'The Way We Were'

One couple kisses, and the woman of the second couple below leans

seeking some affection while her partner looks away -- is he aloof or

just enjoying the moment? 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

Perhaps he is thinking about his wife, very poignant photo. Might have cloned out the object bottom left and cropped off the poster intruding on the left,regards

Just another day in Dnipropetrovsk, but not in California where I am stuck right now; loved one(s) and friend(s) in Ukraine.

 

And your comment is poignant for reasons I cannot state.

 

Probably they're married and he's thinking about his girlfriend if Ukrainian odds are to be followed, but that's just a guess, and only if he's not just enjoying the moment. Men routinely cheat on their wives/girlfriends; it's pretty common; One man to me: 'I love my wife so much, she's the light of my life, she gave me a boy child, she is home for me every day, she keeps the house great, but if she asks you, you were with me last Saturday, OK?'

 

I wasn't asked, because I told him I wouldn't lie for his marital infidelity, so he should find another alibi for his peccadilos.

 

It is common, especially because there are a much larger number of women than men and the women are uncommonly pretty and expected to marry in their early '20s and have children immediately -- the pretty ones disappear by the time they're 21 or 22 and reappear as divorcees as 25 and 28 to their 30s, complaining about their husbands; Ukraine is patriarchal in that the men call all the shots, but the women do all the work. But there is payback -- men die about 15 years earlier or more than women, on average, because of a dissolute lifestyle, although women now are smoking and those will begin dying sooner some future time; it's a built-in death time bomb for women.

 

As to cropping, to crop out the frame, left and 'tighten' the photo would mean also cropping out the waste container which would mean a crop line that either cut that container (which I would not do) or cutting the rightmost framed poster, which I also wouldn't do.

 

And I'm learning a lesson from Cartier-Bresson and Elliott Erwitt -- not to crop quite so closely -- leaving a little bit extra in makes a scene look more 'real' than some of my earlier or tighter crops, so the decision was deliberate (and no, I won't clone out the waste container.)

 

For a 'backward' country, this theatre looks rather modern and plush, in a cineplex, in a major, modern shopping center, doesn't it. Which means I seldom photograph there, as it is too American for my taste -- I can take such photos in Los Angeles, except most malls there are much older.

 

Thanks for the critique -- I considered every part of it in detail, and although I didn't accept every part of it, I considered all of it and found it very useful.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Really beautiful work, John! I like it! Best regards, Ruud.

Thank you so much.

 

You're very discriminating in comments and rates, so a kind word from you is taken with special attention here.

 

John (Crosley)

To be frank with you, John Crosley, I didn't like this particular photo very much at first glimpse. Probably not even at the second. It is not the dustbin or the part of the frame on the left side that bothered me - it was more that the ratio between the poster (which I held for secondary subject) and the couple (the primary subject) seemed somehow wrong (too much of a poster, too little of the couple in simple terms).

I think I have groked it by now. The contrast (even in size) between the two couples (the sweet almost woman-like boy so warmly attached to his girl on the poster versus the real frowning and seemingly indiferent macho male and the real girl strugling to keep her boy by her side) is really big, but it documents very well what you write about in connection with this photo. Well, big ideals versus downbeaten reality and social ideals proposed from outside and the reality of daily life based on how the social roles are expected to be played by local tradition.

The explanatory text helped me to get the point, I admit. Which makes me raise an (oratory) question: how much is a text attached to a photo a part of the photo itself? In the documentary photography probably quite a lot, I think. Sometimes one just cannot get it right without a short introduction, because who have not seen the place or lived through the experience himself / herself, cannot simply grasp the subject and its meaning. Only sometimes the idea is of a general nature that can everybody understand - immediately, sooner or later. And sometimes even the seemingly general idea is seen and understood differently by the photographer than how it is seen by the public or even the photographed people themselves, and so on... To make a long story short, looks like a good explanation is sometimes necessary and there is nothing wrong about it, just the opposite. Let us mention here for example photos by Jonas Bendiksen (Magnum Agency) - without a short info published together with his documentary photos, one gets easily lost (I assume, should he publish some of his pictures here on the Photo.net, he would be quite quickly a proud bearer of many 3/3 ratings :). By the way, why 1/1 and 2/2 are not used any more here?

Best regards, Mj.

You raise many good questions and make good points.

 

This was not ever meant to be my 'best' photo, especially from a composition standpoint.

 

It was taken in a cineplex where as a photographer, I as very exposed, and it was -- raise camera, frame and focus and put camera down -- all in one smooth motion -- no two frames, or I might have been kicked out.

 

No time to study framing and that sort of thing. It's the best one could do under the circumstances, and I think I did a creditable job. I waited for him to look away, somewhat forlornly, as he had been doing as I had seen them before, and for her to continue to look at him also forlornly, as though she is about to lose him.

 

So, the photo, without explanation, is a contrast between what is seen in the upper photo (the poster, an advertisement for the restaurant 'REPORTER' -- get the spelling in Cryllic alphabet 'R E P O R T E R ?') and the lower couple in reality. Whether or not it adheres to the magic so-called 'rule of thirds' is beside the point, and whether it 'makes a point' is more important, and apparently to you, it didn't, at least at first glance.

 

But it maybe made a more important point -- it kept your interest -- you continued to study it, looking for some importance, supposing it to have some worth, which I certainly hope it did (the juxtaposition I mentioned above, together with the way it is framed, albeit not a 7/7 framing, good enough, especially with good colors).

 

This is better as a color photo than a black and white, although it works well also as a B&W.

 

The question of whether a photo needs explanatory text is a photojournalist's question. In this case, the photo was NOT meant to be a documentary photo at all and instead, a standalone photo, so I probably have failed in making an explanatory photo, at least to you, but maybe all photos needn't be standalone to tell a story, but maybe just to post the question or make you think and let you draw your own conclusions. Isn't that also art, and it doesn't have to be documentary to have an answer and if it has an answer it also can be documentary.

 

In this case, the documentary aspect is just a 'bonus' for the viewer who is learning about other parts of the world through my experiences, and because of the remark above, he may be looking for his wife . . . a somewhat turned-around argument, since in fact he may be looking for his girlfriend . . . . which is what started the discursion in sociological differences between Ukraine and the US.

 

In any case, I hope it fares better with you and this explanation holds water. You asked an important question re: documentary photos, although this photo was not intended to be documentary, but as to you, it may indeed be one. (Nothing says a photo must be only one thing to everyone.)

 

As to your question about 1/1s and 2/2s, they were banned after being abused too much by no-nothings. Their use even one time could send a perfectly good photo into oblivion on the ratings engine, and although one can still give them and they are recorded on the computer (unless revised) they are not shown anywhere, and thus have no real significance, although (unless things have changed), they could be revived.

 

At one time there were feared no-nothing (Luddite) raters, who would rate good works 2/2 or some such, and even their presence on the service kept people from showing their work, for fear they would end up with 1/1s and 2/2s. One such individual was Tony Tunder who was much feared and there were others, and their names were known since the ratings were known then. If one saw them signed in, one didn't put a photo up for critique, lest the worst happen to a good photo.

 

Ratings were made anonymous (at least for rating from the queue) about the same time the 1/1s and 2/2s were no longer counted -- an even exchange.

 

This service was crippled by ratings complaints until that happened.

 

And that's the story and the real story -- not a word of untruth to it.

 

And it also makes good sense.

 

You probably can still give a 1/1 to something and it may be stored someplace, but it won't count toward anything, though it may some day theoretically be resurrected (the word 'theoretically' is emphasized).

 

Good, interesting comments.

 

Happy Boxing Day!

 

John (Crosley)

John, yes, from my point of view (and I have tried to look at the photo from various perspectives), combined with the text information, it works as a very good documentary photo through which I may now know a little bit more about some part of this world. Good that you don't mind: see, you created it, now your creation lives a life of its own :) Best regards, Mj.

John, I have now tried to use the lesson learned and uploaded some pictures with quite an extensive commentary attached to them. Just wondering if you could have a look and share your feelings (does it work with you or not - why?)

Direct links to the pictures in question are as follows: Bourj Hammoud (mirror), Bourj Hammoud (shop assistants) and Bourj Hammoud (pinky).

Thank you and best regards, Mj.

I gave you extensive, honest commentary (and no ratings).

 

I hope you take it with the good grace in which it was written.

 

I saw you working around 'potential' and not yet achieving it, but I saw the effort.

 

You have yet to find your photographic 'voice' in such endeavours, but that is a matter of time and dedication, as well as native talent -- and those are issues you must resolve for yourself. I feel you have the intellectual capacity to make interesting photos - maybe even great ones.

 

John (Crosley)

John, what I seek is a frank and open discussion about thing of mutual interest, i.e. photography and photograps - because this is what, perhaps paradoxically, I miss on this photo-site (or perhaps the what I see as prevalent mutual praise and praise of praise - or deep silence sometimes - is a discussion of a sort, just I don't see it as such, or I should still dig deeper to find out more). Therefore - big thanks that you responded positively on my bid with your really extensive and constructively built critiques on the above linked photos and for much of your time. I mean it seriously! It will take me a while to consider all the points or ideas or hints that you mentioned - after first quick reading I can only say I can agree on some points, perhaps disagree on some others. In any case, your effort and reaction (or of anybody else here) is appreciated and means an invaluable experience to me.

Best regards, Mj.

There are some dark souls who are on this site who occasionally like to take blasts at people -- heartless people who enjoy lording it over other people -- putting them down for no reason at all.

 

I am not one of them.

 

People come here because they want feedback, and they are seeking generally some sort of positive or at least helpful feedback.

 

That's the only kind I know how to give.

 

I don't give it too often; I'm very busy taking photographs usually, and there's usually a lot of traffic underneath my own photographs (thousands and thousands of comments to date after approaching four years here, and very few 'attaboy' comments or 'good photo, 6/6' comments (he went away after reading his comment paraphrased by me, a while ago, I think.)

 

I get wonderful (for the most part) comments, full of depth and insight, and the only way to get them is to respond to each and every one, no matter how trivial or basic, because people sometimes grow quickly on this service, and there are some very intelligent people on this service, too.

 

I left a great comment under a stunning photograph by a very good (English speaking) photographer from this country, and he never has acknowledged it. No more comments for him. He may or may not have read it; may or may not have cared, but I know not. So why waste time?

 

I will give comments to others who truly might care.

 

Many seem to appreciate even harsh comments if they're honest and seem to come from a place of caring and warmth.

 

Which is where I come from, always from that place here on this service.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Photographer Eddie Adams, who then was a star photographer of the Associated Press in Viet Nam, took the stunning photo of the Saigon Police Chief in the actual process of blowing the brains out of a Viet Cong prisoner and forever that photo became 'THE Eddie Adams Photo' so much that Adams despised it -- he banned it from his N.Y. Studio in late years. It helped bring the war to an end, though -- it showed there was little hope of real, by the rules justice in Viet Nam if summary executions were allowed.

 

But Adams knew the police chief and knew that particular Viet Cong actually had killed the day before relatives of the police chief; there was something very strong that was present beside a police chief execution -- it was almost purely personal - a vendetta, as abhorrent as that was.

 

Adams lamented that story and his photo was taken 'out of context' for the rest of the story never was told or at least emphasized.

 

That is the danger of all photos -- that an artist will not see the true 'power' of his photo or its 'meaning' in the eyes of others.

 

I didn't see the true power of my recent Photo of the Week, though I assumed correctly and even told others it would probably be Photo of the Week, but it has caught on on Internet sites and is being clicked through to my site at a phenomenal rate (some Internet sites are serving it through Photo.net; others are not).

 

And that photo has doubled or tripled my bio page views; though I hardly rated it more than an 'average' photo of the sort I take.

 

I was blind to its true 'worth' in the eyes of others; Adams was blind to the value and worth of his photo and presumed the 'story' he knew was important. the fact of ANY summary execution was so important it overwhelmed any personal story that went with it, and Americans do not any more condone revenge killings, let alone by police officials -- that is alien to the American consciousness.

 

Adams didn't understand that; maybe never did; he felt he was unfairly branded also as the man who took 'that photo'.

 

He also was near the World Trade Center on 9/11.

 

He had no film for his camera.

 

He died a little while ago.

 

Having missed a second chance at photographic immortality by having not been prepared.

 

I learned a lesson from that.

 

John (Crosley)

John, it is a real story not to be forgotten. I did find the photo that your are talking about on the web - I didn't know it before. The citation of Eddie Adams while lamenting about how his photo was misunderstood is perhaps as valuable as his photo itself, if not more. Probably more, since he was very likely telling the truth about the photo whereas photos, as he put it, "they are only half-truths" (the good ones, I dare to add).

 

I left some remarks below your comments to the above linked photos. I did my best to express myself - but please, bear in mind that English is not my native language and it is sometimes quite challenging to do that and one is always at risk that only a part of idea in mind is properly transferred.

 

Anyway, I have enjoyed discussing all the topics with you.

 

Best regards, Mj.

Charming scene showing the transcendence of love. A "then and now" moment.

Without going to my dictionary, I wonder if 'transcendence' is the correct word, for I think it means that love is above all, whereas, one of the main themes of this photo as I have presented it (it is ambiguous) is that love may indeed not conquer all -- maybe this man has a wandering (or wondering) eye (or heart).

 

That indeed may be the reality of this photo.

 

Or it may be more a man and woman sort of thing.

 

She wants to snuggle.

 

He's thinking she's warm, but how's he gonna do that valve job on his 1988 Lada Sedan (a Fiat Brava takeoff authorized and built in the Lada (Zhiguli) factory built for the Soviets by Agnelli Fiat's automobile company so the Soviets would have something to drive in, if they ever could afford a car at all.)

 

Think of it, a woman lounges on a bed in the morning thinking of romance, while her man is in the garage grinding valves -- humming happily away -- each in their own world -- the woman in hers; the man in his.

 

Is that what's depicted here?

 

Of is it that he's thinking of a girlfriend (or even his wife and kids), or perhaps 'why is this damn bitch sticking to me like glue in front of all my friends, when they know I'm gonna dump her in a week or two, and I'm just holding out for now because I'm getting adequate sex, until I can get in good with the pretty young shop girl at that new shop who stares at me and smiles flirtatiously when I come in to buy bread and beer?'

 

Or he loves it, is gonna marry her, and for a moment; just for a moment, he looked away, and I snapped the shutter, thinking perversely I had captured a moment.

 

And maybe I had.

 

But was it the right moment?

 

As I said, it's a somewhat ambiguous photo.

 

John (Crosley)

 

;~)

Perhaps a wrong choice of words here. It was late at night and I was a bit tired after a 6 hrs flight from NY where I missed my original connection. I took a quick glimpse at your latest pics - yes, your work is that compelling - even though I am not always heard, as it happened on the previous picture that I commented. ;)

 

What I meant by transcendent is the love theme. We seem to be always fascinated by it and it is a popular and timeless subject. Hence my "then and now" reference. Now that I feel somewhat rested I can attempt to make a more coherent analysis of this.

 

The lovers in the poster are very much engaged in their own world. We are allowed a glimpse into a private moment when they disregard everything that is happening around them. At that moment only the other person exists - at least it feels that way. The couple sitting on the couch are more disengaged. He's looking away while she is holding him. So you are right about your interpretation. They seem to be scanning their surroundings. The colors here are very complimentary and help to enhance the subjects. There is a garbage basket on the left side of the picture. Maybe the poor girl is destined to be dumped.

 

Hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a great New Year!

Nice explication.

 

It needs no more words.

 

Get some more rest if you need it.

 

John (Crosley)

i saw this photo, at first it didnt catch my eye, i just wanted to close the tab, This didnt take place, i Rate it , again after few mins , i got back to the photo i changed my rate to a higher one, and now i again get back to the photo and write this,, this photo have something in itself, maybe it is just because we all had such a moment in our relationships and life. i feel some kinda sad+hope atmospher in the photo. thnx for sharing, and just as a small ihnt try to do a lil cropping and remove the distraction (personal preference). thnx again

its funny, but I experienced this couple as being on their 'last legs' in their relationship, but they just may have been tired and the next day may have been revitalized or they may have just seen a movie like 'Schindler's List', or some such, but I was affected somewhat as you were; I didn't know I had managed to convey that through the photo so clearly.

 

I know about what you call a 'distraction' and will consider sometime if I print on cropping it, but for now, the photo is very successful with that in, and it is a 'street photo', where perfection is not expected or necessarily desirable.

 

Thanks for sharing your feelings which in itself is high praise.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

You did convey the feeling, meaning and all! i do view this photo every time i get to my workspace .! again thX.

This photo seems to convey special meaning to a greater number of people than I ever expected. I'm glad you can feel that I put something 'special' into choosing the 'look' of the subjects (versus their background). Obviously I had a choice, and for me this was the obvious choice . . . as it suggested 'better times' or just 'past times', and perhaps different levels of attraction.

 

Part of the 'aesthetics' of a photo is how it resonates with the viewer(s), and this photo seems to have resonated very well. Interestingly, I am not sure that each views it in the same way . . . . for instance, I see it as above, but others may see it differently.

 

Maybe there's strength in such ambiguity.

 

Thanks for letting me know that this photo is part of your daily life; it makes it 'important' just for that.

 

John (Crosley)

they are sad , specially the boy. maybe he think about the girl and truth about her !!

but she think about future and think about nice last time like the couple up her head . . . .

 

very nice work . thanks for sharing .

 

Best Regards Hamed

I considered very much your interpretation when I took the photo - in fact, perhaps that is what it depicts.

 

Consider, however, another scenario. She is comfortable lying on his shoulder, and he also is comfortable with her there, perhaps he has just moved, or he is more alert than she or more observant, but made comfortable my her nearness.

 

One looks at the hands often, thanks to photographer great Elliott Erwitt, to help decipher what a person is thinking because we so often learn to control our faces, and we find she is clinging to him, but his hands show no signs of wanting to go anywhere -- but at the same time, they're not 'holding back to her' -- they're independent and touching each other - he's apparently self-contained and maybe just a little distant from her affections, just as your interpretation suggests, as revealed by a reading of his hands.

 

But then he just may have shifted positions, and it may only have been something temporary -- and they may have spent the rest of the night in passionate love and the temporary photo may have revealed only his waiting for the moment.

 

There is a limit to what one can read into a photo's stolen moment -- they 'are as they are' and no one, save possibly the photographer who has prior and subsequent observances to add, can help flesh out the story.

 

Here, however, I'm not much help.

 

The photo stands as is, with whatever interpretation you (or I) make of it.

 

Thanks so much for your contribution -- this really is a 'philosophy of photography and photography interpretation question with great implications' whether or not you know it since your post was quite simply put - and it has great ramifications regarding that philosophy.

 

Thanks for your help to the ongoing discussion of this photo, as well as the philosophical one.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Looking through the number of 'comments' as well as the number of 'hits' and 'thefts' or 'borrowings' that were unauthorized despite the copyright status of this photo, by Internet blogs and others, this photo has been far more successful than I ever hoped it would be.

 

I took care in framing and taking it, as with many of my works that I hope to exhibit, and this was a very public place, so I had to conceal (in the open) what I was doing to avoid possible retribution, but it has proved very successful, for which I am very thankful to my critics and viewers.

 

John (Crosley)