Of Light and Shadow

Things appear more insubstantial often at night, with varied light

sources casting multiple and overlapping shadow, causing the eye

sometimes to 'guess' at what it is seeing. Here a military officer

waits outside a train station in an Eastern European country, and

various shadows interplay with each other, adding to

the 'composition'. 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 two shadows are great...suggests a duality. Wish it was crisper, but you take what you can get sometimes with night shots and the backlighting gives the shadows so....

This photo almost never was posted; I had to be convinced that its good qualities overcame its technical 'issues' by someone whose opinion I value who told me it is a 'great' photo and dismissed any technical issues at all.

 

And the ratings are tending to show that, which maybe shouldn't surprise me, since that individual has impeccable taste.

 

Yes, of course a duality.

 

I think also a good request for critique helped -- pointing out that it was 'fuzzy' in the first place, so people would know I was aware of that.

 

Thanks for helpful feedback.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Copyright notice: this photo is Copyright 2007, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved.

I like the "X" formation of this composition with the main subject strategically centered. The couple walking with their well synchronized steps is mesmerizing. Their legs are captivating.

Yeah, those things are part of the 'magic' of 'street' shooting -- shooting and 'seeing' something then hoping it will come out OK when you process a shot.

 

And 'street' sometimes is taking 5 to 100 of such shots where one 'takes chances' to get one good one.

 

Sometimes those 'good ones' are well worth all the other failed efforts, I think.

 

This for me was a marginal post because of 'noise' from high ISO and movement artifacts from various individuals with a long shutter speed, but it worked out OK, to my surprise, though I had to be talked into showing it to anyone.

 

Thanks Adan.

 

John (Crosley)

It has no details, practically. Just shadows. And blurred passer-bys.

Rather than fitting into "street" photography, I would say that this is real photographic art. It means something, because I think I have never defined a photo here on PN as such. You know about my exhibition criterion.

 

Take care.

 

Luca

Your comment above is one of the most interesting (and helpful) comments I have received in a long time.

 

For over 1/3 of a year now, on a part-time basis, a famous printer has been curating my work to determine what is worthy of showing printed in gallery format (size and quality) to gallery owners, including one or more friends of his who run large, successful galleries, plus also museums -- 'start with the Getty', he told me right off the bat after viewing my work, -- much to my surprise.

 

At our first meeting, Karman told me he had about 1/4 hour, but it stretched to almost four hours. The next day he took me to an opening at famous photo gallery, Fahey/Klein where he introduced me to gallery owner David Fahey as 'a fabulous photographer who is going to be a world famous photographer very soon', and Fahey agreed then and there to meet with me when my portfolio was prepared.

 

It was quite an extraordinary experience for my first exposure to the heady world of fine art photography and 'art' (which also includes photography sometimes).

 

Your criterion of choosing a photo because it is exhibition worthy is a serious criterion, and your choice of photos so far to comment on has been 'spot on' as the British say. In other words, you so far have shown impeccable taste.

 

I really liked, even loved, this one, but felt technical difficulties would hold it back. A mentor, Dennis Aubrey of this service, has been critical of me for 'oversharpening' among other things and his advice to me when a photo is less than perfect has been that when he was a serious filmmaker, his mentor told him that sometimes he would have to throw away his 'babies'.

 

He advised me the same thing about photos that had to be 'rescued'. I reserved judgment about that, and also remembered he was criticizing my efforts at trying to 'rescue' photos leaving artifacts such as selection lines and evidence of over and/or selective sharpening, in my attempt to make them appeal to this audience.

 

I am not sure he would reject this photo, but he might have.

 

On the other hand, Michel Karman, who went through the whole batch, used to do all the printing for the late Helmut Newton, is the printer for Sally Mann (Time Magazine's Photographer of the Year) and some organization even named Michel 'international printer of the year', 2003. (Lucie Award)

 

I understand Sally Mann lets him work with her captures until HE is satisfied; so great is her respect for his judgment about what is exhibition worthy. (Her works sell not only as photographic fine art, but just 'fine art' in non-photographic specific galleries such as the Gagosian -- the recent work is landscapes, somewhat ethereal in nature, and she uses a large format camera with bellows holes, old lenses not corrected for chromatic aberrations, - in short, B&W lenses from long ago that allow various colors to go their own path and not converge precisely on the focal plane.

 

Michel is Sorbonne educated (he did his doctoral work there on 'photography' and 'art', if I understand correctly).

 

He saw this photo and said this was an 'outstanding' photo that surely must be in any group I sent to a gallery owner as part of a presentation booklet or set.

 

I said 'but it's so fuzzy and indistinct'. He said that it hardly mattered; it was a great photograph because of/and/or despite the obvious 'issues' with it.

 

That's Michel's ultimate criterion too: Does the photo touch some portion of the viewer's inner being, whether or not it can be reduced to a formula.

 

This met his test, and his test is time (and client) proven.

 

You have also selected this particular photo much as Michel has done.

 

I shall have to read each word you write and each criticism you give me with intensified effort.

 

Your analysis equates with the one man in this world to whom I have the greatest respect about the 'art' and 'aesthetics' of photography' -- Michel Karman -- (and for virtually the same reasons, perhaps even articulated better by you -- because Karman needn't articulate anything; he is choosing photos with his own criteria in mind and needn't communicate 'why'.

 

He has encouraged me to seek my mind on other photos, after first suggesting I was 'overshooting'.

 

But, as I told him, this photo would have been eliminated (deleted) if I were to eliminate 'overshooting' because it was a 'chance', and not a 'sure' photograph.

 

I am taking chances all the time with my photography.

 

Look at two photos of mine if you have time:

 

1. A photo in my 'Black and White, Then to Now; folder, that shows a person (and a person behind him) mostly in silhouette, shadowy, walking in front of two Ukrainian pay telephones, and walking virtually in lockstep; a photo with some pleasing geometry to it, AND some mystery.

 

That photo, he told me, is "what John Crosley, can take that no one else can take" and "is not 'of the school of' anybody else".

 

So, although with trepidation, I have taken some liberties with what I post.

 

Consider the second photo (he has not commented on it yet) of the old man with the elongated mouth who happens to be boarding a Ukrainian tram, surrounded by a sea of darkness from other tram riders -- their garments dark and indistinct - only the man's mouth really is recognizable and it's an elongated frown.

 

That frown is elongated due to slow shutter speed and a certain movement the man made with his head, I think, so in that sea of darkness of the mass of passengers, one sees only his elongated frown.

 

I consider that another such photo, but we'll see what Michel says about that one (if he comments at all).

 

Out of everything, his present suggestion is we take 40 'representative' photos, not of 'street' or anything else, but of my best as seen from a gallery owner's perspective for presenting 'fine art' whether it be color or black and white, and without regard for 'ratings' or 'views' --

 

'Photo.net was fine for a point in your life', he has advised me, 'but you're way beyond that now.'

 

Now that he's seen the community here better, he says 'stay on the service' but 'aim high -- aim for the highest' for gallery representation.

 

He sees the tremendous encouragement I get here, which is why he has changed his mind and said 'stay here' at least for now.

 

I have no plans to leave; this is a comfortable place for me first to show my work.

 

I get very good to excellent critiques (not a lot of 'good shot, John' stuff), and the rates I know how to take -- high and/or low -- and some of them are so mixed no one could tell much from them anyway.

 

I do learn from the rates, however, about the popularity of a photo -- not only from how many rates (given consideration for whether I posted at 3:00 a.m. Sunday or 4:15 p.m. Tuesday, etc.), but how high the rates are.

 

There are bound to be some dud photo posts; and my photos don't necessarily score all that high, but within my own niche, I am doing very well, seeing very well, becoming more 'at one' with my equipment, and usually in a short time just walking about with my cameras I can find something good or even stunning to take.

 

And almost always something different from anything else I've taken -- or for that matter, anybody else, ever.

 

The other day it was a woman in McDonald's with her head wrapped in her hands, then a snowy outdoor environmental portrait at night, then nudes -- more classic in that they did not show 'bathing beauties' but a woman, bedraggled, her twisted and kinky hair wrapped in her hand, leaning on her arm in an overstuffed chair (you could not even see the model's face.)

 

The latter two never will be posted; they cross genre lines that I don't want to cross, for the same reason John Peri does not post his 'children photos' or the main part of them -- no need to confuse viewers, especially by throwing in nudes with other subjects.

 

Peri, the glamour/nude photographer, shows the nudes, I show the 'other subjects' (but Peri does a world class job, too.)

 

So, Luca, your brief critique has struck a chord with me, possibly for reasons you might not have truly, fully anticipated, and that is all for the good.

 

One reason Michel wanted to view my entire work (terabytes worth on hard drives) was to find things like this that have been hidden away.

 

Without his say-so and in the face of early mediocre ratings, I would never have chosen to post this; I'm very glad I did.

 

Your critique is also part encouraging; you have emphasized a point that was made by someone I respect greatly, and for that you earn my respect even more.

 

My entire gallery of photos is seen by clicking on the link in the photo above, and my portfolio by clicking on my name (John Crosley) within the photo frame (it's a 'hot' link).

 

(New feature within each photo now is a link to my portfolio.)

 

John (Crosley)

if I had taken this and seen it in the preview I would have deleted it at once, despite the x formation. the taste of the iso reminds me of a film I never shooted and never will (kodak's 2475 recording one) but I would like to have it for night street photos....BUT if I had this in film I would try to see it in another way. (what do we have here?) the motionblur spoils what I want to see in his look. Some say characters never show best in perfect light or perfect detail. they might be right...until then I still have that feeling of that technical issue

You have added much in your critiques to the evaluation of photos I have posted, and your contributions never go unnoticed.

 

You might have deleted this, and I might also have, but I have a policy (practice actually) generally of never deleting anything except badly out of focus shots where the focus just failed to make it overall, not selectively.

 

So, when my mentor for gallery sales, Michel Karman, went through my captures, he stopped at this and said 'this is a fantastic photo', even though I argued with him (as you would have) about the technical aspects.

 

In this way, I defer to those who have 'exhibition' standards in mind/Luca above and my mentor, and am guided by them, since I already have internalized your objections (and understand they are valid also, since they're the same ones I have raised).

 

It is only through my mentor's intervention about the merits of this shot that I felt confident enough to post this, yet on evaluation, it's doing rather well, which came rather as a surprise.

 

Sometimes I KNOW what photos will do well; other times I'm quite surprised. I liked the composition, and wish it had been done with a D300 for the 'noise' issues, but we take what we can with what we have at the time. I now have a D300 and routinely set it at iso 1000 for inside stores and higher for inside dimly lit restaurants, after adjusting white balance, of course.

 

And its captures are pretty stunning compared to the D200, although the D200 is also a pretty stunning piece of equipment in its own right.

 

It's just it tends to break down above iso 800 and at iso 1000-1250 it's on the edge of usefulness as an 'artistic' device, as you well know. This was way at the end of its ability to capture a scene, as is apparent.

 

However, I think the D300 and D3 both are going to result in a lot more night and indoor scenes being captured under natural light -- let's look back a year from now and see if I'm correct.

 

Thanks, Billy, for your side of the argument. I had once supposed all raters/critiquers would have sided with you, but I have been pleasantly surprised.

 

John (Crosley)

Hi John (I hope you don't mind if I call you that?)

 

I am new to photography but through my studies and work as an Architect I've been thinking about many issues which are important to photography, such as composition, simplicity, light & shadow etc all my adult life (I'm now 46).

 

Before even reading the critiques above this one it struck me immediately that this photo's very impact comes from the fact it is not crisp and well defined.

 

The 'x' and the contrasting shadows and light are the appeal of the image of course, but this photo would not be in the same league if it were crisp and sharp. The slight blurriness does not ruin the image but makes it. It allows us to transfer our own emotions and feelings onto the photo by allowing room for our imaginations - suggesting rather than defining.

 

Many of the best cinematographers suggest rather than define and I think it is this same quality that raises this photo to another level.

 

Ian

Your critique is very revealing and helps me to articulate to myself, what I have learned from this photo and its impact on critics.

 

It helps also me to overcome my own (PN derived, largely) tendency to favor crisp and sharp over the ill-defined. I need to learn more, especially maybe to watch more movies, though I must say, I have greatly been influenced, perhaps subconsciously, by some great cinematography -- even more than the critics on PN, though I have not heretofore articulated that, at least for a long time (there was a time when my critiques to others advised them to go view well-filmed movies, to help learn their craft as photographers.)

 

Yours is a very helpful critique.

 

Thank you so much (and I haven't looked to see if you have rated this work, either, as that is quite secondary.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

(and you can call me 'John' just like everybody else)

This photo somehow touches me, John! Huge empty space, one dark central figure, headless passersby, dual/multiple shadows... even high level of digital noise helps to enhance the effectiveness of this image. I think this is a very good work!

 

Wish you Happy Holidays and Very Productive New Year!

Somehow in the hubbub of site improvements, I overlooked your comment; forgive me.

 

I had shown this to my mentor; the famous printer who is seeking to guide my career, and he said 'this is art' and so did others above, and I said 'are you kidding?, it's full of noise, even though I like it so much.'

 

Without his encouraging word I never would have posted it (he doesn't ever tell me what to post - he tells me I'm 'way beyond Photo.net', except he sees that it fulfills an important 'social purpose' for me' -- but in fact it helps drive me to have the critiques of all my compatriots on Photo.net and to keep having an 'audience', instead of just shooting for myself.

 

And I'm not 'beyond anything'.

 

Well, he was right about this photo, as he almost always is; he is a pro, and that's why I trust his judgment about 'artistic merit' so much (and he doesn't pull any punches either when he thinks something is not completely worthy either, whether too simple, too schmaltzy, or whatever).

 

I meet with him soon, and can't wait.

 

When he's done with the famous people, he meets with me.

 

I suppose when he's 'slumming' . . . . ;~))

 

Or maybe he just has hope for me.

 

Brad, you have made my day.

 

Thanks so much.

 

John (Crosley)