The Passerby

This 'passerby' was walking in 'The Mean Streets' of South Central

Los Angeles recently. 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

The lighting 'color' should give a clue; this photo was taken at the end of the day in waning daylight and hence the 'color temperature' of ambient light was quite 'low' in Kelvin degrees.

 

Rather than 'correct' the color temperature, this photo was left untouched, with perhaps a little contrast adjustment and darkening to bring out the detail in the 'wall' which I found interesting to the composition.

 

John (Crosley)

The light and colors are the first things I noticed when I looked at this. The crumbling spot on the left showing the bricks hints at a profile of a face following this woman. Interesting use of horizontal and vertical lines to "frame" the subject, sort of like aligning a shooting target. It's too bad that she caught you and looked your way.

It was interesting tonight; I had a beautiful model (beginning) over tonight, and she was unaware of how much work it is to pose and literally has no idea of how to reveal herself or just look like someone who is not pretty blah, so my task is to make her shine, but in a studio context (I have hot lights, strobes and seamless background in my flat).

 

I find it quite more difficult to frame a subject with a seamless backdrop and studio lights -- even to get the color temperature correct, than to shoot 'natural light' which is what I have used for the most part of my career.

 

Plus, shooting with a black backdrop (she is platinum blonde so a black backdrop is called for, at least at first) is somewhat difficult, even with exposure problems, even if there is 'auto exposure' or even with manual metering and manual settings; I just couldn't seem to get it right even with digital readout and the finest of cameras. It may just be the 'hot lights' I'm using which are 'tuned' for video.

 

A month ago, the sun didn't set at 4:00 p.m. and get very dark at 3:00 p.m., because it has been dark cloudy these days (not always but often). She can't get off until evening, so a studio setting is required.

 

I so much more like natural lighting -- I'd probably be a flop as a cinematographer dealing with artificial lighting, unless I worked at it for years. It's just so different.

 

But I am used to working with strobes or hot lights plus room light -- but tonight I just couldn't seem to get it right, and it may be partly the model -- she has a shiny (hot) face and her powder didn't seem to work out properly in suppressing (hot) highlights.

 

But when I do get it right, I think we'll do stunning photos together, it's just that I have to 'think' about it more than in taking a shot such as the above.

 

I take lots of street shots, but a good enough percentage of them are really good enough to stand alone, and the above is an interesting shot, especially with the framing, which I purposely chose, and then I lowered the brightness a little to bring out the textures behind her (and intensify the colors -- I almost never use the 'saturate' command for that, I just lower the brightness a little and usually if the color is there, it comes out -- I'm not a ultrasaturate kind of guy).

 

The model is nice - she gained a few pounds since I saw her in the summer and we agreed to work together, so now she's agreed to lose 3 or 4 kilos and look absolutely terrific; she has to think if she'll do nude work, as she would be a killer Playmate, - prototypical I think.

 

I think she'd be ideal for a European Playboy edition (she does NOT look American - she's Russian, she says and she has the small Russian mouth, but the larger Ukrainian nose -- and denies any Ukrainian lineage -- I think somebody isn't telling her the truth, as I know my 'subracial' characteristics in this area and accurately to 85% can tell someone where their parentage is from (female models only) -- Ukrainian, Russian or mixed, and I guess she's at least mixed even if she denied Ukrainian blood.

 

There is such a difference working 'street' which some people don't seem to be able to manage, and 'studio' where I am setting it up the first time (in a while).

 

I use the studios of others from time to time, and everything already is set for optimum shooting, plus I was using 'hot' lights, instead of my wonderful portable strobes, and that may have made a difference.

 

I have so much admiration for those who do good studio work and am working on it; in a year or five I may actually be good at it. (I do video work, and that uses 'hot' lights, but because it's 'live' and things are moving, etc., I have little problem with that; I can 'see' what I want in the action and frame on that; in fact there' not so much difference between 'street' shooting and impromptu video work.

 

Maybe I just need the action -- somebody moving and changing poses, etc., just as people walk on the street, to 'catch my imagination' and make things work, and this model doesn't move well now.

 

In fact, when I have had 'animated' models, I can take great photos of them; and it may be in part because then I can 'catch' the part I want to 'catch' because I can't see it in the abstract or bring it out until the woman reveals it (John Peri, I read your biography about a woman 'revealing' herself, and it's tantalizing).

 

I vastly prefer shooting portraits, figure, etc., in natural or natural plus strobe or 'hot' lights, rather than just studio lights. Maybe pure studio is something I should leave for Igor Amelkovich, but then again, my model hasn't decided whether she'll do 'nude' work or not, and I think that's a minimum requirement for Amelkovich's models -- to do work 'nude'.

 

Whether or not this photo above is better or worse because the woman turned her face, I am not sure. Probably if she were not looking directly at the photoghrapher, but one could see her face looking at a friend (or enemy) across the street, it would have been better.

 

I posted this because of its 'design' and because of the pretty saturated and interesting colors, rather than or despite her 'look' in my direction.

 

I post all sorts of things and learn from almost all of them; that's the beauty of Photo.net.

 

I probaly will not post my studio work -- I don't want it to compete with my other styles, and the videos are just experimental -- still learning to use it to 'tell a story'.

 

I keep learning, and encourage honest criticism, because one can't learn unless one makes less than perfection and is told the truth.

 

That said, I still like this photo, but may move it to a lesser folder. It is not something I will remove for the foreseeable future. I want people to learn that even though I take some pretty darn good photos, I also take some that aren't all winners, and part of the worth of Photo.net is to learn the difference.

 

Further, some photos are 'view' magnets even though they have apparent 'problems' or don't rate high on traditional scales.

 

I got a message in comments from the sister of one of my subjects yesterday or the day before, and it said the sister subject, as well as the commenting sister both had seen the subject's photo from years ago (blonde woman holding purple bowling ball in rain, while she wears a yellow rain slicker, all against an irridescent blue building background).

 

That photo was a 'stinker' in the ratings, but it is a 'view magnet' earning about twice the views (and they're clicks, not thumbnails) as other photos in the folder, because something about it is 'magic', or just attractive to viewers, and that is something that can't always be 'rated'.

 

Sometimes 'magic' or the 'attractive qualities' of something is something that just can't be rated.

 

I have several photos like that, which rated pretty darn low, but draw in huge numbers of viewers.

 

I'd like to learn what it is that does that, so I can learn to do it more often.

(and when I do, I may make a 'Presentation' about it).

 

Thanks for the critique, Adan W.

 

All your critiques are very valuable to me.

 

John (Crosley)

First, I would like to comment about the passerby's look - at the cameraman. I found it to be an integral part of this story. Her body language says tense and rushed, she's certainly not smiling, and I interpret the look as "what do you want?" It's all part of the story.

 

Second point I'd like to make is regarding understanding the voting patterns and preferences of PN members. I have a slight statistical background (as it relates to advertising and demographics) and have tried to analyze this by viewing who is online and tracking down their comments and ratings - of course, on a very limited basis. The membership is too broad and ill-defined to lend itself to this kind of analysis. At any given moment, there are between 150 and 300 registered members online - not all of those paying. They're from all over the world. Different time zones. Many don't read English. And who is online changes every second of every day. Non-paying members IMO don't really care about the art of photography. I truly believe that the biggest benefit one can derive from this site is to foster online relationships with specific members whose work you admire and whose opinions you trust.

 

Lastly, I think this photo is terrific. I would be very pleased if it were featured in a "coffee table" book that I had purchased.

 

Cheers -

Your perusal of the statistics is very interesting even if it comes to the conclusion that there is no conclusion -- the membership online is so diverse and continually varying that no valids analisis may be made from data available to you.

 

You may not have known the prior Admistration told us that they thought that at any time 2 to 4 times (I forget) of the number of on-line signed in members actually were viewing photographs or otherwise using the site, but the time limit on the 'signed in member' counter was such that it did't count those people, or other reasons existed for their not being counted. I actually think that is true; people read articles, walk away with their computer on, and with no activity, they are believed gone, or they're busy reading away and the server doesn't know they're there - maybe they're editing photos and have a different tap or window open (or use two computers as I sometimes like to do when I have wireless available.

 

I know the woman looking at me, the photographer, is part of the story, but when Adan W. says it's regrettable, I sit up and take notice; he's one of my most vocal fans.

 

And he also is finding his critic's voice, as I have encouraged him, since his photo analyses have been so thorough and so spot on.

 

I'm glad at least one member found enough redeeming qualities in this photo to comment positively and enthusiastically.

 

I happen to like it enough I posted it, and when I do that, it's a rare day when I take something down. Average mean very little to me; enough people have commented positively on my work -- the once seldom recognized 'street category' especially -- that I feel I have had a part in revitalizing interest here in 'street', but who actually knows?

 

I started with nothing but old photos from long, long ago, but now I am still going strong and am amazingly prolific (It amazes even me especially how much I produce).

 

I am glad this photo pleased you; that coffee table book may come someday, but right now I'm being encouraged to try the gallery route first (no one makes any money on photo books it is said, least of all the photographer - it just gets a name out initially.)

 

You are always welcome to stop by and comment, and comments needn't be postive; I learn best from making mistakes (as do most people -- something 'helicopter parents' should take heed).

 

Best wishes, and thanks for making my morning (it's still morning here, but soon to pass for a dreary, foggy, dingy afternoon -- and cold too).

 

John (Crosley)