Life's Not a Holiday (For This Guy)

This photo may be a ratings challenge for some; especially those who

know my work. It's entered under the 'fine art' category, rather

than 'street' and is meant to be seen first 'large' before rating,

and to be compared to works of painting rather as well as those of

photography. Your ratings and comments are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a

helpful and consructive comment; please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

The way that you framed this is superb. It is an intriguing capture and it feels like we as viewers are granted a glimpse into this person's life. The weary and sad face gently touched by the light on the side provokes empathy. The fleeting capture of the woman's hair passing by on the left side adds a touch of indifference. However, the face of the person looking on the right side (if I assume correctly for it looks like one to me) gives a more compelling feeling.

This for some reason stuck out from all my captures yesterday; the sad, harried look (distorted too by a long exposure) of the guy's face, leaving mainly his mouth as the only thing in focus).

 

It was bound to be a critical failure, but I am being urged to keep shooting what others would say 'outside the box', and although I initially was urged to discard many things, I defended myself, saying it kept me humble to see so many awful photos and at the same time, it provides a record should anyone ever decide to follow in my footsteps or if I achieve prominence -- there is a record of most of my shots -- nearly all, so one can accurately determine the success rate (clearly out of focus shots almost always are deleted.)

 

I renumber everything in Photoshop Elements 5.0 downloader, so the case of camera numbering is wiped out, but I have all or almost all of my downloads for four years, and one can judge the ratio of good to bad and trace my development as a photographer -- it may be a happy lesson, and it also shows that to take a good 'street' photograph, one must be prepared for many failures - kind of like the game of golf, which is a series of small failures finally leading up to the culimination of getting the 'damn ball in the cup', but only after many strokes.

 

I am lowering my handicap and successively taking on more difficult courses with my work; even consciously adopting a 'street' style about a year ago, with less emphasis on telephoto and close-up and even tightly-cropped shots and more emphasis on wide angle and a 'story'.

 

You can see its success in my 'B&W From Then to Now' folder with the last 50 or so postings' which have been well received and do show a style of their own which likewise has been very well received.

 

Before that I was not desaturating my work, preferring to post much more in color and people thought of me as a color photographer; fact is I can shoot in both formats: color and B&W, and the choice of either is the subject matter and whether color adds or detracts from a scene's depiction.

 

In many cases, a capture works well both as color and as B&W, but not this one, in which it naturally was almost desaturated -- scarcely a trace of color except reddishness of the poster guy.

 

One can successfully adopt and take a style, I think I have shown -- as I had analyzed what made my early photography successful (mostly shot with fixed focal length -- prime -- lenses because decent zooms didn't then exist).

 

So, I have been able to recreate the earlier 'style' which was necessitated in part by inability to zoom in close and at the same time keep all my other styles and keep shooting in many genres; I don't post everything, and you have seen I can also take a scenic or a portrait, and my nude work is simply never gonna be posted as it detracts from the rest of my work.

 

Michel has me pointed to the 'fine art' market, and this is the sort of shot he might pick out from my captures as 'having something' whether or not he'd pick it is another matter.

 

I have to learn to do things myself anyway, but also to adopt and adapt to his sensibility as it's highly refined and geared for the aficionados of 'fine art' photography, many traces of which he sees in my captures which I might have deleted or which I didn't feel good about posting because of technical defects.

 

My supporter, Dennis Aubrey, has faulted me for oversharpening, etc., and at the other end, my other supporter, Michel K. has encouraged me to submit images that are far from the best because they embody a 'great picture' regardless of technical faults.

 

I like that sensibility, although he and I have not discussed sharpening; I feel that I will have to relent on sharpening some photos and therefore losing them to display as Dennis Aubrey has suggested, and at other times, the sharpening has 'made' an otherwise not acceptable photo acceptable -- sometimes in ways that cannot easily be detected, as where it's selective.

 

This capture was entirely untouched -- just desaturated and not even working the color sliders -- just hit the 'monochrome' box, and see that there was nothing for working the 'color sliders' to accomplish.

 

This is an interesting exercise; trying to post shots like this in which Photo.net is not seen by me as prepared to stomach.

 

One wonders whether the constantly changing rating system can ever accept postings such as this, but if I wanted a 6+ rating average, I just would have to delete some substantial number of my photos, then leave the many high-rated ones, and people would take me for a much better photographer -- when it's only the result of good photo editing.

 

I have enough good work to fill not only a book, but also books with themes (portraits, street shots, life in Ukraine . . . . and various other places and themes). That's the result of prolific shooting.

 

Why shoot so prolifically?

 

Early on in my shooting, I sold work to the NY Times and Time-Life World Syndications and later worked with two stock houses.

 

One house sold almost nothing; they were celebrity oriented; the other sold only color for astoundingly high prices and people who wanted color came to them.

 

The result of working with the second (color) agency was that they had a list of common themes they wanted all their photographers to be aware of when submitting work, and it was many things I wouldn't normally shoot (traffic scenes, plastic on fields, farm equipment of certain brand(s), etc.,) but when those 'stock' and 'throwaway' photos sold, they brought in big bucks (not many sales overall, but for large money at the time. One of those photos was in a mural in the World Trade Center, I think, when one tower went down (L.A. Traffic)

 

It sold for over $1,000 in 1973. That then was a huge sum for any photo. I never begrudged that agency its 50% cut.

 

Never.

 

The other agency charged 40% but 40% of nothing is nothing, while 50% of a lot more sales meant lots more money in my pocket and a happy second income -- not reliable or significant since I became a very high earner, but satisfying to see the periodic checks, with notations like 'woman on steps, barrio, color, Spanish Encyclopedia, your 50% share $500.' and nary a tear sheet or anything like that lest you try to undercut the agency and sell directly to the publisher.

 

So, I learned early on to shoot not only what was my 'genre' but to shoot anything that might remotely be salable or at least develop my skills along more than narrow lines.

 

It has paid off in a huge body of work in just less than 4 years since I took up photography again, and some of it is quite stunning and never posted, but which Michel has gleaned from my captures.

 

Not so many of those, but the ones he has found I would have missed entirely and they are among the best (I can have a narrow view of my captures from time to time, and it's partly driven by posting to a narrow audience on Photo.net).

 

So, that's how this posting came about, and why there may (or may not) be mote like it.

 

I was encouraged long ago by member 'Pogue Mahoney' (pseudonym for Andy Eulass of Chicago, then), to preserve and disseminate my work beyond the Photo.net 'fishbowl', and he had impeccable taste (and skills).

 

I tried to correspond with him, but e-mails went unanswered, sorry to say.

 

(He had job turmoil and personal challenges if a Google.com search is any indicator and had to move from a street shooter's paradise -- Chicago, to Springfield, Ill., which is hardly my idea of a place to shoot 'street'. It must have saddened him.)

 

He had some wonderful stuff, much of which he took down before I could glimpse more than just a little, and he came back, posted a little (wonderful stuff), then disappeared, apparently for good.

 

If you find any current reference to him, please let me know, especially if it's more than just black guys on the street, which was a favorite subject, but not his real best work.

 

So, that's it, soup to nuts.

 

Thanks for stopping by.

 

Some day you'll have someone watching your work, just as I watch your the origression of your abilities as a photo critic with some wonder.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing the above comments John. I feel privileged to correspond with you.

 

When I came to photonet I was doubtful of my abilities as a photographer but decided to give it a try to see what others thought of my work since I did not have anything to loose.

 

I had a discouraging beginning partly because of the lack of comments but also due to the 3's. I thought about leaving for good but there was this little voice inside telling me to stick around and be patient. As time passed I had the chance to get to know some really wonderful people (you are one of them) whose work I truly admire and were kind enough to offer me tips and encouragement. An unexpected bonus was the friendship that I have developed with a few. I still have a long way to go, but these days I don't listen too much to my worst critic (myself). Things I would not have noticed before I pay attention to now. Somehow when you study another person's work it has a way to influence you, whether consciously or subconsciously.

 

I want to publish a photo book one of these days. Whether it sells or not is irrelevant. It's in my list of "to do things before I die" and I want to leave a little legacy for posterity. I want to look at that book and smile. If I get that same joyful reaction from another person then that is all that matters.

 

 

John,

This image fascinates and disturbs me. It is reminiscent of the film "Jacob's Ladder". I enjoy your commentary as much or more than your photos; they are both instructive and very interesting. Thanks a bunch.

The Internet Movie DataBase (IMDB) uses these categories for 'Jacob's Ladder' which is about a Viet Nam war veteran and his experiences with 'reality': Surrealism / Kafka Esque / Disturbing / Psychological

 

I think that is exactly the sort of effect I was aiming at when I sorted this from my captures (and frankly even when I took it, although the precise effect was the result of a long shutter speed, his movement, but his mouth staying roughly in the same place, but slightly moving ly now that I have a mentor who is highly skilled in photo history, gallery reproduction and knows the still photography 'fine art' market.

 

He has not given me any judgment on this photo, but the exercise is about teaching me to make my own decisions, and as well as why he makes certain choices he guesses will appeal to the 'fine art' market.

 

I am glad this resonated with you -- but at the same time, it was meant just a little to disturb and to show this man's disturbed life (if indeed that is true) not everything, is the actual 'truth' behind the image.)

 

I am pleased to receive your comment/it is refreshing and shows a connection I hoped to make.

 

I am also glad that my commentaries are helpful and enjoyable to you; some have been critics, and I am certain that some thing I'm overly verbose (I may be), but the purpose is to communicate -- to help others avoid choices I've made that I regret, and to convey my successes and the reasons therefore.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

 

I applaud your vernacular verbosity , I have learned much since arriving at PN by reading your thoughts and studying your photographs. I do not shoot street myself and out here in the woods there are precious few streets to shoot, even if I chose to, as such I have never felt qualified to comment on your body of work.

The above photo has left me feeling compelled to comment. One reason being that I have invested quite a bit of my photographic energy over the last year or so into attempts to hone techniques in order to be able to use motion during exposure to develop a style and a means of communicating emotion, and thus I do feel a bit qualified to comment.

 

The shear brilliance of what you have accomplished here leaves me slack jawed in amazement. Wedged between the descending lines created by the OOF and motion blurred crowd on the side walk lies a single expression, encapsulating such despair and exhaustion. Everything within the frame has been reduced to its essence leaving little more than lines and tones running through. To me this reflects the nameless, formless nature of the crowd and the indifferent world that jostles yet does not stop to ponder. The look alone on that man's face could fill volumes. Thanks for posting this and thanks for your huge investment of time into this site, I for one continue to gain much from your efforts and your amazing photography.

 

BTW have you ever seen the work of Edmund Leveckis ? If not I would highly recommend taking a look at his work, he does truly amazing street photography using slow shutter and motion blur.

 

 

Who knows who's watching these comments? Apparently quite a few judging from the feedback I get. (I have detractors too, but I think they are in a small minority.)

 

I was extremely insecure with myself relating to photography when I came to this site; afraid everything was being closely policed and afraid somehow I might offend someone (people griped a lot then), get someone upset orbreak aor unknowingly break a rule and maybe get banned for a while or kicked off, so I just shut up and watched.

 

But I also learned that no one shared their techniques . . . their secrets. . . the way they did things.

 

An amazing commercial photographer, of cars, I think, who posted them. finally posted a photo of his studio but it was about 3 pixels x 4 pixels because he really didn't want anyone to see his lighting arrangement, brand names and size lights. It was all really a secret and the photo was a 'tease'.

 

He really could do magic with his equipment or any equipment; he was a master of lighting, but he felt he had to hide his equipment: It was sad to me, and I judged that I would just talk about and write about what it is I do, and if people got too upset they could go to another persons' work on this site . . . and if no one bothered to engage me in colloquy, that would have been a sure indicator I was writing the pixel equivalent of hot air, which I do anyway sometimes.

 

I don't shoot street all the time; my shower floor is wet, and a beautiful 18-year-old model just left -- Shower photos were taken 'for her boyfriend' gratis . . . and I learned something about 'high-key shooting' in a bath at 1/3 second shutter speeds at 100 iso and how wonderful it can make things look.

 

In turn, her boyfriend is gonna get a big shock one of these days, because one of those wonderful shots (elongating her lanky but curvy frame taken from down low) is gonna be blown up way big and presented to him to ensure he doesn't stray too far (he'll want it for his bedroom wall, I'm sure.)

 

(she comes back tomorrow and we'll finish up)

 

I just don't post my other work generally, though one or two things of other genres will show up here; in fact I shoot everything that interests me and that might make a likely photograph. If in doubt, shoot it, and learn from mistakes.

 

And I do video as well; but that's never gonna be used until I get my technique down perfectly and then we'll see.

 

I shoot landscapes, but there is just one good one on this service, and another on another service (and the other one is better -- nearly same scene).

 

What draws me to street is that it is ever-changing; one has to have good reflexes and a sharp mind to shoot street. It makes studio shooting look like a cake walk; one wonders why it takes a studio shooter minutes or more to pose one shot, when I can do so in seconds, and take a hundred shots in a half hour with time left to spare and have many good ones from that bunch, though not all will be perfect, as I'm still learning, and I like my models to 'move' which is antithetical to the idea of slow shutter speeds that generally go with nude shooting.

 

I have learned to work within my limitations as a photographer; I'm not a wonderfully imaginative guy in the studio and would make a horrible painter (besides the fact I can't visualize things that I don't see).

 

But I do see, and when I look through a viewfinder, I see a whole new world.

 

I saw his guy and was on a street car and said 'what the hey . . . ' It was sunny outside, but the day was ending so it was getting darker, and he was moving slowly trying to climb on the streetcar, while I was inside in the middle of the aisle in front of people (street photographers can't worry about shameful feelings or being conspicuous -- I justify it by saying to myself that sometimes I create 'art' with my photographs, so if I look like a jerk, so be it), sometimes blocking, but trying to squeeze my shots though the limbs and bodies of the crowd at this old guy's face . . . and because of dim light in the streetcar, his mouth got elongated as he moved his head, blinked his eyes, and turned his head in such a way that his mouth actually moved as my camera caught portions of the mouth in movement and it was in such a way that it tended to elongate the mouth's look and his frown.

 

A lucky accident?

 

Maybe.

 

But why was I shooting this guy when I never did such before and may not do again?

 

The idea is that I wanted a photo 'like this' even if I couldn't visualize this exact, wonderful look.

 

So, part accident and part studied accident . . . with an idea that was previsualized, although only for short moments before the shot. (I had to see the guy getting on board to form an idea of what I wanted to do with him, since he was mostly blocked from my view.)

 

That's the nature of street shooting.

 

Of course, there are rodeos/county fares, parades, quilting bees, and so on; the stuff of rural life and I bet I could go into the country on a weekend day in the summer or fall or go to a vets center, or some such and get great 'street' photos right in the middle of Bixby, Arizona or Sioux Falls, Iowa . . . or even smaller places -- I'd just go down to the local grain elevator come harvest time, or go out with the harvest or the planting or the plowing . . . is the way I see it.

 

Street is a concept of shooting; not something that only can be accomplished in big cities, and it involves catching people within their surroundings and overlaps with documentary a lot.

 

I moved part time to a big city in Ukraine because life is gritty; but ordinary people are 'on the street' not just bums, (though it has its share of bums, too).

 

I'm forever searching for new ways to shoot things -- to stretch myself and build on my previous understandings of things; I'm only a very early learner although at a more advanced age.

 

(My girlfriend argues that I am not as old as I am; she mockingly calls me grandpa, since I'm old enough to be hers, but if I stay away, the SMS messages and e-mails start filling the airways and Internet cables . . . begging me to come back . . . I never say my exact age here (though she knows to the hour, but it ain't young, but people hereabouts never guess it; although some men in the US can get it right.

 

I have one silver hair (not too many other hairs, but some to cover) on the top of my head and rest is blond/brown (dishwater blond) except a little gray at the temples. I had a friend, 34, who was grayer than I.

 

I guess old age also is partly a 'state of mind'. The guy in my Photo of the Week the other week, probably is younger than I, but I think of him as a much older man. . . . ('The Progression of Age'--the bearded guy). I saw him the other day and am looking for him again to get a release for that photo.

 

I am delighted that others are learning along as I teach myself.

 

But I am not the only one teaching me; my many, many critics, through their critiques, are also teaching me; this is my main source so far of photographic education - and I dutifully try to respond to all who attempt to help (I don't take every suggestion, of course . . .I can think for myself. . . but I am greatly in debt to those who have contributed . . . they have helped advance my art -- or work or whatever it is -- far faster than if just left to my own devices without feedback).

 

That is the wonder of this site -- the feedback. Photographers who don't acknowledge critiques (one ignored a helpful suggestion I left on his page under a great photo a half year ago to this day, and I wonder if he ever read it . . . do you think I'll leave another? Why bother?)

 

This is a great community, even if virtual, and your comment (and this reply) illustrates that.

 

I was chary of posting this photo, but it was time.

 

I didn't care of it got 20 3/3s. I made a decision to post it and it was going to stay as far as I was concerned.

 

I figured some would figure it out, or maybe they'd just guess I'm 'out to lunch'.

 

I am not afraid to post and keep posted any failures I take . . . and i keep all my failed shots too, archived to keep me honest and keep my hat size down to a reasonable level.

 

I take a lot of crap, but occasionally a good one slips through, and former photo editor that I am, I try to make that the one you guys will see.

 

(I was a news photo editor in 1971-72 or so for AP in NYC world headquarters, sending wirephotos all around the world -- as principal gatekeeper/not some artsy-fartsy illustration magnate for some fancy shooting match like Vogue etc.)

 

For a while after I resumed takiing photos a few years ago after nearly 35 years of not doing so, I wondered if I would ever see my 'street' style back.

 

But laer I realized it was a result of fixed (not zoom) focal length lens, and to remedy the lack of such equipment in this day of zoom lenses, I drew back and composed whole scenes; I just did that with my zoom lenses and voila -- my 'street' style was back, and more complex than before.

 

I have the best of both worlds. I can shoot street scenes with wide angle to normal, and shoot portraits the next second from 40 feet away to catch people's expressions unawares.

 

I've developed so many ways to shoot without getting in a jackpot with my subjects, that I often want to share them; otherwise these tricks and devices die with me . . . (not soon I hope).

 

Why not contribute something; but it takes elaborate skill sets to be able to shoot street capably, and I'm still working on it; hopefully some day I'll get somewhere nearly Mr. McEachern of this service who is a marvelous 'street' shooter but is not a prolific poster.

 

I am prolific, if anything, because I am curious about everything as all get out.

 

That's the 'energy' you see in what I write and in my photos.

 

That curiosity.

 

(It may have killed the cat, but so far it has helped change my life for the better; maybe it will do me in some day.)

 

 

Thanks for the careful and highly interesting response. A few quick thoughts in reply. We all have our detractors, such is life, I figure if you are pleasing everyone you must be doing something wrong. Goodness knows when I had my POW I got more than a couple of " so what, just a pretty picture " remarks. You seemed to fair better than I in that respect.

Due to the nature of my photography, or at least what I tend to post around here, I do get quite a number of pointed and direct questions regarding my technique. I have answered every single one of them in great detail, sharing whatever little I have managed to glean from my experimenting. So far a good number of people have gone out and made efforts to apply what I have conveyed and in most cases they enjoy the foray and then return to their usual style. I like to think they take a bit of what I shared along with them. Nothing about what we are doing here is proprietary and treating it as such would be in my view arrogant and foolish.

 

I agree 100% that the greatest benefit of this site is the feed back. I always acknowledge a comment received and try to find a bit of time during the ensuing days to drop by that members portfolio and poke around. I weigh all opinions even if I disagree strongly with them at times. Although I never set out to do so I have in fact manage to raise the ire of a few people around here so I do try to measure my opinions and responses more carefully as time goes by.

I do know what you mean about comments going without response. There are a few members here whose work I greatly admire and I have left comments on many of their uploads, while either rarely or in some cases never receiving any response. Initially I felt that they must consider my thoughts on their work unworthy of response and I still wonder if this is the reason for silence. Silence being , in most cases , less than informative , I will probably never know.

 

As for the 3/3s , a wiser person than I, left a comment on one of my images suggesting they should be taken as meaning " not easily digested ". Believing there to be truth in that statement, I now look upon them as a bit of a badge of distinction, after all -- ' who wants to be easily digested ? '

 

I too took a several decade hiatus from photography and it is only in the last couple of years that I am back at it. In an effort I suppose to make up for lost time I am madly experimenting and shooting away on a daily basis.

 

John; it has been a pleasure to cross paths with you and I will continue to drop by, as it is always a joy to do so. BTW I did rate this shot despite the fact that I seldom get around to doing so. I have to date left twice as many comments as ratings since I believe the former to be much more important. Thanks for the reply and do look up Edmund's work if you get a chance, I would love to know what you think of it.

You have written so well, and with so much that I agree with, I see little point in replying point by point.

 

However, I do note that for the few detractors I have, they have been far outnumbered by people like you and all the numerous positive comments I have received by commenting extensively and also replying extensively to those who comment.

 

If someone doesn't understand why I do it, or disagrees with my prolix ways, they should know that I am a skillful communicator, and often have complex ideas.

 

Also, I learned when I was a writer for Associated Press, to write first for the 'Kansas City milkman' (though he/she no exists). In other words, write legibly for an audience and write in a way that presumes little education on the part of the audience. Those who have greater knowledge can skim until they get to a new thought, but the newer readers are led through the writing in a way they can understand -- that makes a style like that particularly important for neophytes who rely on such things to help their comprehension of a foreign subject or foreign areas of a familiar subject - in this case, photography.

 

Some of them may see their photography as 'so far superior' to mine that they disrespect the photography; but I do not know directly. Others have objection to my 'street' methods, or what they presume to be my 'street' methods, since none has ever seen me work, or seen how many friends I can make some days when I'm shooting.

 

I share my work often with those I photograph, but it all depends both on my mood and the subjects I am photographing; no one wants to show an unflattering shot to someone only to have them be offended -- and possibly angry.

 

For the most part, my photography has opened up doors. Airline personnel often look up my photos and I get better seating (not so with United/Lufthansa, as they have no Internet access, or simply could not care, but I'm a premium flyer with them anyway, so I get lounge access -- which I don't use so I can photograph on concourses, etc.)

 

The numerous little perks, which include cameras as an 'ice breaker' almost anywhere in the world, as well as deferential treatment (at times - and at times people who 'run' when they see photo equipment), all make for a better life for me. I met my current girlfriend because she was modeling for me; she simply hung around, found excuses to hang around more, and eventually we decided we were very strong for each other and filled needs with each other.

 

I practiced law with similar enthusiasm, but in that profession, nearly everyone is against you. I was a litigator, and by definition, everyone (almost) is opposed, and there came a new generation of clients who also became hostile to attorneys; law had to be practiced always 'looking behind your back' for the potential disgruntled client. I interviewed thousands -- maybe tens of thousands of people -- and often when asked for my opinion on attorney malpractice and dealing with the client, I could see almost precisely why an attorney did certain things that clients disliked, and often the clients were at the heart of their own losses through their behavior, personalities, etc., and they were oblivious to the fact they might have been the cause of their own losses and sometimes would go from lawyer to lawyer trying to play 'pin the tail on the donkey' by getting someone who would take a a meritless malpractice case and try to harm their initial attorney. (Not so skillfully written, but I hope you get the idea.)

 

Fortunately I was barely recipient of such problems, but the practice changed over the nearly two decades I practiced, so that one now has to document everything and was less free to pursue idiosyncratic procedures, for fear that if they failed, instead of being judged as possibly inspirational thinking, they would be seen as 'falling below the standard of care' of attorneys -- in short, attorney negligence, another word for malpractice. This promotes 'form book' practice and discourages innovative thinking and working that might be very beneficial to a client.

 

My malpractice carrier never paid anyone anything even during the 20 years following my leaving the profession, and it now has disappeared into bankruptcy, but the collegial aspect of practicing law was broken . . . and opposing counsel institutionalized (for all opposing attorneys) their 'personal hostility', as opposed to their professional duty to oppose when litigating opposing viewpoints.

 

Gone went the days when two attorneys could wrangle all day in Court or in correspondence, then go out for a drink together.

 

In photography, there is very little of that that I experience, and the consequences of that are fairly small anyway. And even if I have (very few) detractors, maybe they are simply wrong, or they have their entitlement to a different viewpoint.

 

I expose my photos ro critique and all critiques are studied with enthuiasm so long as they are not personal.

 

I have gained much profound knowledge through this process on Photo.net, and couldn't exchange it for anything; not even a course at a famous photography school.

 

Through this membership here I have learned what appeals to certain 'audience' segments and what does not.

 

Now I have a private mentor from the fine arts market who is showing me what the PN audience cannot; what appeals to the art collector and buyer (so far as he can tell) from 2 terabytes of photos I have given him, most all taken in the last 3.5 years -- a huge job.

 

And it's working out; one man -- a fine art expert -- now has greater influence on me than the entire audience on Photo.net, since I now in my mind have institutionalized the audience here, and in many cases can predict what reaction one or another photo will get, though occasionally I am disappointed, and sometimes a lesser work will get acclaim (for reasons that might escape me).

 

All in all, the ratings system works pretty well, despite any disharmony caused by a few ill-intentioned members or those who are simply ignorant -- it's built into the system that the new membership without any qualification has a full vote and rate and that's OK with me.

 

All this keeps my photography honest; there is no way to 'rig' the rates, and since I almost never rate except to get a photo into my 'highest rated' list, there is no question ever of mate rating.

 

Gordon, I know our paths will cross in the future some day, and I will look forward to that day.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

no. It doesn't work as the other ones. Don't know, maybe too much darkness.

 

Luca

My mentor took a pass on this one too.

 

But at least I took a chance.

 

How many other PN vets would have hung this one away, as too far out to even request a rating for?)

 

It will stay posted; I kind of like it.

 

Thanks for your view; it is appreciated.

 

It is a 'dark' photo.

 

There are great artists who took 'dark' photos.

 

Maybe in your book I'm not one of them, or maybe that's your hurdle because you saw me in one light, and I suddenly veered another direction . . . (purely rhetorical of course).

 

John (Crosley)