France's Women of Stature: Then and Now

The French have long had a 'special affinity' for women, it is said,

but the French ideal of the woman of 'higher class' has undergone a

transformation somewhere as history has marched on, and it may be

reflected in this photograph, taken in Paris not so long ago. 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

it's funny, suggestive and makes you wonder. Altough I also like to work full frame as much as possible I really think here you should crop out that vertical line on the left, it's distracting and without it you get a vastly improved image. Regards, Ton

and this photography offers more than one idea on this subject and others too. At first glance I find particularly interesting the presence of various "alimentary signs" and the emerging of a half-hidden male in the background. This modern diptych helps to understand and explore some of the infinite ways in which we can represent our times with a photography. Thank you, Giuseppe

 

Much as I like 'purity of images', I also am a 'street photographer' who dislikes cropping. especially when it destroys the 2:3 aspect ratio of my captures (ratio of height to base). That space to the live woman's left was kept in for a reason, in spite of the line, which is a section of glass -- for this woman is standing behind a wall of glass which is part of a bus stop shelter in winter's early morning gloaming in front of Paris's Gare du Nord (North Train Station).

 

So, although it might make for a 'prettier' image in the sense of removing a somewhat distracting element, I also have to take a stand for my 'don't crop it unless you absolutely have to' and my 'cropping within the viewfinder' aesthetic, which causes my compositions to be judged by the amount of space around the 'subject(s)' -- in this case the purple-coated woman with scarf.

 

Trimming the area around her to the left would throw this photo way off balance, in my view. To 'trim' the photo, I would have had to do it in the field. I did have other opportunities with this woman and this advertisement, but this one was so good, I judged that it was better despite having to keep in the glass door demarkation as somewhat distracting, because the others just didn't have it, in my view (and I don't clone out distracint things -- I don't belong to Photoshop.net).

 

I'd rather have a properly balanced photo with a visual element that causes someone to scratch their head about my 'street photography' than to show unbalanced photos caused by inexpert cropping.

 

Believe me, if I could have done the cropping you suggested without damaging the photo, I probably would have tried, but it definitely was not something I was comfortable with, and on review, I feel the same way.

 

'Street photography' is far different than landscape, studio photography or any other genre, in that many times leaving in what may be seen by some as 'distracting' elements may actually lend context to images that might be seen by others as somewhat abstract and not 'of the street'.

 

I've confronted similar cropping suggestions before, and my answer the first time was the same (see in this single photo, color, folder, a photo of a Coca-Cola poster and a very pretty young woman hoisting a Coca-Cola in an opposite direction -- it was noted by some relating to that photo that a license plate from a car was protruding into the 'scene' but I rejoined that the license plate and car were part 'of the scene' and kept the 'scene' from being 'seen' in the 'abstract' -- by placing it directly 'on the street'.

 

So, yours is an appropriate suggestion, and the first time I saw it, it caused me very serious thought, but I trust to my judgment, and the more I think about such suggestions where I have decided not to crop, the more I trust in my original judgment.

 

And I thank you for your helpfulness in making the suggestion. Even though I reject it here, it may be an appropriate suggestion for another photo, another place, or even by another photographer.

 

And since many, many read these commentaries, I am told, it may very well be that your suggestion and my response may cause others to give the issue of when and how to crop 'distracing elements' very serious consideration that they otherwise might not receive.

 

Which means, score one for you for making a good comment -- it and this colloquy may ultimately help many as they face similar decisions. And it isn't that you are 'wrong' either or that I'm making you 'wrong' -- I'm just rejecting that advice for this particular photo in this instance. (I do occasionally crop such things from time to time where it doesn't harm the photo in my view, and a crop is really important to the photo's exposition.)

 

John (Crosley)

You are right. Those 'alimentary signs' are restaurant awnings covering outdoor tables across from the Gare du Nord (North Train Station, Paris) and so are related to things gustatory, and of course the woman in the advertisement is drinking either coffee or tea (I think espresso). It also may be Italian despite the caption, but I can't figure it out for sure, and the caption needed to be written without extensivce research. Besides, this photo was taken in Paris and to be viewed by the French (although in an area that is near/in one of Paris's predominantly black/Muslim/African/Middle Eastern neighborhoods, where such imagery would not be very much appreciated, but those people are obviously not the target audience -- that is the commuters who stream out of Gare du Nord and also the multitude of other travelers).

 

I wasn't so sure about this photo for a long time, but when I saw a 'larger' version of it today, I resolved that it must be posted, and I'm glad I did. The caption followed, although it was the contrast I was trying to make, even if the idea was not clearly spelled out in my mind when I was photographing.

 

Best to you, and thanks for adding your valued thoughts.

 

John (Crosley)

John, first of all thanks for your elaborate answer. It's by far the most extensive I've received so far. I can fully understand your reasons for not doing what I suggested. I also don't want to lose that "natural feel" in my street work. In this case I looked at it for quite some time. My reason for suggestion that you should crop was based on the story I think you're telling here. One can always disagree on such technicalities. I do appreciate the fact however that you've stand by your opinion for it's ultimately you as a photographer who has to make that choice. I think too many people are easily swayed by comments. I myself value each and every critique whether it's positive or negative. I always try to get something out of it. By the way I didn't rate your photo. Since I worked out how utterfly useless this system is I stopped doing that. Therefore I join you in hoping that all those substantiated comments that are written lead to further debate.

I can be explicit where I have an opinion; but I was quiet on this service for most of my first half year or more, and didn't take many stands. I just felt I'd post my photos and not take strong stands - there were so many good to great photographers. Now some have gone, some have stayed and I have gained somewhat in stature, but my first photo posted is still my best ever or at least one of my four or five best ever.

 

I like to think things out and not be afraid, after first taking the lay of the land . . . so to speak . . . and not generally go off 'half cocked' to use an expression that was popular when I was younger.

 

You're somewhat right about ratings, but only partly right. There are few standards (there is a tutorial or some such), and no policing at all, but somehow the ratings do seem to work; my photo ratings have been consistent over the years, and I expect them to stay there - 'street photo' ratings being what they are and that genre not being 'beautiful' and/or appreciated by all - or in the most part being very 'stunning'.

 

I note I just read an article -- an older one that Googled as a 'related page' under my name under Google.com, about Henri Cartier-Bresson (how did they make that connection?) and it stated that Cartier-Bresson's singular 'art' centered not only on great composition caught on the fly, but also on focusing (there's that word) often on life's little things, even a scratched figure on a wall, a gesture, an expression (or I might add, a little girl walking through the sunbeam in a courtyard of shadow) and innumerable other little things that the very observant can capture (I wish I could get half the things that guy with what was called the 'quicksilver temperament' could see and capture.)

 

Focusing on life's little pecularities, notions, looks or perceptions often is not the way to capture the attention of the great untutored in photography - it requires some experience not only with life but also with the arts and/or at least people to appreciate such droll little insights into the human experience -- so viewers may be forgiven if they are not immediately attracted to 'street photography' of the sort I produce, which is replete with such observations (or at least I hope).

 

But the rating system does mean something, and it generally relates to the popularity of an image. If an image if highly rated, 90% of the time it will draw higher views OVER TIME aside from higher initial views related not only to placement on the top rated photo sorting 'engine' but also to a photo's general attractiveness.

 

And it can surprise that complex photos sometimes are 'top rated' -- while simple, but meaningful photos sometimes may not be as highly rated. I have one great photo (in my mind) of a guy standing hunched over slightly next to a phone box on a pole, -- two pole-like figures with the guy hunched over to accommodate the roundness of the top of the phone - a very simple photo, but full of humor if you look at it, and it did not score very highly while more complex and active photos have scored much higher.

 

There are a few different photos that for some reason have scored in the 3's and 4's that seem to attract and keep attracting viewers and clicks -- I call these photos 'hidden view magnets' because they are not seen by raters as being 'clickworthy' but everybody clicks on them because of some unknown and inexplicable quality about them. One such photo is in an early portfolio of a woman in a yellow rain slicker, against an electric blue painted wall, holding a redddish/purple bowling ball - very low rates but inexplicably high number of clicks (not explained by any placement on the top-rated photo engine, either or even by having been first in a folder for a huge amount of time.)

 

But in general, higher ratings, aside from intitial views, mean higher popularity, and I think you can even take that to the bank if you're selling photos to the public (not art aficionados as I hope to do -- they're a pickier lot).

 

So, take ratings with a grain of salt, but don't just dismiss them entirely; they do mean something for some of us.

 

Thanks for the kind, explanatory comment.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I just hope It's not me either that's going off 'half cocked' . I can be very outspoken but like to think I do that as honestly and constructive as I can. Whether it's meaningful to someone is for others to decide. I just hope people are willing to do this on my work too. My statement on those ratings you have to see in the context that I'm implying but maybe wasn't clear enough about(I sometimes have to think how to formulate these sentences English not being my native language). You're absolutely right in saying that ratings can be valuable in drawing attention from other viewers. However, I still think that a written reply is so much more valuable. I myself don't care if it's positive or negative as long as it's honest and substantiated. Look at what we're doing here right now. I don't know about you but for me this has some added value.

 

I've found some brilliant photography here on PN since I joined but I've also found a lot of, what I think is, overrated work

 

About street photography you're right. It's often undervalued. As one fellow photographer wrote under my portfolio, just like you said here before, it's that little and precious moments that are so easily overlooked and yet so attractive and meaningfull. That's excactly what I'm drawn too. I work for 30 years now in a hosptital so I get to see a lot of human behaviour. Maybe that's one reason I'm so attracted to such images. I think people are the most interesting subjects that can be photographed.

Yes I have an ego too and I'm always glad (sometimes even over the moon, to be honest) if someone values what I do. But in the end I'm not at all concerned whether I get 3/3's or 7/7's. I just think that the rating system itself, apart from the reasons you rightfully mentioned, is way overrated itself.

 

Ton

Sometimes it seems that the word "womanhood" was invented in France. I think French women have a terrible weight on their shoulders as far as having expectations and a reputation to live up to - thanks to Louis XIV who succeeded in associating France with style, elegance and sophistication.

 

You might find this book about the Sun King's contributions interesting:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0719/p17s01-bogn.html

 

 

Your picture makes a strong contrast and serves as a commentary about the issues that women face "then and now". My subjective interpretation of this capture is that the woman on the right is preoccupied with self indulgence evidenced by the flowers surrounding her and the cup of beverage she is holding. The one on the left is more concerned about survival and what she needs to do in order to go through this day. Her crossed arms and look of anticipation lead me to believe that she is impatiently waiting for her ride. It's interesting to note a restaurant in the background. Weight issues are a constant fixation for modern women.

You do not fail to amaze that you bring something 'to the table' on this one.

 

Your analysis, again, is spot on, and adds fresh fodder for the critical analyses of this photo which already is ripe for critical analysis, which I didn't exactly know when I took it. I just knew, like many of mine, that it recognized a contrast inherent in a situation, and not how great or significant was that contrast. May I be forgiven for my shortsightedness.

 

It was the time of the nationwide (French) transit workers union strike, and all was stalle, including buses, of which few were running and most were run by supervisors and those that were running were greatly overcrowded if they showed at all or even kept to their routes.

 

It was a time of great national adventure, which started each morening for me by being overcharged by Metro area taxis who wished to surcharge the meter, something surely illegal, and to object would have found me still walking through fields outside of Roissy looking even for the airfield, let alone Paris.

 

John (Crosley)

Beautiful intelligent woman, love Paris, fine shot..

J'adore Paris aussi, although not so much this particular trip which was fraught with French-style hardships since it was in the middle of a national transportation union workers strike and it had the nation paralyzed, the trains 95% shut down and the same with the R.E.R. (interurban trains) and the same with the famed Paris Metro, although the Metro ran a few hugely overcrowded trains every now and then.

 

This photo was taken before morning's first light as winter approached; it was a good time to be photographing people, since they were up and about early to try to get to their destinations and dressed for walking in many cases. And walk many did, large distances. Taxis 'surcharged' (stole) anything they could,, and if you didn't like it, you lumped it . . . . you were invited to get out and walk So much for civilization. Opportunism abounded and taxi drivers took advantage.

 

The woman, left, certainly seems self-assured and capable of taking care of herself, doesn't she? And her grooming is nice; in Russia (your native country?) she would start to be looking dumpy at her age, I think if she were an average woman, although there are exceptions (I'm next door and it holds true in the country next door where women try to get married at 20-21 maximum and start to go downhill afterward.

 

I'm of an opinion women don't even start to realize who they are in certain ways until theyre at least 26 or 28, minimum, or even 35.

 

Thanks for dropping by and commenting.

 

John (Crosley)

Dear John, I live in Croatia, you have been mislead by my name; Vladimir is common name with Slavic people...no hard feelings

Notice that I did not state that you were Russian categorically, and raised it as a question -- I am aware Vladimir is a generic Slavic name, but there appears to be a Russian photo blog bearing the name Funtac which I thought came from Russia -- perhaps that also is yours and I also mistakenly thought it came from Russia.

 

I apologize if you were offended; I do know the difference and do not generically assume anyone with the name Vladimir is Russian -- though there are an awful lot of Vladimirs (Volodyas) in Russia including my last father-in-law, a very dear, wonderful man, who loved me like a son (though he was not so much older than I and greatly encouraged my marriage to his beautiful -- exceedingly beautiful -- young daughter.

 

So pardon me, if I hear the word Vladimir, I immediately think of this loved and wonderful and now very aging guy in central Russia, but also know that Vladimir not only is Slavic, but that Slavic names have spread worldwide and even can be found among Hispanics in, say, Cuba, where Soviets stationed there intermarried.

 

Pardon my slip-up.

 

John (Crosley)

Woman on the left partly underexposed. Background picture correctly exposed but a bit "flat". All in all I miss the "story". The picture is very "crowded" with details and could lack some focus.

 

Best,

 

Luca

What you see as 'underexposed' is rather highlights from difficult lighting and not curable - possibly 'blowouts' from reflected light. Yes, it is crowded and in this case, the story is partly a result of good captioning, but it is there.

 

This is a case where this photo is one for 'taste' or not; perhaps this is not for your taste. I had questions about how it would be received and so far have pleasantly been surprised. Sometimes I get a 'winner' with ratings when I do not expect it, and get a 'dud' with ratings when I am sure I have a winner.

 

I am sure, however, you agree this is a 'color' photo, as opposed to a 'black and white', can we agree on that?

 

I always appreciate your considered contributions.

 

(In reply to your private request, I couldn't find a way to 'sign on', and so await some instructions, perhaps by e-mail. OK?)

 

John (Crosley)