo is full of such things, which is why I can look at it for so long (I do NOT do that with other photos generally.)

 

I've tried above to explain why.

 

I'm interested in others' impressions if they choose to share them.

 

John (Crosley)

noon John.

this works better in B/W.. the viewer is not distracted by (here redundant) colours of pink/red.. etc. and the contrast between american sweet water and post-soviet street is simply Working.

BB

You presume I'm in Ukraine; I'm not; I move around and unpredictably; I'm near 'home' now on the West Coast.

There often is a color dependant photo, a photo that only works well in B&W, often because of color casts, some intrusive color or one that doesn't fit in such as a glaring, chartreuse shirt on an actor on the frame's side, or some such, then the photos that can go either way.

I work them up according to how I see them.  I post the color dependant photos (ones in which color is part of the message or impact) as color, the ones in which B&W and composition are essential with color elements possibly distracting, as pure B&W photos, and others can go either way.

This one can go either way.

The post-Soviets used much color; buildings often are painted pastel even though they're cement; pinks, blues, and greens are common colors for buildings that otherwise would be 'cement' colored in the US.

This photo has the element of 'repetition' in color -- notice the repetition of 'reds' across the photo that ties the elements together.  You use that repetition in black and white, for better or for worse.  You may argue 'for worse' and I might sometimes agree and other times say 'I like it in color.'  This one I prefer in color, but it would work and be possibly less contradictory.

For now I happen to like it this way, because 'color' street photos that 'work' (in my opinion) are fairly rare.  Cartier-Bresson actually tried physically to destroy his color work; he couldn't find colors that 'worked' like he could compositions.

But see this color photo:  I think Cartier-Bresson might have been envious (and I'm NOT being grandiose -- I've seen his color work.):

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6717545

This would be a quite good black and whtie photo from a compositional standpoint, but it's also color coordinated to a degree that Cartier-Bresson never could achieve (see his Calumet Camera series with color photos for some examples and I've seen many others -- he shot differently with color sometimes and sometimes not, but not so well; he was well advised to disavow his color work compared to his B&W work.

I shoot both, but good color is far rarer except in landscapes where color can be very important.

So, you may be right, but I may also be right in my choice here to post this as color; reasonable minds may differ; see my reasoning?

john

John (Crosley)