'I'm Forever Blowing . . . '

Bubbles, bubbles, bubbles. This guy's entire occupation is standing

on a street corner and using his plastic thing to blow bubbles. He

just happens to be standing in front of a poster advertising a

popular daytime Ukrainian television serial, for an added aesthetic

dimension. 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 a great angle, one I'd probably never consider, but the perpindicular intersection center frame of the two eye-lines, obscured by a burst of bubbles, the bubbles drifting out of frame on the right. Such a formal composition for such a light-hearted image.

And here I am thinking for once I was just going to post an appealing (read 'pretty') picture, without any claims to a particular aesthetic excellence at all . . . just some nice colors that stood out well because of the dark but colored backround.

 

And there you go, applying some fancy, schmancy intellectual evaluation of its formal compositional values . . . . ones I never consciously thought of.

 

Now I have to go rethink the entire process of how I happened to choose this particular capture from about 30 or so others I took. I knew it was for some reason; most likely the one you articulated, and now I'm on tenterhooks about 'why'.

 

Is it all those years of making films that gave you such insight?

 

John (Crosley)

... you give me. One of the great things about being a director was working with directors of photography. One of my great life friends is Bob Ebinger, who was a DP on many of my projects. He would tweak a shot until the cows came home because he was always finding ways to make things more interesting, more communicative. In order to be able to rein him in, it was necessary to understand what he was doing from the emulsion point of view. What would be the effect of what he was lighting? How would it impact the action? The message? The camera movement? The lens choice. The gift that I received was seeing a bit like Bob (and the others) saw. If this were a film, for example, it would be a perfect frame to "reveal" the portrait in the background, especially if it were a comment on the action, perhaps with a very slight dolly move in.

 

But then, of course, we would have spent hours working on getting the bubbles just right :)

At the great depth of knowledge and experience you have, and I am sure even in deep conversation there are many things that you would not feel comfortable trying to explain to me, a mere amateur.

 

For instance, although I spent what for me was an extraordinary amount of time with this guy (and the portrait and the girl, blurred) behind him, there only was one 'right' frame in the whole bunch, before I felt I got as good as it coud get, but it happened all in maybe 10 minutes.

 

I may be in the perfect 'hobby' or 'profession' for someone with a short attention span . . . I can take and frame a photo within seconds, or even a second, sometimes.

 

My realization now is that I take the photo with my eyes, then raise my camera to memorialize, it, in many instances. It is a luxury to view through the viewfinder and be able to squeeze off new and individual frames, and that is a luxury I often don't have.

 

Compare my style of photography to chess.

 

Mine would be the clocked chess, where after each move one slams down one's palm on the clock that times the play. The quicker the move, the better in many instances, not because speed is a goal in itself in my photography (as opposed to the chess players), but because my subjects positions and/or expressions often are so fleeting.

 

Moviemakers (with budgets that are big enough), have time to indulge their whims more than I. I think if I'd become a filmmaker, the producers would have liked me, because I could have digested shots pretty quickly, set them up, done takes, and gotten out of there, maybe under budget from time to time.

 

But that presupposes some familiarity with the art of the narrative, of which I have none.

 

I would have liked to have had the experience you have had in the filmmkaking arts; it would have added a whole new dimension to my art, I think, but then, would it have spoiled it . . . . ?

 

John (Crosley)

... does not mean it wasn't intentional. It was.

Lighthearted and fun capture. The two women in the background add complexity and another "layer" to this composition. I associate this with mockery in relationship. The way I see it, this depicts a guy who approaches love in a very childish way. Perhaps I am reading too much into it or making a storm out of a glass of water.

 

Dennis, I didn't know you were a filmmaker. I started a new job this year working for the chair of the Cinema dept. at a college. Isn't cinema moving photographs after all? ;)

 

I do a lot of things in a pretty rational (or at least ways that make sense) in an unconscious level.

 

I used to sleep late when I practiced law.

 

Sometimes I would be awakened by telephone calls, perform very complicated legal decisions/maneuvering/strategies while in a sleeplike state, and awake hours later (I awoke late often) to find out that I had no memory of the events at all.

 

Sometimes it would be weeks or months before I found out about my having done such things, and then the memory would be triggered.

 

I do have a rather strong subconscious or even 'unconscious' aspect to myself, but most of it I've worked out to where I understand almost all of it and without the need for professional help in any recent decades. I have the skills to self-engage and understand myself at this point in my life.

 

I spent a lot of my early adult life going on 'instinct' and my ideas of 'what would work' and what would 'not work' trusting to judgment, and my judgment invariably proved correct, but sometimes the judgments were slow in coming.

 

I could often tell 'in my gut' by the unhappy feelings there that something was not right in one of my cases or another and therefore those cases didn't move forward.

 

Later, I would pinpoint what it was that was missing, fix it (usually) and go on to win.

 

Sometimes having an 'aggresive' attorney is not what you want as opposed to a contemplative one with a good gut, as I had.

 

My Presentation on Photographers: Watch Your Background' is an attempt to transform 'gut instinct' into rational thinking that can be communicated.

 

This photo is destined for that Presentation when the site software for Presentations is improved.

 

Thanks for thinking of me, (again.)

 

John (Crosley)

This time, for all the great evaluations and contributions you've made, you've gone too far. This is just as it seems -- a simple exercise in juxtaposition, with no real story to it. I wrote in the Request for Critique that there was 'no story' but took out those words, figuring it might be self-evident.

 

But academic and often literary minds often do create stories and why suppress the exercise; it is fun (and enlightening to find out how others think) to bring out those stories about how a photograph is interpreted by others.

 

But to make some sort of relationship between this guy, his bubble pipe and the actress on a poster behind him, is way too far-fetched, as I'm sure you will agree, when you re-read your critique (please do NOT remove it, as it breaks the spontaneous nature of this colloquy and your contributions are very, very valued here).

 

Now, to save my soul, this have been up for five hours and has only one rate -- and it's in my highest-rated (color) folder. Either I made a mistake, or raters are afraid now to give me a low rating because I've finally scaled to a higher place on the TRP engine.... and I sometimes think that's true, as the ratings are beginning to climb, more I think because I've attracted followers who rate well because they understand and appreciate my work than because the rank and file think my work is any better.

 

But I do now pay more attention (somewhat) to what is my better or 'not as good as' work when I post it. I still post what I will, but I take more care in 'where' I post (what folder), and if a photo doesn't meet expectations for a folder, I (rarely) will move it, now.

 

I like this photo purely for its play on colors - the bubbles with the dark background and the two faces (three if you count the blurred face underneath).

 

I tried to work that third face into a better composition that might have had bettter symmetry, but the woman was not cooperative in her placement or the man's arm kept cutting off a view of her face, and I could not stage direct, as they were distant and I don't generally do such things.

 

(and yes, Adan W., Dennis is a former filmmaker whose credits I have not explored, but you might look into the achivements of AltaMira Corp while he headed it -- with its Genuine Fractals software -- a true 'revolution' as Dennis has acknowledged -- in large scale reproduction). In fact, Dennis is either (a) slumming here on Photo.net or (b) raising the level for the rest of us. (Take your pick).

 

It's always nice to see Dennis's contributions, as well as your own, even if occasionally they may seem far-fetched, as usually they are well grounded.

 

Best to you; I hadn't heard about your job.

 

Congratulations.

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you John. It's always exciting when another chapter opens in one's life.

You have taken the photo at the right moment.Its just beautiful!

I'm glad you didn't use the phrase 'decisive moment', as that is too high-class a phrase to be used with this 'fun' photo.

 

Others of mine might qualify, but this is just a 'fun' photo, posted only for its aesthetics.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

John (Crosley)