SCREAM!!!

This is detail from this photo, lower right. It is essential to understanding this photo (and why it was posted on Halloween . . . ).

 

;~)

 

John

 

Photo copyright 2007, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved.

Please see detail, lower right, to properly understand this Halloween

photo; also under 'comments' in my Early B&W folder, see a blown-up

cophy of the detail. Notice the mask from the movie (and its

sequels) 'Scream'. 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

I'm looking at this for the first time and my hat off to you. Perfect timing with the precision of details that is expected from someone of your caliber. You know I would have caught this, right? The welcoming sign with Bugs Bunny pointing to the corner is cleverly positioned. Talk about serendipity. There is an element of surprise, fun and synchronization here that makes this shot an outstanding one in my humble opinion.

I don't know about 'someone of my caliber' as until I got Photo of the Week a week ago, I was just an ordinary member, and not seen with so much talent.

 

But 'timing is very important, and although I didn't 'see' the 'scream' mask at the moment, I saw and heard the commotion at the right of my frame, and I had instinctively moved my shot to the right (I was following the kid on the scooter) and tried to get the other kid in the frame -- I didn't know at the time he had the 'Scream' mask on, but it was clear they were playing 'chase', and I was determined to follow them.

 

Yes, this is indeed a serendipitous moment that I don't think would have been caught by anyone else.

 

I was cruising South Central L.A., looking for likely places to shoot, especially with good background, and saw the little kid playing on his scooter, and that was all.

 

I want around a very large block, but did so in a way that brought me back on the same street, this time driver's door positioned to the side of the wall and chose a wider (17~55 f 2.8 lens -- a very sharp dx lens.)

 

And I made a series of exposures -- it's not as if this is the only one -- there is one other one that is of the child and wall that is worth showing.

 

And in color, as the wall is 'green'; I might have shown this in color, but the strong colors would have detracted from the action, lower right, I felt.

 

Look for another incarnation of this scene as a color photo, somewhere, sometime in the future.

 

As to my own, subjective, estimation of its worth, look at where I posted it, despite already having mediocre to low ratings -- right in there as the lead photo in my best stuff ever -- my 'Black and White, Then to Now' folder.

 

This is a moment in a million considering that I didn't know they were playing Halloween fright -- just that they were playing what appeared to be 'chase'.

 

But raters rate from thumbnail, despite my entreaty not to do so in this case, and I am sure most overlooked the detail, lower right.

 

I think this one should be blown up VERY LARGE and placed on exhibition so browsers would not miss the two figures, lower right.

 

Size plays an important factor in which photos are better seen and rated photos 'large' -- and those with small, but important detail, often get overlooked.

 

(or it's just a mediocre photo -- if one believes the ratings. I choose to believe otherwise.)

 

Maybe others will discover it sometime.

 

I hope so.

 

I am pleased it pleased you.

 

Thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

Fame is just PR. Very good PR that does not necessarily equate talent. But in your case it should be a natural result of your work. It looks like fame might be waiting for your arrival with open arms. When you embrace her, please remember to sign one of your books for me. ;)

Damn, I'd surely like to.

 

I thought long ago, before I ever posted on Photo.net, of just a monograph of my Early Black and White work, sparse though it was, because I thought it was pretty good -- some might even have been 'important' - Nixon shot, Fixed Bayonet, Balloon Man, Girl in Tijuana, no shoes rolling tire up hill, and so forth.

 

And I still think some of it was among the best work I've ever done or could hope to do.

 

But I've also produced in the last 3 -1/2 years since new (and I hope wonderful) photos among the vast quantities of unimportant photos I've uploaded.

 

So, I'd surely like to be able to sign that book; I had it in mind all along, but didn't want to tell anybody, in case things didn't work out.

 

Now several members have urged me to publish; and if that's a possibility (gallery representation would come first), then I'm all for it.

 

I think the two probably would follow one another, just like night follows day, but I am new to the field.

 

Thanks for the good wishes; I'll still keep shooting like crazy, trying to outdo myself.

 

John (Crosley)

including the positioning of the arrow sign. Your talent is confirmed! I would like to have your eye and technique, and your mastery of the camera.

 

I have spotted a photographer on PN:

 

http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3176411

 

and thought you would like to have a look at his portfolio. He lives in Rome like me and I have to say that it is striking to recognise places on pictures, even if somehow 'secret'.

 

Take care,

 

Luca

I added Nino Russo to my 'interesting' list -- a list which is woefully short for a guy (me) who's now been around for a while.

 

But I'm not a slave to such a list; I do get around to others' portfolios more often than they think whether or not they're on my 'interesting' list. I just usually don't leave any traces - I comment sometimes in the critique gallery, but usually for those who need some help; Nino Russo clearly needs no help from me.

 

His photos would stand alone whether in Rome, Barcelona, or Capetown; he has a sense of style.

 

Thanks for the referral (I think he has watched my portfolio, too, and I'll confirm that later this week.)

 

John (Crosley)

my list is actually very,very long. I normally mark photographers to keep track of some photos. Maybe I should scratch it and leave only those whose work I judge above average.

I agree with you, as it is., it is not very useful.

Best,

 

Luca

If I were to have relied on those who regard my photography as 'above average' I wouldn't have gotten anywhere on this site.

 

About two years ago, or a little less, I uploaded several hundred photos into two folders (or what became two folders) -- my 'One Day Each Season' folder and my 'Travelin' Man' folder, almost all without any sort of rating requested, as to ask for ratings was to ask for LOW ratings, and what was the worth of that exercise.

 

And I knew that, but I felt they deserved to be viewed -- they were projects and could stand (or fall) on their own.

 

Now each has been viewed by millions (under the old 'view' counting system).

 

I as unfettered by worrying about rates -- critiques and even ratings were allowed, but except for a few photos, I didn't request them.

 

The views mounted and mounted and mounted (under the old system, but not because they were on any 'top photos' list, but because people came to browse and stayed.

 

They weren't on any 'top photos' list because almost all were never rated -- except eventually they climbed high on the 'folder views' sort on the top rated photos sorting engine.

 

And my average was pretty well below '5' for both originality AND aesthetics. It's still below '5' for aesthetics and just climbed up above '5' on originality because of all the '7s' I got on my Photo of the Week.

 

But just barely; with over 7,000 ratings, it takes a lot of '7s' just to move me up a little bit -- in ths case .06 of a point upwards on 'originality'.

 

It took over 22 '7' rates and lots of '6's as well to do that.

 

I'm stuck somewhere in the middle, I guess, but frankly I don't care.

 

The above image was not so 'popular' with raters and hasn't garnered lots of 'views', but it's pretty wonderful considering this photographer was just 'driving by' and not doing a study of Halloween at this particular store or in this neighhood or even of these two boys.

 

If I had been doing that, even so, this photo would be pretty good in my estimation, but it does lack some part of great composition -- it depends on its 'story' as well as the unusual aesthetics.

 

I'm very satisfied with it, and was upset when new software changes put it to the 'end' of my portfolio, but I got that resolved by complaining (see Adm. thread I started.)

 

This photo has an unexpected part to it; actually catching the little boy with the 'Scream' mask over his head 'spooking' the younger child, but it is something that I was ready for -- I just didn't know they were fooling around with a 'Scream' mask.

 

As you can see, I had the aesthetics mapped out beforehand, and all it took was snapping the shutter at the right moment -- based in this case mostly on the commotion involved.

 

I caught a moment here, and I'm proud of it.

 

And I caught it well; in an aesthetically pleasing manner. It looks almost as though I planned it; not that I was driving by, stopped and sat to the side in my car with camera ready to be raised above car window sill level.

 

This group never knew they were photographed (unless they saw me at the end).

 

(So much for those who say 'do you ask your subjects before you photograph them? Now I'm going to reply to that: 'Oh, yes, I do, and I then wait for them to go to the hairdressers and put on their best dresses as they always want to do if they think they're being photographed or to go home and put on a suit and tie, for one wants to look good in a photograph.)

 

Of course,I don't ask them, unless I'm up close, in which case it can help to ask -- sometimes.)

 

Not asking is the ONLY way a 'candid' photographer or 'street' photographer consistently can get photos of this quality with this much of a story.

 

(and good luck places an arrow sign aimed directly at the kid with the Scream mask -- ain't that serendipitous . . . . )

 

Luca, I always appreciate your visits. (I started to write "I always appreciates . . . I'm been too long in South Central and am picking up their patois.)

 

Today I photographed the other side of the freeway, where the richer people live; I don't discriminate in pointing my camera.

 

People ask 'are you paparazzi?' -- seriously.

 

My answer is 'No, I'm not on skank patrol.'

 

Britney, Paris and Lindsey can rest easy even if I am presently in L.A. (besides they're all off on drug rehab or booze rehab or whatever rehab -- maybe sex rehab -- well, that maybe I'd photograph . . . . )

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

Nino Russo commented on one of my photos in May - a good comment, and I commented back. I was sure I recognized his name.

 

He's a good shooter; one I'd be proud to be associated with.

 

He'll probably get very much better if he's new to this, too.

 

If he's already accomplished, then he still does very good work.

 

Thanks for pointing his work out.

 

John (Crosley)

Great work, John..... I love this very much!

It doesn't show so well in 'thumbnail', but I think it is among my very best work.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but . . . .

 

I do like it.

 

I'm glad you do to.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo is full frame, not a crop.

 

This is one instance where my rule 'leave all the interesting things in, and 'exclude all the uninteresting things' still applies.

 

But the 'interesting things' here are the two boys -- the scooter boy and the 'Scream' boy -- within the context of their neighborhood -- the video store -- complete with sign pointing at their hijinks and Bugs Bunny leaning on that sign.

 

Sometimes cropping tightly just to the 'action' is inappropriate, as this photo attempts to show.

 

Cartier-Bresson almost always tried to incorporate all the elements of the scene rather than tightly cropping. He believed, in my view, that the viewer, upon being presented with a large enough print, could single out the subject, but also that subjects were dependent on their environment, and he attempted to controll all elements with great care.

 

That is part of the reason for his no-crop rule. When his photos were printed, cropping was forbidden as part of the rules of sale, and that was primarily due to his own personal aesthetic, I think, which considered each photo a 'whole' and not something to be cut up into a 'one column' or 'two-column' piece of 'art' for a newspaper or a magazine like 'Time' or any other publication. He was rich in his own right, so he could afford to issue ultimata about his work and its 'integrity'.

 

(Also, as I have noted before, part of the no-cropping stricture may have arisen just because of Cartier-Bresson's cussedness -- his unwillingness to let anyone exercise control of any sort over him or his images other than that which he expressly allowed.)

 

That being said, his famous Life Magazine cover photo showing two Soviet army officers and admiring two lovely young Russian women apparently in the Kremlin, appears to have been not only a crop, but as I remember it, also is overwritten with text including the magazine's logo.

 

Some rules are meant to be broken, it appears; cover of Life at the time was the highest honor a photographer could aspire to and a very highly-paid one at that; Life Magazine had enormous power of its own, and he and the magazine had some discussions about what they could and could not do with that image, I have little doubt.

 

Unlike much of the rest of my tightly-cropped photos which include mostly just the 'action' or the 'principals', this photo seeks to crop 'tightly' to the whole scene including its background.

 

Thus, this is not just a photo about one boy scaring another at Halloween while wearing a mask, but doing so at the Callero Video Store, evidently in a Hispanic neighbhood (in Los Angeles, which is NOT so apparent).

 

John (Crosley)

it's always nice to capture one like this... Exposure, with the composition along with good glass (I really like my 17-55mm...didn't take it off while in Yosemite and the Sierras) makes for a photograph that has it all...

This is one of those 'I took that?' photos; that's what you say when examining closely your compact flash downloads.

 

I knew I got some action at the right and the kid with the mask was playing with a mask and even put it on his head that I could see, but here I fired on the 'sound' of the 'scream' or the 'boo' from the little boy, and just happened to keep my framing sufficiently good so that they are seen almost as 'incidental' to the main photo.

 

This is one of the things that keeps me shooting; just when I think I can't take a good photo, I take one of these (or something even like the Photo of the Week several weeks ago, which I didn't think was my best, but it is very popular -- half the photo blogs on the net have copied it.)

 

Well, they have the 72dpi version - I have the 300 dpi version in 'camera raw' and the whole frame before the crop on that one.

 

I think this is one of my best ever, but then photo expert to the stars of photography and my own personal friend and mentor Michel Karman says it may be seen as 'too cute', and he may be right.

 

Nevertheless, I'm not afraid of being 'cute' when it's a photo like this.

 

John (Crosley)

I know from your type of photography, that you most often must go on 'safaris' to get your photos -- to places like Yosemite, the Sierra, Yellowstone and other places.

 

You're a landscape and nature photographer, and you must go where there is wonderful nature and the best landscapes -- that's your stock in trade (aside from macro shots which you also are excelling at).

 

But for me, a trip to the market is a 'safari'. A trip to the gas station can win a lifetime best.

 

A trip to the supermarket got me 'photo of the week' not so long ago, or was it a restaurant? I forget.

 

For me, who prefers 'street' the best thing just is to carry a camera and keep looking. I took three photos today, but they all were good (I deleted two that were out of focus -- I delete mainly the out of focus shots, but keep even a few of those if they're interesting. And I process them just as if they were among my 'best' for sometimes they are.

 

I have been told that one or two of my out-of-focus shot were so good and interesting (auto-focus didn't kick in quickly enough or it was 'off' inadvertently), that they are among my best work -- ever -- but so completely different and inconsistent from my other work as to drive away anyone who thinks they can tie me into a category, which most who buy 'art' want to do, or even those who assign photographers.

 

Frankly, I could just turn off my autofocus and build a career (a new career) as an amateur photographer in making stylized 'people' photos by pointing a severely out-of-focus telephoto lens at them. (Try it sometime, and see what the figures look like -- like some stylzed cartoon figures or modern art figures, with striding legs instead becoming joined together into a sort of modern art triangle below distorted bodies -- especially good if the subjects are a smaller part of a frame and there is interesting light -- such as a doorway, tunnel effect, etc., to highlight those figures or even a window light.

 

I was asked by my mentor, Michel Karman, initially on meeting me 'Why do you take so many bloody pictures?' and 'Why don't you just delete all the bad ones?'

 

Then he spent several months on and off going through several hundred thousand of my photos and came to the conclusion that some of my best work was overlooked and some of that was work at one time I might have deleted.

 

He knows that now, and he no longer suggests I delete.

 

He just struggles trying to make choices of 40 representative photos of the hundreds of thousands I've taken, mainly in the past 3-1/2 years.

 

It's a daunting task, one we're trying to bring to a close this month.

 

And in the process, we've become close friends -- something that has evaded me for most men in my life. I've had precious few 'men' friends. I prefer the company of women, mainly.

 

Michel is an amazingly magnetic and charismatic man -- he has enough admirers (including many world famous ones -- ones whose names are known to most households in the world) to fill many entourages -- and appreciates life's craziness enough to appreciate my photos which mostly enjoy and celebrate life (and its craziness.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

Entering the New Year

 

And Thankful for His Friends on Photo.net and Off