To Bee or Not to Bee

'To Bee or Not to Bee' is the question for this movie theater

attendant, with latest movie promotions behind and beside him. 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

After four ratings -- two of them 3/3s -- PN raters are giving this a drubbing.

 

However, after first posting this in a 'minor' and 'temporary' folder, I have moved this to my best and most viewed folder, where it is today.

 

Reason: I like it very much -- in fact, I 'love' it.

 

I'd take a hundred more of this caliber if I could, but I'm afraid my talents either are not up to it, or I cannot always see as clearly as I saw when I took this photo and recognize what I recognized here.

 

I had this 'scoped out' when I entered the theater, but the guy was in the wrong position, then he move away completely, to a nearby bar where he stood for a very long time, so I gave up and forgot about the photo.

 

Only on exit did I see he had moved here, just where I had hoped he would.

 

I think the two 3/3s are from raters who didn't understand what the photo depicted -- caused by rating in thumbnail views and without reflection or understanding that a photo other than an oversaturated sunset also can be good, even if this is in a different genre altogether.

 

(I take oversaturated sunsets too, and have few to post if ratings get too low . . . and I start to care about them.)

 

Misunderstood and thus poorly rated photos are part of the ratings game/some of my photos have gotten outrageously high rates (and I've groused about that too), for reasons I didn't quite understand; I'm not in love with some of my highest-rated photos.

 

But this one I'm 'in love with'.

 

And for 'originality' for anyone who understands what this photo depicts -- I am sure there is nothing like this in existence.

 

Period.

 

But raters certainly are entitled to their opinions -- I benefit outrageously when they are high and don't jubilate too much, so if they're low, and I think wrongly so, I'm not gonna get my underwear in a bunch.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

 

This image is copyright 2007, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved

I love it too. The way his shirt blends in with the background it looks like his head is another one of the bees. Made me laugh when I saw it. Great composition!

John, your comment above is classic. This is a fun and lovable shot. Clever title. We don't know what he is looking at but cropped this way his expression seems to be pondering upon the question that is your title.

My first thought was exactly the same as Ian's. He looks like he could be one of the bees, thus your title. No doubt that was the intened effect by your high contrast black and white use. Not only did you luck out by him standing in the right place, but you even got him to look the right direction. Your patience paid off. I love it...

I hardly thought this photo would get such low ratings; I love it too, and I'm glad you like it very much.

 

It's a little dark and esoteric for most photo.net viewers and raters -- one has to ponder it a bit before understanding it -- hence my explanation above, to attempt to ameliorate things. I think it helped, actually.

 

Thanks for weighing in. The averages are now in the 4s. Hoorah!

 

John (Crosley)

I could have left this uncropped with more movie theater parts showing from left and right, but it detracted in my view.

 

Or I could have posted in color which would have revealed the bees for being 'bees' much easier, but the movie has been exceedingly well publicized. (People get huge salaries for dreaming up 'bee' cutouts to send to Ukraine . . . imagine that)

 

But I went for the most surreal rendering of this -- just one of blackness and repetition of form, so it's probably harder to rate, at least initially, but just a better composition. I did have a chance to show more reflection of lights off the rear surface and that might have given a better clue, but I suppressed highlights.

 

There were lots of artistic choices here, and I don't know that I made the right one each time; I'll talk with Michel about that (if he considers it worthy even of talking about).

 

And yet, there was 'no manipulation' other than brightness and contrast -- yes (pravda--the truth).

 

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it; I certainly did.

 

John (Crosley)

When I entered the theater complex, the first thing that I saw was this guy but he was standing left, then almost immediately (before I could set my camera), he left for the nearby bar and stayed there, talking for seeming eternity.

 

I left to photograph elsewhere in the lobby, very discretely.

 

When I left, I stood in the same place I had before, turne4d in his direction, and voila -- there he was -- standing in EXACTLY the spot I wished him to be.

 

It was partly 'patience' but even more -- having preplanned the shot.

 

If anybody had been watching me take this photo, they would have said it took seconds only (not knowing I had previsualized exactly this shot, and had set my camera controls while around my neck and hanging down, so as not to tip him off.)

 

(Shopping centers and their businesses have very little tolerance for 'street' shooters and will promptly ask one (and one's camera(s) to leave or at least refrain from shooting, and they remember who you are from this time to the next . . . pity.)

 

I'm glad you 'got' this one.

 

Too bad the initial raters didn't.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

Step back from your computer screen, or look at this again in thumbnail, then compare the shapes of the bee figures, to the shape of the white portions of this guy's head, including his ears, which are analogous to the wings of the 'bee figures'.

 

It's not entirely obvious unless one studies this photo, I think; it's one of the reasons I instinctively like this photo.

 

John (Crosley)

John, it was entirely obvious to me and should be to anyone with eyes who spends more than two seconds looking at this picture. I'm not saying that this is too simple, but saying it is very well executed. That's what made this so unique and enjoyable to look at. That's what I meant by my earlier comment about how you got him not only in the best location, but facing in the right direction. This effect would be entirely less apparent with a lower contrast and completely lost with color. Your moment of capture was precise, and the effects applied made the story whole. Still fun to look at. Probably one of my favorite photos of yours next to "I'd Rather be in the Crowd." So I'll take a second look (actually fifth or sixth look), and probably more in the future. Take Care...

I think you overestimate -- at least you over-estimate me; I didn't see the exactly resemblance and the reason therefore -- especially the ears 'mirroring' the wings of the bee figures -- until just before I wrote my last comment. The fact is most viewers and raters scarecely look at a photo for more than a moment or so and get a general view.

 

I think there are subtleties to this photo that are far less apparent than you (with your superior ability to see) may understand. In fact, it got some low scores, I think, simply because it was 'black on a background of black' and people didn't take the time to figure out what the figures on the wall were, despite a caption that pointed the way.

 

I was not able to get close enough with my limited zoom (17~55 mm) to crop at the edges like I wanted, or to move closer without having him move and destroy a great scene, so I did crop in editing at right and left.

 

And I did convert from color, but that also made the scene more abstract and less 'street' than it might have been. With the crop and in color, it might be considered quite a different photo, as one of the panels of the 'blackness' in the background was reflecting a blue/purple light, which here appears as black, and there was 'color' from the reflections of the spots, overhead, on the panels.

 

I am certainly unhappy that I didn't have more time for autofocus to 'latch onto' the guy's face, or just to manipulate it better; although it may also be a result of high ISO and camera movement; I can't tell. I did sharpen the guy's face a little more than the rest of the photo to bring out his features, but I hope not distractingly. Without it, it might not have been a photo at all, and I also enhanced contrast a little more on his face (that's actually what sharpening does, isn't it?)

 

In any case, it might have been a better photo, and has technical issues (computer-speak for 'problems'), but still, I like it more and more the more I look at it.

 

I'm glad you like it very much; it seems that people have their own tastes, and some like one photo and some like another, and sometimes those tastes all intersect at one photo like my 'Anti-War Then' photo which has been my most viewed and one of the most reproduced -- an 'icon' of a generation, I guess.

 

If I had to show how 'reality' dissolves or devolves into the 'abstract' well, this is one of my photos I'd choose.

 

That, plus the subject of 'mirroring' or 'repetition', with the white parts of his face, (in fact even his black and white clothes) mirroring the yellow and white (black and white here) getup of the bee cartoon figures.

 

Although it might have been more successful if I had more than a second (literally) to squeeze it off and not get thrown out, I feel I did as good a job as I could do and still make something presentable.

 

I am very happy to receive your reflections; I think you are more perspicacious than many other viewers, and for that you can give yourself a pat on the back.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

I like it. It's has many good elements of design and abstraction, but details along the edge of the frame are distracting and take away from the power of the whole photo.

This a great workup of my photo.

 

I was aware of the possibility of further processing this photo and rejected it, because I wanted to show it as partial abstraction and also within the concept of 'street' -- and so I left the 'street' element in by keeping in seemingly 'distrating' portions. It's a personal idiosyncracy.

 

It does look like you Photoshopped out a portion of a decal below the rightmost bee; using the clone tool or some such, and that is something I just don't do. It is a point of personal integrity in all but the worst of my shots, not to clone out things that might be somewhat distracting. If it is horribly distracting, I just might select and desaturate and also change the contrast so that that part loses ability to be seen.

 

If I were exhibiting this one, I would have to discuss with a printer and gallery owner what was most desirable -- your version, or mine, and see.

 

You have made a fine contribution to my understanding of this photo and how it might be presented.

 

Thank you for the flattery of having gone to so much work.

 

John (Crosley)