On the Street (My View)

This is a recent view of a 'street scene' through my eyes (and

lens). 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

This is a pedestrian walkway -- in effect an outdoor retail mall, even when it's minus 20 Centigrade, which is rarely but it happens.

 

Even those cold days these little jury-rigged storefronts are open.

 

Actually, the jury-rigged storefronts have been rebuilt and they're now actual storefronts/enclosures made of modern materials, and designed for selling things that are subject to 'impulse' purchases and subject to 'frequent' sales.

 

In this instance, it's a video (dvd) store; there are no 'video rentals' in Dnipropetrovsk, or almost anywhere in Europe for that matter; only sales.

 

But the prices are pretty low (although I cannot say for sure how low since the movies are almost all in Russian, I can't follow them well, and TV has pretty good Russian movies on them if I want to watch Russian speaking movies).

 

These stores have the latest Hollywood releases, sometimes even before the official release -- probably connected with things that show up first in Moscow on the 'black market'.

 

I am told that many such stores are owned by one or several men or companies and the men doing the 'selling' are not the 'owners' although maybe they are in some cases and for some products.

 

Because the products (DVDs, and in some other stores, software) does not seem to come with things like registration documents and they burn some on the spot from their resident computer, it appears unlikely the products are 'licensed' and 'authorized' editions -- Johnny Depp and 'Pirates of the Caribbean' may really be a true 'pirate' edition.

 

And the software may or may not work and may or may not have essential portions removed to make it fit on the media (DVDs or CDs).

 

Now, there is 'enforcement' against 'copyright enfringement' -- notably by the same local cop.

 

When he's spotted and the local merchants say he needs something 'personal' in his life, and is looking to fulfill some 'personal need', they allege he 'appears'.

 

but that would presuppose that he's corrupt and I have no knowledge of such things; my only dealings with the local cops/constabulary have been very much earned my high regard, and I don't know how the cops do their business with local citizens, so I won't slander or libel anyone.

 

After all, it's in the nature of those who are selling 'pirate' goods to libel anyone who's after them.

 

When this particular cop appears, suddenly some of the shop owners decide they're going to shutter their businesses and 'go to lunch' which lasts for however long that particular cop is spotted around.

 

And when the cop's away, the salespeople play, and the copyrights go away (I think).

 

But then what do I know?

 

I don't buy their disks.

 

They're all in Russian -- even the software -- and what American-born person can use a copy of Microsoft Word in Russian or Vista in Russian?

 

John (Crosley)

 

This image is copyright 2007, John Crosley, all rights reserved.

I feel sorry for the girl. He is obviously more interested in himself, or in the camera taking "his' picture, than he is interested in her...she ought to be able to do much better....Bert

It's only a moment; please don't read too much into it; think of a guard dog guarding his property and territory -- that's a guy's function when he has his 'possession' in his arms I think (as they see it in Ukraine).

 

Does that make you think differently?

 

Yours is an interesting 'take' on this; I hadn't thought of that.

 

I had thought that I was 'part of' this photo by being 'intrusive' at least a little.

 

Thanks for helping guide my inquiry.

 

John (Crosley)

A contrasting and intriguing composition. There are two interactions taking place in this scene. One is personal and intimate as we can appreciate in the foreground and the other one in the background seems business like and casual. The expression on the girl's face is rapturous. One can tell that she is really in love. Of all types of piracy acts, perhaps the most hurtful one is the one in which one's heart is stolen in the turbulent sea of love.

Again, Adan W., you nailed this one; I might just have to consider your critiques very seriously -- you have a great talent for spotting the 'essence' of what it is I shoot.

 

I was out shooting tonight for about an hour, mostly single shots (as practice for my guru Michel), and got about eight frames that were quite wonderful but more complicated (some of them) than this. I was shooting in 'another dimension' -- now that I have an audience (of one that I know of) that will I think appreciate that level of shooting and he maybe represents aficionados who can 'see' more than the average bear in a photograph; people who pay thousands and tens of thousands for a good one.

 

This actually is quite complex, with a foreground of large figures (close to the camera with wide angle, on a diagonal -- for strong composition -- leading to the smaller figures not far away in reality, but in photographic scale they are hills to the mountains in the foreground.

 

All in all, the depth of field is one of the main reasons I like my very wide angle lens, (which Nikon still is waiting for parts for now, and I left without it, so my max now is 17 millimeters instead of 12 on my 12~24, which had, shall we say, combat damage -- for real).

 

I like wide angle for one thing because the great depth of field renders focusing less of an issue; just stopping down a little bit means very much is in focus and sometimes everything, front to back, and when not, one can eyeball the focus by setting a focus point at or near where the subject is expected to be, but not getting it exactly, say, on an eyeball, as I frequently have to do with my 70~200 mm E.D. V.R., and I would also with my 200~400 mm E.D.V.R., if it weren't so big and heavy I can't even hold it upright in the field for more than a minute or so, let alone for 'street' shooting.

 

I saw this when reviewing photos with Michel K. and he just looked at this one, said nothing (indicating disapproval) and passed over it.

 

I said 'Wait, that's really an appealing photo' for me.

 

His answer: 'That photo won't get you exhibited in galleries', and I suppose he's right.

 

I like it nevertheless, and the more I think of it, the more I like it. I've been thinking of posting it all week.

 

I always appreciate your critiques -- they almost always are 'spot on'.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(maybe they're always 'spot on' -- I can't remember one that was 'off the mark')

 

JC

That was flattering. Thanks John. ;) In the end it all boils down to how you feel about it.

However flattering some of your critiques have been, that is less important than that they have corrrectly understood and interpreted my photos -- you see what I have seen and presented, with seemingly unerring accuracy (almost all the time).

 

It's not just about what 'one likes' but also about being 'accurate' and 'truthful' as well as skillful, which seems to be qualities you present.

 

I don't write flattering things falsely to flatter needlessly; life's too short. I write only the truth -- that way I don't have to remember lies.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

John, that comment about Michel K. passing over this picture and saying that it won't get you exhibited has been in the back of my head. If you don't mind sharing, why does he disapprove? I am not questioning his judgement, I want to understand where he is coming from. In my humble opinion I find this picture to be compelling enough.

He's very 'art' oriented, and some of my photography fits into that category, as well as the obvious strong 'street' photography. Since he's trying to choose the top 40, he has a huge job of trying to trim things down, as well as excluding some things because they just don't fit in with the rest of my work -- I just keep trying everything, and sometimes I succeed in ways that might surprise you. I'm pretty versatile, and he's amazingly perceptive in what he sees in stuff I've passed over, in part because I'm more attuned to the Photo.net fishbowl with its 'raters' and 'commenters', etc., rather than the 'fine art' market, which is where he's pointing me.

 

One of his clients, a woman photographer who exhibits alongside paintings, etc., shoots with a large format camera with non-corrected lenses, with light leaks, etc., and her work has an ethereal -- real other-worldly look that is much akin to find paintings. He appreciates that, but he can go into a family album and find a snapshots of kids playing and occasionally find a wonderful, iconic shot. He's very perceptive and amazingly 'broad' in his ability in his perceptiveness when he sees a photo that might be 'good' regardless of genre, or its provenance.

 

He's the kind of guy I dreamed of to review my work.

 

He just wants the best; and anything less than the best is not gonna be considered for the final cut -- after all I've got nearly 1,000 photos here, plus others that are good that were never posted, but from a gallery standpoint would be standouts, he tells me, and I agree -- we see eye to eye on many things.

 

But who knows, I could be selling encyclopedias door-to-door a year from now; nothing's in the bank yet, and there are no sales, yet.

 

It's not so complicated -- just the 'best of the best' and this isn't it, in his view -- hardly worth a second look for him.

 

For a 'street' portfolio or book, I'd place this in right away.

 

It's exemplary 'street' work, I think, but my work stretches far beyond 'street', in ways I didn't even know. I just point my camera at interesting stuff and hit the shutter release.

 

It surprises me the stuff he dredges out of my 2 terabytes of files I gave him (from 3.5 years of shooting.)

 

Thanks for asking.

 

John (Crosley)

I have looked again at this photo and decided this guy is selling CDs, not DVDs.

 

A simple mistake; they're both the same size.

 

However, my memory refreshed tells me he was selling music, not videos.

 

John (Crosley)

One of your best; while most of your photos reveal contrasts as a matter of course (you seem to be always looking for these...), this one goes deeper than usual, due to it's ambiguity (in the form of a half-revealed story, that is, pertaining to both pairs) and also an up-close and personal proximity to the couple in the foreground. Excellent. A cut above your usual fine work.

You got some guts... But again I am not convinced about the B&W. You seem to loose a lot of detail in the darker areas. Without the original shot it's not possible to do much but I tried to touch it up to show you what I mean. Even though the subject is in the foreground, the whole picture is very important and all the details should be preserved. Beautiful shot.

This is taken with a 12~24 at 12 mm, so you can imagine I was looking right down my nose at them.

 

You might read up on iconic street photographer Gary Winogrand who often took his Leica with a 35 or a 28 mm lens right up to the noses of unsuspecting strangers on New York City streets, took their photos, and if they realized he had actually 'invaded their space AND taken a photo, he just tipped his head or nodded or tipped his camera at them in acknowledgment after he's passed.

 

I sometimes do much the same and started doing so long before I heard of Winogrand's habit. I guess it's just the natural thing to do.

 

Winogrand often invaded others' space in space-conscious Manhattan with his wide angle lens Leica and was met with total disbelief by most New Yorkers that he'd actually come into 'their space' with his camera, let alone actually taken a photo, let alone one that attempted his quirky framing and with the subjects he was trying to get in synchrony.

 

He was a photographer 'on the move' -- I take a lot fewer photos than he, and a lot fewer of this type of photo than you'd expect, but when I do, I frame 'em pretty well, I hope.

 

Now, this began as a color capture and those are pirate DVDs in the background -- it was a huge jumble of color, and I was really looking for a photo of the couple kissing and the guy in the background plus his shop, but NOT the interior, as it was too 'busy'.

 

That's why it was so dark inside. You correctly have revived its contents -- DVDS - shelves full of them, but I deemed them too busy for the content of the photo I wanted to show.

 

You want to show a different photo, one more parochial that shows the DVDS and the lean-to kiosk full of pirate DVDs, and that places it within Eastern Europe.

 

I was looking forк something more universal - something that bespoke love and also with a certain degree of separation between the actors, together with their expressions (unconcern and looking away, engagement in kissing/hugging by the girl, and actually being 'aware' of my presence during the kissing/hugging maneuver on the part of the male actor, closest to me.)

 

I deemed that more universal, and wanted to avoid 'detail' within the background that might draw the viewers' eyes away from the central theme.

 

Yours is an artistic choice as is mine, and yours is a choice I did not make for reasons explained above, but that's why they make chocolate and vanilla (and occasionally strawberry).

 

Perhaps you just thought I had overlooked the choice or was unknowing . . . . or perhaps just assigned 'bad taste' to me.

 

And that's all right too. But sometimes it doesn't pay to presume too much when you look at a photo of mine, especially the more recent ones (this one is slightly older vintage, so I don't know what to advise you, but I usually am aware of such choices.

 

It did not help that when I started shooting digital that that there was really no good 'raw' converter though there were times when I actually shot 'raw' AND jpeg in anticipation of a good raw converter, and for some older captures, I am in the process of re-doing them from the NEFs (Nikon raw files) so that I can makeу the best presentation possible.

 

I do appreciate the thought and help that you have spent so much trouble to give on this one photo.

 

You can't possibly have known that I did make a choice to do it another way, and it was a conscious choice.

 

Perhaps after I mull over your workup in black and white, I'll decide that I like your version better. I don't always jump to conclusions - some things take mulling over, and this reply is my first impression after a very long time and lots of intervening photos (including several hundred in an hours' time tonight.)

 

My very best to you; obviously you speak from a place of considerable knowledge, and I do not dismiss your contribution.

 

John (Crosley)