Eyes

Sometimes an image, seen for a second or so, can be 'haunting' as was

this image of a small boy's face and large eyes, seen through his

parents cars as he drove by. I imagined seeing the world from a

small boy's perspective, which I saw reflected in his eyes and face.

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 is not the usual 'Crosley' photograph, is it?

 

But then I'm always taking different photos; the only real question is whether I'm posting them or not.

 

I have hard drives (terabytes) worth of photos that are different in ways than photos that are posted, and bit by bit I've been uncovering some of my 'other' work, often to some happy receptions, encouraged by my recent mentor, the world-famous printer.

 

This is one taken while I was waiting to see him one day; just on a weekend day while he was by himself and I was by myself, at night, driving along, alone.

 

I can only imagine how, if stopped, I'd try to explain myself, in the the U.S. and Los Angeles society which is convinced that every photographer taking a photo of a child is somehow up to no good, except that they would have to compare this photo with the rest of my whole body of work to see that somehow that it's consistent and an extension of that.

 

Much of my work dwells on mankind (and childkind) in a world of mystery and sometimes awe.

 

This is just another 'take' on that central theme.

 

Nothing but good intentions.

 

I am not even sure if it's a boy or girl - I think it's a boy, but can't be certain.

 

And frankly, it doesn't really matter much for purposes of this photo, does it?

 

John (Crosley)

 

(Oh, and today, I took one 'great' geometrical 'street' photo, and another in which there was a 'great' contrast -- between a dark and stringy-haired, crying woman, half toothless' in front of a huge smiling poster model, with picture book perfect, stunningly white teeth, for one of my finer juxtapositions.

 

(I can and do take my 'staple' photos along with the (even) more edgy ones. It all depends on what I 'see' at the moment, and the 'clarity' of my vision at that time.)

 

JC

Curiosity and wonder - this is how children see the world around them. It gets their attention even more when someone points a camera at them.

I really don't think he saw the camera.

 

He was busy looking out, and the camera came up for only a second, then went down again.

 

Of course, he saw it or might have seen it when it came up from below the window for one of my one-second photos, but this was how he looked for the blocks I followed or was alongside the parents' car.

 

That's why I photographed him.

 

(Kids often pose for cameras, or point them out to parents; he did no such thing and seemed oblivious to mine - up for a split second and then down again and drove away.)

 

John (Crosley)

I love this image! It shows how little the "little guy" is, barely showing from behing the glass. Very precious and meaningful!

Thank you very much.

 

One wonders sometimes, when one posts a photo like this, whether it will have any viewers or any impact at all, so feedback like yours is very important to me.

 

Thank you again.

 

John (Crosley)

I have always seen you work as capturing defining moments, sifting them out of the chaos of the bustle around us and distilling those universal aspects of human nature that bind us together. This seems like a terrific example of what I consider a 'Crosley' to be. This one is special John. I'm not sure that I would have left in the roof rack and come in so tight on the door handle but these are small issues. For the most part my eyes are locked onto the eyes of the boy. Great work.

Potter Stewart, the late Supreme Court Justice, when pressed to definie 'pornography' said 'I can't define it but I know it when I see it', although some very academic attempts have been made, and with some success, as I recall.

 

A 'Crosley' for me is as well defined by your comment as any comment I ever have seen, and I wish to be able to quote it (with attribution when I can remember), for your definition captures the essence of what it is I attempt to do.

 

Actually, that may be a little hifalutin. What I really do is look around me, and when I see something that appeals to me, no matter how small, simple or even complex, I attempt to make a decent capture of it.

 

Anyone looking through my vast portfolio can see that for much of the time I didn't give a damn about ratings, and still don't care too much about them. I do care about my captures . . . . and am getting bolder in what I post -- not necessarily in what I take.

 

I just wouldn't have posted this two or three years ago, I think, because it was too far outside the box, even for me, but now having been tutored/mentored or whatever you call it by that famed printer I've mentioned, I have new faith in the captures I take that are outside the mainstream.

 

I am not sure I want to stake my career in photography on making captures like this, no matter how touching or how haunting, but it is a moment, and a worthy one. It's also somewhat like my other work . . . but then I do such things on a regular basis . . . and try never to repeat myself . . . . even though some people say with regularity they can recognize my work when they see it . . . even though almost no two photos are alike.

 

I have these moments on a regular basis now, and so even when a car pulls alongside me and a little boy peers out, I'm always ready. As it was, this car pulled beside me or near me at the previous light, and I put my vehicle in place for a similar capture at the next light; this is the result.

 

I would be a terrible screenwriter, I think, even though you might think such photos are reminiscent of moviedom, because I could never think of such scenes in advance. Everything with my photography (at least what I show) is 'ad hoc' -- of the moment, and from the moment -- sometimes viewed and taken in a matter of a second or so.

 

And as I've been noting lately, I often frame the photo in my head and only raise the camera/lens combination to utilize or capture the photo I've framed.

 

In other words, I have the photo all mapped out in my mind (sometimes), and then raise the camera to capture it.

 

Other times, I have the most amazing luxury of actually peering through the viewfinder, and there's often no end of wonderful things to see then.

 

The reason for brief framing and out-of-the-viewfinder framing is the fleeting nature of so many of my captures, which involve humans, who might 'spook' or just change position if they know their image is being captured.

 

Your definition has touched me, not only because it's so 'right on', but because you thought enough to make the effort at all.

 

That I find is truly touching, especially coming from a wonderful photographer as yourself.

 

(I see your photos elsewhere on the web, stolen by the same guys who steal mine . . . . , and sometimes they're ones I haven't viewed before.

 

Whether you like those guys or hate them, many are very good fans/critics of photography . . . . and sometimes show good taste -- aside from the ever-present glamour nudes and glossy, phantasmagoric Photoshop jobs that sometimes populate their pirate sites.)

 

My best wishes to you, and thank you (you made my day).

 

John (Crosley)

 

(By the way, the above is not meant to suggest any relationship between my captures and pornography -- if I were doing pornography, it would be clear to all viewers -- and nothing I've posted comes within a country mile of that. I just like repeat Potter Stewart's great quote whenever I can.)

 

jc

By all means quote me any time you wish. I am honoured that you would wish to do so. I was not attempting to be 'hifalutin' although I have always liked that word and will use it more often, now that I know how to spell it :) I was merely trying to be succinct about how I see your work and what it communicates to me.

 

I have always liked that Potter Stewart quote. It is almost always easier to recognize something than it is to define it.

 

I also agree with you that thievery can be a form of flattery. We need to worry when nobody thinks our work is worth stealing. Thanks for the kind words about my photography, coming from you they are high praise indeed.

 

Take care John,see you around PN.

I look to your photos for inspiration in areas outside those I often photograph -- your eye is astounding.

 

You are right about theft and value being shown by the theft, however irritating, but I asssure you the thieves ARE spelling your name correctly, which may be important in the long run if you have career aspirations.

 

I do, and am getting enormous exposure, especially in Eastern Europe as well as Korea and China (and everywhere in between on a regular basis).

 

And some of those guys (or women) actually do put some thought into the photos they steal -- even if one 'blog' just copies the good work of another.

 

I shut down one religious woman who took an old photo of Tijuana and used it to illustrate her pity for shantytowns -- photo taken in 1968, and she cropped out a late model ('60s) car at one side of the photo, then (when she removed the photo, after I left a claim about theft on her site) that the 'crop' was not done intentoinally (after all, her site is a 'socially aware' religious-oriented site. Hah! She stole the photo and then doctored it to make it appear 40 years newer, just to illustrate her point, even though such conditions no longer exist where I took that photo (or to my experience at all, at this time - the slum got washed out in a flash flood and most drowned, including possibly the subject of the photo).

 

I always am very wary of people who wear 'religion' on their sleeves (I'm more holy than thou . . . .)

 

Reminds me of one of those Christian evangelists 'converting' prostitutes in the back seat of his car . . . . '~)

 

Anyone who tells me they're 'born again, I tell them one thing then ask them another.

 

I tell them I never 'fell off the wagon' so I don't have to be 'born again'. (That always makes them wonder).

 

Then I ask then, quite seriously, what physical building one is most likely to have the greatest probable percentage of sinners.

 

(Answer: A Christian church (including Catholic). By definition, all congregants are 'sinners', and as part of their ritual they must 'repent' their sins. If they had no sins, they'd have little reason to be going to church . . . I tell them.)

 

I'm a pisser sometimes.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)