'Queen of the B's'

I will NOT take celebrity photos except with permission. This is an

Emmy Winning actress, formerly one of the 'Queen of the B's', who

shall remain unnamed here. (but she has stated she likes this photo

very much). She either is a waitress at a restaurant taking a smoke

break or on a break between takes on a television or movie set --

your choice. 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

Copyright notice: Copyright 2008, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved.

 

I would welcome an e-mail, please, as I had an electronic problem that prevented responding to prior communication, and it got erased inadvertently. My e-mail address is found on my 'biography' page.

 

ADDENDUM TO THE SUBJECT: April, 2008. I got your phone quality and that you left a message. However, the return phone number was garbled and my phone did NOT display the phone from which you called, my friend.

 

Please call again and be sure, if you get my recorder, to say your return number clearly and two times.

 

Look forward to hearing from you again.

 

john April 2008

 

********

 

John (Crosley)

I like the dof and use of bw-greytones are nice... good photo, warm regards

This photo is interesting in that it's a night photo -- you may note I do a lot of my work indoors or at night. And this was not taken with a D300, but with a D200, which is 'second best' at low-light photography, but stopped down somewhat for greater depth of field.

 

(note the dark background -- that's out-of-doors, without lighting, except for parking lot lights - that's how dark it was -- this is just an alleyway (or a walkway in a movie/television set).

 

I like to keep you guessing. I'm not gonna provide too much detail about this one. If there's a story, this is one I'm not gonna tell, for once.

 

This photo pleased this actress, who reviewed it, and so I felt free to post it, as I told her I might, and without objection.

 

Thanks for the nice note about the grayscale - the full pallette of tones is used here, from brightest white to blackest black and everything in between.

 

And, of course, no flash.

 

I hate to use flash, except when absolutely necessary, and even then dislike it mostly.

 

However it can save a photo from complete ruin, so it has its place, too, in photography.

 

For 'street' however, flash is not so good - it alerts people to photographs being taken and they begin to act unnaturally, except in certain circumstances where others may be expected to be taking 'flash' photographs and a 'serious' photographic effort with flash can be made, and without serious distraction. I have a whole supply of flashes, but I just don't use 'em.

 

Best to you Sheryl, and thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Very Good.

Thanks -- not my usual, is it?

 

John (Crosley)

Great tonal depth and perspective... The position of the subject is also great!

Thanks for the comment on the photography and reproduction values.

 

As for the subject, this is a precise depiction of the 'essence' of this woman as she appears and especially in the precise posture I caught her in.

 

I think that's why she complimented me on this photo.

 

She has been much photographed over her adult lifetime, and significant parts of her life chronicled.

 

I think this photo comes close to catching her 'essence' as it was that day/evening, and I suspect even as it might be this very day (but I can't be absolutely sure, since it's been a month or so.)

 

John (Crosley)

Sometimes in life some things must speak for themselves.

 

Often my photos have stories attached, are stories themselves, or represent stories.

 

But this is not a 'story' photo. If there were a story, I do not deal in past, present or future celebrity worship or association -- if I happen to meet a celebrity (as I did Kirk Douglas just feet from where this was taken - or at least it seemed it was he), I just nod and pass by . . . my present pledge to myself -- not anyone in particular -- is that I don't take celebrity photos (unless requested or with permission that is understood.)

 

In my former home, just down the beach, lived Tom Cruise and then-wife Nicole Kidman (one of their five homes) -- they walked the beach routinely.

 

It would have been no trouble to make a stake-out to photograph them and their kid(s).

 

I just wouldn't do it.

 

If you look at my photo 'Leaving Las Vegas' presented in both black and white and color editions, you will see that the subjects in that photo are not celebrities -- perhaps someone might recognize them, but to the world in general, they are anonymous individuals.

 

Yet they are the stars of that photograph, and my photograph has turned them into stars, FOR THAT PHOTO only, and only for my audience.

 

Now, it happens that moments before I took that photo, I had a short conversation with the star of the boxing movie, 'Million Dollar Baby', Hillary Swank, and showed her how to board an airliner that she was having trouble getting on, and the airline staff wouldn't help her.

 

I helped her, or at last I told her how best to try, noting the staff was rule-bound not to help her at the cost of their jobs.

 

I doubt she'd recall that short conversation, though she might recall an encounter with a 'photographer' whom she may think didn't recognize her, and didn't certainly try to take her photo.

 

What's the point of taking celebrity photos unless one is feeding the celebrity garbage machine -- the weekly mags that feed us our American royalty stuff?

 

Yes, even I occasionally read 'The National Enquirer' and 'People' just so I can stay current with popular culture, since I spend so much time in the former Soviet Union and otherwise am 'out of touch'.

 

But when I was at a recent photo gallery opening, Heidi Klum was there, Leonardo DiCaprio and even photographer Nick Ut (napalmed Vietnames girl fleeing -- Pulitzer Prize winning photographer).

 

Some, seeing me with cameras, suggested I was missing the point, not taking photos of celebrities.

 

'Take Heidi Klum's photo -- she's at the curb waiting for her ride'. And she was, and I didn't even point a camera in her direction, despite much urging.

 

It wouldn't have been a good or even a passably bad photo. It would have been nothing except for a famous face and/or body.

 

What's the point?

 

I have a point of my own.

 

I don't take photos of celebrities, unless they are expecting it or are engaged in behavior that would have me taking a photo of them if they were just ordinary individuals I'd photograph anyway, and photographed because of the composition and/or behavior, without regard for celebrity status.

 

I take photos of ordinary people, and hopefully for the purposes of my photos, make minor celebrities of them . . . and don't want to trade off anybody's 'celebrity' status.

 

So, I'm not gonna name this woman.

 

Even if you guess, rightly or wrongly, who she is, or provide any background details.

 

Nothing further, unless she authorizes it.

 

It may be interesting, even to a greater audience than PN regulars, but that's not what I do -- do stories about famous people or people who were or are gonna be famous.

 

Life has enough 'stars' without turning to 'pros' -- I'd rather deal with 'amateurs' and be sure it is 'real life' instead of some fiction created by some celebrity-seeking star, or for some celebrity rag.

 

I try to create fame for my subjects as a result of being in my photographs -- so that I don't become dependant on 'celebrity' and confuse it with photographic 'worth'.

 

My photography is geting worldwide exposure now, and I have good reason to suppose it may get even greater exposure in the future.

 

I don't want to be known as that photographer (what's his name? John, somebody . . . ) who got a great picture of (insert name of celebrity).

 

That's just not my style.

 

(this is posted not only for those who click to this photo to see it for evaluation, but also for any who might want to see in writing my one stated principle in photography when it comes to choosing subjects and posting photos here.

 

(From time to time, I get asked, and people look askance when I tell them what I just have written above).

 

This is the whole McGillagh, posted in writing.

 

For the world to see.

 

John (Crosley)

Regarless of whether we guess right or wrong, this is a compelling picture. I love how you composed this. She is taking a break - a momentary escape from routine. In the far background there is an open door. A visual metaphor perhaps? I also see a series of 3's above her. Her facial expression is ambiguous. Did she smile after you took this shot?

You see more in this than I do, and I think this time, less is more.

 

Yes, there are threes, but they hardly matter, since they are nearly invisible.

 

The open door is also barely visible -- hardly a metaphor, I think.

 

But her expression is greatly ambiguous, and I caught one of those moments that greatly typifies this woman's myriad expressions. She is, in real life, extremely animated -- a woman whose expressions are full of life -- far more animated than most people, and certainly this photo does not do her vast range of expressions any justice.

 

This is more of a mood piece than anything with no visual 'tricks'; a moment in time memorialized, and by good luck (maybe) it caught the essence of a part of this woman.

 

Thanks for you comment.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I agree that the 3's in this capture are not as prominent as your other shots and take a secondary role in this scene. The expression is the main subject here.

 

Having said that, I still feel that the door in the background to the right presents a powerful symbolism. To me, your subject (her intriguing posture and expression) is nicely complemented by the door in the back. The door represents an escape, which is what she is doing here.

 

In addition, the woman, door and garbage bins? make for a nice visual triangle.

 

Best to you John.

I agree about the triangular shape in this case, which also causes the eye to follow it into the darkness of the background -- and of course a triangle is so dynamic a shape, as discussed before -- always unstable and 'off-center'.

 

This was not 'conscious' use of the triangle, I suppose, but then such things are built into my sense of seeing through the viewfinder and were from the start -- at least at times. I just look for what looks interesting. What is good is that I got a good exposure -- one that is 'right on'.

 

Thanks for your contribution, again.

 

John (Crosley)

.... too clean, edges are too sharp, everything is appliqued as opposed to built, floror covering cut out around doorway, no doorjamb, no windows, no interior hardware, interior hardware outside. Don't know the actress, though.

You just never know.

 

But I'm not gonna tell the Photo.net audience, one way or t'other.

 

Besides, this actress is the subject of some speculation (or has been) about her career, and I'm not gonna feed that.

 

She has revealed herself for this photo, and this photo only, until she says otherwise.

 

It's all those years of practicing law, Dennis. I talk (or write) a lot, but when it comes to revealing certain things that may be 'sensitive' or just intrusive, I don't really go there . . . . casual conversation about various 'people' in the course of 'ordinary business' may qualify as something to write about so long as it's related to my photography or my career, but beyond that, it's nobody's business, in general, at least in comments under these photos, where the public can read anything I can write.

 

I once was a researcher for the President's Commission on Civil Disorder. They wanted to send me around the country reviewing footage from tv stations about riots, etc., but I was attending Columbia, so I stayed with the contracting company reviewing (at an absurdly high salary of $13.75/hour in 1967, as a senior at Columbia), news accounts of civil unrest, trying to ferret out anything inflammatory, all taken from absolutely HUGE Xeroxes, specially made from reversal copies (microfilm copies) of the newspapers, which Xerox dutifully turned into larger than newspaper size in regular black on white print, for ease of reading.

 

Now one of the 'researchers' was doing tihs as her 'second job'. She was a writer for a 'movie magazine'. As I got to know her, she gradually revealed to me that for the most part, the stories they wrote, at that time, about the 'stars' were basically made up, based on maybe a photo here, showing two people together, or just completely out of whole cloth.

 

Now, this actress has been the subject of some speculation about her career and whereabouts, and I may (or may not) know some of the answers, but I ain't telling; I respect individual's privacy. It's an adjunct of my pledge not to take celebrity photographs - only to reveal what is allowed to be revealed, or what I learn in a non-privileged setting that anyone in their right mind would write or talk about.

 

I don't need to feed off others' celebrity, I think you understand. If there is any celebrity needed, I'll make my own, if that's possible.

 

Now, the answer to your observation relates to relating information about this person's work status and whereabouts, all of which are things that I have been entrusted with, so I cannot respond one way or another.

 

She may have changed a little with years, so she may be a little difficult to recognize, but 'Queen of the B's' should indicate that she is a person you probably were not watching in the first instance, don't you think?

 

See, I'm not the great tattler some people may think I am . . . . and that extends beyond this individual . . . . (if you can read between the lines . . . .).

 

With great respect (and a modicum of discretion).

 

John (Crosley)

I like this shot. Due to the resize definition is not so good but from what I can see she has a very interesting expression on her face, I can't tell wether she is a bit annoyed by the fact that you are taking a picture of her and she smiles with sarcasm or she is just tired and bummed out. I don't know if you used flash or it's natural exposition from a street light or something but the lighting is extremely good and very well balanced. The fading of the light at the end of the alley gives a very good DOF. Composition is great and also are the B&W tones, not too contrasted and perfect for a subject like this.

I didn't use flash, and pardon my attempt at humour.

 

This was an in-the-camera exposure that hit it right on, with natural/artificial lighting from this area lighting the whole scene at about 1/15th of a second, and my just 'going with the flow' framing it in a fraction of a second, being seen by the actress, and being greeted by her quizzical expression, but somewhat bummed out, in this case from her own fatigue, but also a little pleased I think to being in front of a camera . . . as that is her profession . . . and it pleases her to be well captured.

 

She did want to see this one on my digital display and more than once referred to it as a very good capture. She has my permission to download this copyrighted photo and make one print for her portfolio, although if she gets in touch, I can get her a larger file size print.

 

That expression of hers is a 'natural' one -- it is quintessentialy 'she' (to use my grammar correctly, no matter how stilted it sounds).

 

This is exactly how she looks, or at least how she looked that moment, and I captured it very well in her estimation as she told me.

 

I hadn't thought so much about this photo except for her praise, and then I began to like it more and more.

 

Thanks for your evaluation; it's very helpful to me in judging this particular 'style' of my photography which is somewhat new to my myriad styles.

 

(Nearly every photo of mine is different, though there are common threads to many of them, and people say they can now more easily identify a 'Crosley' though I don't think I could if I weren't the guy taking them.)

 

John (Crosley)