'The Hand'

This may seem a challenge to some raters, and it was to me when first

pointed out until I too got 'the point'. This is 'the hand' hanging

on the window glass, seemingly unattached to anything, caught in a

sea of brooding darkness and mystery -- to whom does it belong and

why is it there. Those are mysteries that may not be resolved by

this photo; some photos pose questions that are not meant to be

resolved just as some photos are not meant to be crystal sharp or

deeply saturated. While some photos (landscapes for instance) often

are meant to be examples of clarity; this is not. 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

This showed up darker on upload than on my computer, so it was lightened for web a little. Please refresh your browser to show the difference.

 

Thank you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

*****important******

 

IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE HAND ON THE WINDOW OR CANNOT SEE THE WINDOW, PLEASE PRESS CONTROL 'R' ON A WINDOWS COMPUTER TO REFRESH YOUR BROWSWER.

 

john

However much I look, I do not see any hand ?!

Look on the locomotive window, holding the glass -- see the fingers?

 

It is not meant to be clear but maybe you have a very old or very poor monitor -- in which case this would not be an appropriate photo for you to rate.

 

The hand is small but quite visible; please check your monitor.

 

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention; others with old monitors may have the same issue.

 

John (Crosley)

I had completely passed over this photo and posted another, similar, showing the engineer in the window, wearing a lay shirt (not uniform), looking backwards - it's still posted in a lesser folder, but it's not a great photo or even very good.

 

The man who was curating my collection stopped at this and just exclaimed -- 'this is fantastic' and since he was printer for Helmut Newton, Graciela Iturbede, Sally Mann, Nan Goldin (stepmother to one of his kids), I had to take notice.

 

He absolutely knows good art, and this, he proclaimed was truly 'fine art' - didn't I see it?

 

Well, I said, I could lighten the colors and boost the contrast . . . 'No, no, no, you don't get it, you keep it just as it is . . . he proclaimed . . . just mystery . . . see the hand . . . just hanging there on the window . . . in mystery . . . . let it be . . . don't do anything to it . . . some people Photoshop just because they can . . . don't be one of those.'

 

And I learned another lesson from Master Printer Michel Karman.

 

Another lesson I learned was that photos don't need to be sharp in all cases.

 

The main thing from a photo is its essence, and whether or not it's sharp (if it's not a landscape destined for a calendar) is its impact on the viewer.

 

Whether or not it's sharp is rather irrelevant to the content and the impact of the photo's content on the viewer unless the context demands sharpness.

 

Ansel Adams's photos demanded ultimate sharpness; Henri Cartier-Bresson's or Andre Kerstecz's didn't.

 

This famous man, over his dinner table, taught me more about photography in a few moments then, then I had learned from any single person in my lifetime, even though I had been at one time a photo editor.

 

And he never took photographs, didn't even own a camera (except maybe one point and shoot) and was worn out from printing the photos of great photographers each day -- and indisputably one of the best of a rather ingrown industry where a master printer is worth his weight in something expensive, like gold or platinum.

 

I had learned that sometimes photos are best when left untouched by Photoshop (something that suits my nature anyway, as those who follow my work know), that taking the blur out of an outstanding image may just destroy it; and finally (as here) that unmuddying a muddy photo with a mystyfying feature may entirely destroy that feature and its worth as a work of art.

 

So, whether it gets high or low ratings, this photo is here to stay; with its mysterious hand (not viewable by at least one viewer -- see comment above which it now appears has been since removed).

 

I hope it is restored if it has been removed.

 

It's hard to rate by the vast audiences of Photo.net, many of whom are new to photography, but that never stopped me from showing what I consider my best or most challenging work.

 

Consider 'wife killer -- author' which was all blur except for a 'sharp' cigarette tip while all the rest was a man's face with furrowed brow (very furrowed brow plus the Greyhound bus he was riding, as background, with running lights on at night -- one of my best portraits ever -- taken at 2:00 a.m. right after maybe my second best portrait ever ('Rest Stop Dignity' - black woman at the same rest stop with reddish features in background and very dignified facial features looking past the camera).

 

Finally, my last post in the critique gallery got to one rating (just one) from a sole anonymous rater before I moved it to my highest-rated folder and left it there, destined, it seemed, to exemplify the mediocrity of posting chancy or 'iffy' photos on Photo.net.

 

That photo is 'The Brood' which is immediately before this one, yet its ratings elevated nicely afterwards.

 

I'll post whatever I think is good, regardless of rates.

 

And, as my curator/mentor Michel Karman who has now finished his task (and taught me maybe more than he knew), has shown me, it pays to be bold and have convictions about what I, as an erstwhile photographic artist, put forward as my best work.

 

This photo was taken three years ago or just a little more, and resurrected by him as he curated my vast recent captures stored on terabytes of digital captures, while the previous photo, ('The Brood', similarly bold) was taken just a week ago.

 

Both show that I have a different side to my shooting than many would expect.

 

It's just that I needed someone with a different viewpoint and very high standing in the photography/art world (Karman in this case) to say 'hey, that's really good' about some of my work and to show me why others might value it -- my fondest dream. . . . now realized and now embodied in my own psyche.

 

A great gift from a man of great photographic and artistic genius (Thank you Michel. . . .).

 

Rate it as you will, high or low (but please do not rate if you do not see the hand as you have a bad monitor or you're too tired or don't get the point.)

 

I understand now why this is a great photo (at least for me).

 

You may differ, and I'll respect that.

 

John (Crosley)

The hand holding on to the window is more expressive and engaging than a face. Why? because it allows my imagination to run wild and "picture" the face behind the hand. Is it that of a child or an adult? There are so many interpretations for this moment. One of them could be that it exemplifies the curious nature of childhhood marveling constantly at the outside world. Another interpretation might might be a capture of longing as if being separated from a loved one and saying good bye. Or it could all mean something entirely different. Regardless of the true meaning of it, you made me think and as I have said it before, true artists always do that with their work. Your mentor was right on this one.

It took some explaining, but instinctively I knew he was right, and my hat's off to him for finding this one.

 

It displays poorly in thumbnail but he sees museum walls, not thumbnails. The ultimate goal -- ask Luca Remotti who looks for gallery exhibition as a minimum test. This may or may not pass his test, but I like it, when its subtlety can be made out properly -- it's a difficult one to print, I'll hand you that.

 

Thanks Adan W. -- you are very understanding.

 

John (Crosley)

My monitor dates from November last, is that old? Nice overall design, but I think one needs magnifying specks to see any hand holding anything here ... though I do make out a couple of fingers ... but of what importance is that, none really.Wow, does this photo merit all this explanation? Oh, and I didn't rate actually, but I do think that someone will rate according to their impressions and not the author's defense of his work. My good wishes, Irene

It requires no defense. It just requires that the whole photo be seen; apparently you could not after much trying.

 

John (Crosley)

No offense meant, but you can't instruct someone after the fact how to look at a photo. Appreciation is based on one's perception. Anyway, I enjoyed the image, that is why I opened up the thumbnail.

 

You seem to give importance to the ratings. I'll add mine (5/5).

And then it came to me.

 

My curator at the time, Michel Karman, world famous printer and photo/art presentation specialist (he's finished now), stopped at this one and said it was 'pure genius'.

 

I said 'what?' and he said 'yes, pure genius' 'fabulous' and other words to that effect, and I said, '[w]ell I suppose after I get through modifying the contrast and bringing out the hand from the muddy tones. . . . '

 

'Don't touch the hand or the muddy tones' this world famous photo and art guru practically yelled at me, and then lectured me at length over the dinner table on why it was such a fantastic piece of 'art' as opposed to just a photo.

 

And as I went to galleries with (and without) him and went through catalogs and web sites from the world's photo and art galleries as part of his 'work' in preparing myself to present my 'work' to galleries, I finally understood exactly what he meant when he told me that my work was gallery ready and capable of being shown in galleries at the highest level, not just photo galleries, but also 'art' galleries.

 

He praised not only the representational work -- including my 'street' work, but noted that my 'color' work also seemed to be equally strong, and that I also worked also equally strongly in other genres, which he said was unusual. (He refused to consider presenting some photos he termed 'great' for gallery consideration because they were so far out of my mainstream, they just could not be considered representative, but he considered them 'excellent' or in his often-used word to describe my photos -- 'fabulous' - a word I heard a lot from him.

 

So he saw this photo as 'fantastic' from his point of view. It's mine too, now, though I was initially a doubter.

 

I also agree I think it may stand up to some of the art/photo world's finest -- seen through the right eyes -- trained eyes. To others, it may just be a puzzle and c*r*a*p.

 

It is not so much a 'street' photo as a 'work of art' taken by a 'street photographer', according to Michel Karman.

 

He is an artist, though he works in the photo format, and he prints photos that sell as works of art for up to $40,000 apiece, fresh from printing, through the world's finest 'art' (think Gagosian Gallery) galleries as well as 'strictly' 'photography galleries'.

 

He knows what he's talking about for the field/he's worked for nearly all or artists who exhibited at all of them and nearly all the world's great museums which exhibit photographic reproduction.

 

I was seriously under-educated and still am about the art world, although I have had much worldwide art exposure, from the Metropolitan, the Payne-Whitney, Gugenheim and MOMA in NYC to the Tretyakov in Moscow, the Van Gogh in Amsterdam and the RijksMuseum also there, to Paris's Louvre, but I have not studied art seriously since university days.

 

And I'm still learning, but I got my wildest wish through Michel Karman -- seeing this photo/art expert go through my terabytes of raw captures with an expert's eye toward resurrecting not only my best representational work but hunting for true 'art' as well as 'photographic 'gems' which excited him greatly and was a genuine philanthropic gesture toward me, done because of his stated high evaluation of my work's worth in the world of (1) photographic galleries and photography and (2) art galleries and 'art'.

 

I could just post photo-based 'art' instead of 'photos' and keep busy another year or so of my last three or so years of captures -- just by concentrating on far different captures and treatments that also populate my hard drives in addition to my 'representational' work.

 

I learned a great deal from this man about my photography, but I don't expect, Irene, that you will 'learn' what I learned, not should you.

 

And what I learned or feel I learned, may inded be bull c*ap, too in yours or others' eyes.

 

I had to be taught by photography expert and my curator (then) and photography expert Michel Karman, about its worth, which is why I don't mind showing others my path.

 

But it's not the only path, and those 3/3 rates are just as righteous as a 7/7 rate for this photo.

 

There is no 'right' rating for this one.

 

'Art' is what one likes or holds in 'esteem', and if it isn't held in esteem, then it may not be 'art' or even 'good' at least to the individual rater.

 

This is from my earliest work in my recent period stemming from recent prolific shooting for the last three and a half years, when I took up cameras once again after a long hiatus, from over five decades behind the viewfinder.

 

You might compare it to 'The Brood' taken a week or so ago and posted here, also which, also is very abstract -- as someone said 'Hopper-like' and also compare 'the Brood' to the pedestrian in the crosshairs of the stone work in front of San Francisco's Woolworth Building which also was very Hopper-like, which I took when I was 22.

 

It's an element that keeps creeping into some of my photos -- a certain percent of them . . . through my lifetime -- parts of six decades with a camera.

 

I don't set out to 'create' such an effect -- it just occurs naturally sometimes while I am engaged in shooting all kinds of photos.

 

It just happens that in my own varied way of shooting, some of my photos are more 'ethereal' or 'arty' than others.

 

I may specialize or be seen to specialize in 'representational' photos, but that doesn't mean I don't or can't take different photos that appeal to a quite different audience -- and many of that audience populates the photo galleries and even the fancier 'art' galleries, and pays high prices for what they feel is real 'art' -- maybe even this kind of 'art'.

 

But don't feel bad; I like and will keep shooting my representational street work as long as I can take a breath and hold a camera, just because it is 'part of me' and 'I like it', whether or not it is 'commercial'.

 

Thanks for replying and taking the time to explain your rates.

 

John (Crosley)

Ok John, thank you.

But you are free to change your rating and call this one 'crap' -- don't get dogged into accepting anyone else's ratings or views on a particular photo -- I certainly didn't have any particular feelings about it about a month ago either -- and I frankly thought it was 'crap' also, but I got a lesson, and I have learned.

 

Other photos that people hold in high esteem, I still feel are not particularly worthy and I will never show them as my good, better, or best work. This is one where I think I learned something, but don't feel goaded into accepting anyone's vision about a photo other than your own -- nobody, least of all I, will hold it against you.

 

My only comment above, was against rating it if you couldn't see the 'hand' which would have indicated you had a bad monitor, but if you can see the 'hand' then go ahead and rate or re-rate it as you feel -- no hard feelings, and you don't have to tell me (if it's an anonymous rating already -- and change is possible).

 

I'm just not that full of myself. I get plenty of high and undeservedly high ratings and sometimes I get low ratings where I feel they are low undeservedly -- it all evens out in the end, but frankly the wonderful comments and critiques are what drives me in the end.

 

Best wishes to you, and don't take all this so seriously. I'm working on something about a career, and you just stumbled onto it . . . many of my more regular commenters know about that . . . . and also where this particular photo may fit in those plans.

 

John (Crosley)

Sorry, I didn't get the humor -- I'm just too serious I guess. Point well taken. I'll try to lighten up.

 

John (Crosley)

Put your comment back there, it's good to keep a permanent record and not to embellish anything.

 

This is not like the Bush Adminstration which loses its important e-mail records, like Cheney's office has for important times and maybe even the backups -- there is nothing here to hide or even embarrassing, and when something goes away)(only two comments have been deleted that I know of or mayybe three, in all the time I've been a member, now about nearly four years), it leaves holes in the colloquy and references other places that must also be amended.

 

So, don't worry -- I have a good sense of humor and my ego is not so over-weening that it can't stand a little tweeking now and then, so keep your old comment up if you have the text (or replace it in the text as 'restored comment' in the text of a new comment, just to keep things straight).

 

These comments have a lot of readers, and they depend on them for an honest account not only of the truth of matters but also of the manner and way of the colloquy - in other words, how to acquit oneself when confronted by all sorts of different comments - and yours is a classic example of how one cannot 'read' humor in mere words, when it's there and would be revealed if I were looking at your face and getting visual clues.

 

And, I can stand some ribbing anyway. It doesn't hurt.

 

I take photos and I write.

 

Neither is the word of God.

 

I am no genius, either, though maybe sometimes I wish I were a little smarter.

 

So a little ribbing - especially when it's revealed to be good-natured -- is refreshing.

 

It keeps my head from increasing its hat size.

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

[t]o satisfy viewers that there was indeed a hand, I had uploaded a version in which the hand was more prominent than I believed it should be, but it also made the window show more prominently, and then with various color artifacts that were very unnatural.

 

I have remedied that, I hope, by re-uploading a revised version, re-worked from the raw (NEF) file, which shows the hand with more difficulty, but it does show clearly if one looks more carefully. This is not a photo that one can look at casually and fully 'understand' if one can 'understand' it at all.

 

The 'hand' needed to be 'toned down' which I have done.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(for the record)

I do see the hand