'The Heartbreak of Psoriasis (and other things)'

This photo lives up to its caption; I saw this wonderful scene late

at night on Veteran's Day, but took it with my ISO too low and my

shutter speed too slow, with my car engine idling in traffic causing

shakiness. That's why I call this photo a heartbreaker. Click on it

and see if you agree, or have any helpful suggestions. Rate it as

you will, but please have a look at a 'near good one'. My heart is

broken, and I think you'll see why. Thanks! John

haha, maybe time to by some VR/IS lenses :-)

Read the details.

 

This was taken with a V.R.lens, and now that I look more closely and review, it is such a long exposure that most of the shakiness is from subject movement....

 

It may have been a 1/2 sec. exposure, from a vibrating auto, and I am a steady shooter, and sometimes use vibration reduction lenses even at 200 mm at that speed, and get good results.

 

The more I look, the more I see subject movement made worse by a very long exposure. Other elements are NOT shaky.

 

I just needed a higher iso, so the subjects could not move, I think.

 

But who knew he'd swing her around on his lap just as I fired.

 

The heartbreak of psoriasis, and other things.

 

Like a fisherman, I lost a good one, I think.

 

Anyway, I would have liked this one very much if only . . . .

 

I may process it again and rotate it slightly, and see if I can find a 'raw' version (I think this is from jpeg; I shoot both simultaneously, which is one reason near me I have 12 terabytes of hard drives -- most for backup -- I know too many who have lost their collections because of fires, girlfiends who are po'd, (David Malcomson wrote he lost a vital collection when his family moved and he was not there while their goods were moved.). etc.

 

I have lost all my early negs, a stock agency has kept all my early color transparencies and disappeared, and I have lost my Viet Nam work.

 

(Malcomson has a Top Rated Photo with over 2 million views; I wonder if he lost that one in the move?)

 

If things had worked out, this might have been a stunner, especially if I had

processsed the color portion with more care and rotated slightly.

 

I'm in a funny mood today.

 

And I just wanted the membership to see one 'lost one'-- the one that got away.

 

Like a fish tale.

 

Only for photographers.

 

If only . . . .

 

How many times have we all muttered those words. . . . ?

 

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

Beside the other things, I "guess" this is good shot and with a great colour, atmosphere.

With regards

Joke, I was on the game show 'I Guess' with quizzmaster (remember the Mary Tyler Moore show when Ted Baxter wanted to leave news and host a game show and everybody hisssed at him quizzzzzzmaster?) the legendary Bill Cullen.

 

I actually first came into Mr. Cullen's presence in the NBC studio's urinals where he took the urinal next to mine.

 

It's like I once saw Johnny Carson who was nothing like his on-air persona, barging from his studio through a crowd of tourists, giving no one any clue why he was in such a dag-gummed hurry (not to the rest room, it was the other way).

 

I lost the 'I Guess' show I was on to a woman -- a housewife -- who jumped up and down screaming and she then 'ran the table' so to speak, avoiding the 'NEMESIS' in turning over panels, to get all the prizes -- leaving only the panel with NEMESIS unturned over. She even got a car, and I got 'clocks, clocks, clocks, John. A beautiful assortment of clocks for every rooom in hyour home, from those wonderful folks at Seth Thomas . . . ' said the announcer (they were crap clocks when they finally arrive four months later). They wouldn't have been good enough to be sold in a K-Mart three years go when it was going bankrupt.

 

Was the show 'fixed'?

 

Not for me; I made a horrible blunder. I knew the show, but was totaly unprepared for 'panels' to match that the contestants turned over. On televison they were very small; in reality they were many feet high, each one and the nine of them (I think) represented a 'different spatial experience' than watching them on television at home, plus all the distractions of being before national television, as well as a studio audience (some of whom hissed and catcalled because it was announced I was a student at Columbia, which had been taken over by rioting students, then restored to the Administration and closed -- which was why I had time for a game show). In the show, I was just flummoxed -- like a deer caught in headlights. I can't believe, howevver, that the woman made every correct choice in turning over the prize panels to walk away with a new car and lots and lots of loot (new furniture for her house, for instance.)

 

Guess has special significance for me.

 

I actually was scouted by NBC/game show reps while taking my photos to Time-Life, catty-corner or a few blocks away, waiting to have them developed (color) and attended a game show as an audience member, with my girlfriend, a Missippi Chinese Barnard student, Fran, who had the most unusual accent of any Chinese-American you ever heard (nice person, too).

 

I guess this says I don't really have much to say about this photo; it could have been great but wasn't.

 

I think you truly appreciate it for what it is and what it might be; and so do I.

 

This is the 'heartbreak of psoriasis' and other things.

 

Every photographer knows it and has experienced it.

 

(and I expected to get a host of 3/3s -- I guess the 'Joke' is on me. . . . )

 

In Thailand when someone plays a 'trick' on you, they say they 'joke you' in fractured English.

 

Seriously Joke, I am always pleased to see your presence here, high or low rating no problem, and especially a comment from you.

 

Thanks for stopping by.

 

John (Crosley)

John - you're being over-critical. Step back a second and just enjoy this for what it is - a very well-composed impromptu photo with great color palette and interesting lighting. It is what it is. Be glad you got it. You could have explained that you shot the high ISO and blurred it to give it motion and we would have bought into it. It's great ! Enjoy it like the rest of us :)

That I could be 'overly self-critical' in assessing my own photos.

 

I just think this had greater potential, and frankly expected a string of 3/3s and was ready for that just to show this photo just for what it is, as you advised. It actually has fairly high ratings, though I think being self-deprecating actaully drove off the 3/3 and 3/4 guys.

 

In any way, it's all a pleasant surprise for which I'm very happy.

 

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

I was prepared to love this photo no matter what; it's one of my children.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

I don't think it is ratable properly - but I still think it is an awesome capture even with all the technical problems. You are right though - double ISO and you have a masterpiece.

Also, for gods sake - rotate it 2 degrees or so counter clockwise, it may be flawed child but it still deserves all the care the perfect children get :P

All else aside, great moment was caught.

I cannot think of one thing you wrote that isn't entirely my own thoughts.

 

I looked at this on the digital screen (where I couldn't see technical isues) and said 'wow, this is a great capture!' and when I saw the flags -- which I hadn't seen, I said 'this is a great 'color' capture . . . even better.

 

Then I processed it and saw the shakiness of the subject and said some bad words (words my parents told me never to say).

 

I agree 'awesome moment' and even really not easily ratable under the guidelines, but also agree it needs to be rotated.

 

But I want to work on the original, not a 'worked up' copy and maybe from RAW if my camera captured raw, which I think it did. I think this is a jpeg workup and a raw workup might do wonders.

 

I took some others from other perspectives and may look those over -- most were pretty shaky and from a slightly different perspective -- they appeared worse than this one, which was chosen for the 'moment', but I'm going to look carefully at the others.

 

'Damn, Sam', as one of my viewers wrote to me once, is all I can say. This could have been a lifetime top winner in my mind. Life is full of such things; one like this you never get a second chance at, though; a lost moment.

 

Thank you for a 'right on' critique.

 

Come back again and comment any time you feel like it; negative comments are also welcome. We all learn from mistakes.

 

John (Crosley)

She might have the Guess purse but the real girl got the boy. Who is the one doing the "flauting"? I wonder.

;~)

 

Well said.

 

John (Crosley)

I feel I could talk (write) quite a long time about the topic, but let me make the long story short - thank you for sharing this fallen angel and its story with us: 1) it is really educational (even when well prepared and skilled and knowledgable about one's camera, without THE LUCK, there is no chance to beat the odds - some things and places just RESIST - genius loci?); 2) it allows to develop a proper and open discussion. Regards, MJ.

I have long mouthed the words that really I don't care about ratings -- in fact I do, but they are not my drivers. I realized long ago that then 'street' photography was out of vogue, and that I would have to make my own way.

 

I have worked my way from a starter just over 3 years ago, into someone who between 400 and 500 have on their 'interesting' list, and probably would be much higher if I thought to rate and comment a lot on others' photos.

 

I'm so busy taking them, processing them and posting them I hardly have the chance to do the other. And I prefer to comment, often on the most unlucky photos rather than busy myself patting others on the back.

 

And I have championed posting photos you believe in, plus I have a mentor/curator who seems less impressed by technical perfection than the average photo.net nut who equates 'sharpness' and great depth of field with good captures -- sometimes the best captures are like the photo I posted not long ago of a mass of darkness surrounding part of an old man's face with his elongated frown -- that's what I've learned from my new mentor/curator.

 

He has opened my eyes to the 'artistic' sense of taking photographs -- not technical excellence but overall impact. Some photos may never be worth selling or printing because they have flaws -- above is one of them, but they still can have enormous impact.

 

I believe in the 'idea' of this photo; whether or not I achieved it, and believe I can tantalizingly close to making a great photo, but its greatness just slipped my grasp (I think I forgot to turn off the auto engine, even though to do so risked getting a ticket, and to turn up the ISO though it would have meant a much fuzzier image. New generation of cameras may allow me to set my iso much higher and get good results, and 'freeze' the subjects, which might have happened here. A higher ISO might have resulted in an unviewable photo because of even more noise.

 

This, in my view, has the chance to be a great capture. I was just driving around, waiting to meet someone who would not be free for two hours, when I saw this while driving along a boulevard, stopped in a left turn lane on a mostly deserted holiday night (this is Vetaran's Day, notice the flats and his uniform) in the U.S., a day formerly called 'Armistice Day' to commemorate the German surrender in World War I.

 

Maybe there's some computer -- photoshop genius who could rescue this. I think M. Zafir Rabbani formerly of this service but alas, gone, had the technical prowess to Photoshop after computer analysis and restore this photo to what it might have been without ruining it entirely.

 

But I am out of touch with him, although if anyone is, I'd like them to contact me, so I can reach him and have him have a look at this. His level of genius on Photoshopping and technical analysis, based on something he showed me two years ago, bordered on genius (or simply was genius). But he is no longer on this service and lost somewhere in India.

 

I don't know of any other way to 'restore' this photo -- or actually 'correct' it and eliminate the distracting element of subject movement. Actually the background and nearer ground are pretty much steady; it's the couple who is moving. I had thought otherwise.

 

And this photo might have been emblematic of a 'great' photo -- one I'd have liked to have taken.

 

Alas.

 

But every day for photographers it can be alas, which is what I think prompted your remark.

 

I write things and I try to stand for the things I write.

 

I posted what I thought would get 3/3s and was surprised -- maybe ther 3/3 raters figured I was already chastened enough.

 

And as a commentator noted above, this photo doesn't fit into the rating system, something for which I'm proud.

 

I had a choice to post this or let is molder on my hard drive.

 

I posted it, and even created a new folder for it, 'Heartbreaker(s)'.

 

There are others.

 

But this is one that may have gotten away.

 

Sadly.

 

I'm glad you saw the lesson in its being posted and appreciated it.

 

That's the main reason I did it; I put up instead of shutting up.

 

Thanks for letting me know your impression -- I'm very pleased to learn it.

 

John (Crosley)

 

John C. - I thank you (again), always pleasure. Valuable and wise thoughts of yours about the equation "technical (im)perfection" - "overal impact" - "(effectiveness of) rating"... The rating system is probably necessary on sites like P.net, since it provides a sort of "engine", but should really be considered as one of the tools and facilities available only - whatever the efforts of the administrators of the site, it can never be perfect and suitable for all and everything. Well intended comment is definitely a mighty tool.

 

Concerning the rating system - I myself find it very difficult to rate pictures in the queue (I tried it several times, uff). The problem as I can see it is that a lot of pictures just need time (or better to say, I need the time, sometimes a lot of it - sometimes even days or more) to be really able to understand and appreciate the work). And I don't think it is because my brain is so slow. So how can I go and rate and rate and rate (c'est rate) one picture after another, unbiased and responsible?

 

Let us say, that (for example) I like and appreciate the work of the photo-wizards from Magnum, especially the new young generation. But having just a quick look at a number of their pictures without seeing them in the context for which they were created, I can easily imagine myself "rating" some of them unfavourably. That is simply a matter of fact that says, in my view, something about the value of the rating-o-mania.

 

I assume that this also, at least to some degree, explains why the technically perfect, flagrantly colourful pictures get often the highest "marks" - you just don't have to think about them too long - they are obviously and clearly "pretty seveners" that look lovely on the screen. And I mean it, some of them are really nice (even without much thinking about them). That's it.

 

Regards, MJ

I just spent an evening looking through the artists represented by the Fraenkel Gallery. Many of the works there would get 3/3s on Photo.net because they fall far short of technical perfection, and again, must be seen in the context of the artist's larger work.

 

(by the way, did you know that Muybridge spent a lot of time and effort doing 'time-lapse' --his method of course-- of nude females. Must have been one of the side benefits. He's known for figuring out that a galloping horse's hooves, all four of them, leave the ground at once. But were you aware he had women walking around, turning around, even talking and moving together, all while naked. Anything in that post-victorian era in the interest of science.)

 

I recommend a trip through their "artists'" portion of their web site so that you understand (I think you know it anyway) how true your (and my) words above really are.

 

This Photo.net thing is a fishbowl -- a pretty wonderful one -- but early on, I was urged to think beyond it, so I just post what interests me.

 

Some of the better stuff sometimes is even understood, and I learn quickly for myself what is mediocre. And finally, I learn what I think is good for me and for my instincts, and let the ratings fall where they may.

 

I gotta live with myself.

 

I can only presume you feel the same way.

 

Have a look at it

 

http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/index.php

 

sorry, it doesn't appear to be a 'hot link'

 

Best to you, and thanks.

 

Did you see the rework I posted a while ago?

 

John (Crosley)

Frankly, John C., the tilt does not bother me a lot. I prefer this "original" version to the remake. There is more contrast here and (perhaps hence) less visible blur. In any case, I don't see any reason for throwing the digital netative into a digital dustbin: 1) there might be a software available one day that will allow you to fix it, 2) (and more importantly) - you have connected this picture to some story, it is not any more "just a shot like hundreds of others" - it is now a part of your memories. Do you want to loose them? I don't think so.

 

I have contemplated today early in the morning, when I woke up, my own last contribution to this discussion and was considering, whether or not I managed to transfer my thoughts into proper words, and then I reminded myself of the novel by Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, that I have read some two years ago (the novel itself is from 1961)- it is about a human raised up by Martians; the Martian elders never rush to conclude things quickly, the word used for the decision-making proces and overall considerations is "to grok", which translates into "understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed - to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science - and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man."

 

So, some photos cannot be viewed only, one has to, in my opinion, "grok" them.

 

Thank you for the above link: I will look there and will try to "grok" it.

 

Regards

 

Michal Jerabek

Wonderful comment - 'nuff said.

 

I will place 'grok' into my slightly enlarged vocabulary -- with increased knowledge and good feelings.

 

John (Crosley)