Hands (And the Stories They Tell)

This photo, taken in Vienna, but which could have been taken most

anywhere in the Western world, tells three different stories, through

the use of hands. 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

I can understand what you saw. Unfortunately the image has all the hands so scattered that there isn't any focal point about hands. I am more drawn toward the woman's face and was wondering what she was thinking about. Unfortunately the hair of the person behind the woman create a bit of distraction. The dark shape on the right also created distraction.

 

So if I want to count the "hands" my eyes have to roam around the entire perimeter of this photograph.

 

Interesting concept but the image did not quite tell the same story that you described.

I agree with Hansen. However in my opinion the strong points are: it is best done in Black and White (you did). The tones and her expression. She and her expression are a photo unto itself (is that Engilsh?) -if you had shot lower and excluded the above.

What you find 'distracting' or what causes you to work, indeed is one of the strengths of this photo.

 

Consider this: A photo in which the subject is 'dead center' is generally a pretty lifeless photo. Our eyes focus 'dead center', comprehend, and we move to the next sight, almost instantaneously.

 

It is those things that cause our eye to wander through a photo that make a photo generally more successful. Now, that is not always true, and if there is great disappointment with a photo, then that is a problem.

 

But if a photo cause a casual viewer to spend time with it, it probably has some success just for that, assuming it is not just an example of 'bad photogaphy' -- so bad that it invites being viewed for its awfulness.

 

If you eye indeed went around this photo and you spent time with it, then it is a partial success -- it engaged you. If it disappointed you, then that is a demerit, and I admit that the person's hair behind the central subject is a bit distracting and I could have applied Photoshop forcefully to diminish or 'get rid' of it, but I do minimal Photoshopping -- it's just too easy to take another photo and sometimes some really good ones.

 

The woman's clenched hand reflects the emotions in her face -- they complement each other. Famed photographer Elliott Erwitt was firm believer in 'watching hands' for he believed they told as much or more about people than faces -- for people learn to disguise their facial expressions, but are unaware of the importance of their hands in revealing what they are doing/thinking.

 

I agree with him, and that's what this photo is about, if anything. It is, of course, what you, the viewer, make of it.

 

I 'see something' in it, and am engaged by it, but even if you spent time perusing it, perhaps you didn't . . . and we have different reactions -- both honest.

 

I'll keep this photo up; I believe in it.

 

It's also unique (despite the 3/3 rating someone gave it -- a 3 for 'originality' -- oh, come on . . . . )

 

I've posted this with the 'best of my best' -- I believe that's where it belongs

 

But I thank you for an informed comment; it helps me evaluate (and re-evaluate), which I do on a nearly continual basis, as I keep learning this craft/art.

 

Thank you.

 

John (Crosley)

Yes, the photo works well in Black and White, but you should see the color behind her - it's light red and darkened a little, it makes a pretty spectacular color photo -- you'd have to see it to believe it, but I did chose black and white, even though I felt color would make a strong photo (and still do). You cannot have imagined that the wall behind her was strongly colored, for it doesn't show in this photo (and I won't be posting a link -- I might want to post that photo elsewhere).

 

The tones, I agree, seem to be pretty good, especially for hand held indoor under restaurant lighting -- taken while seated, eating and having a soft drink.

 

If I had just made a 'portrait' out of this (she was very far away even for my 70~200 mm telephoto, then it would have been necessary to get closer, distracting her and the photo would have been impossible; I as quite visible in this restaurant, so it's a good idea, but one that never could have fruition.

 

Additionally, a photo of a woman and a hand might have been pretty uninteresting except as a character study; this photo has more (or attempts more, as you wish).

 

I place much thought into my photography, even though some shots take just seconds, and also into choosing images (she had been on a mobile phone and was unhappy with her conversation, it appeared).

 

I am thankful for critiques; they allow me to examine others' viewpoints, and just for sharing yours, I thank you, for you have done so with insight and intelligence.

 

John (Crosley)

Well John, I am glad your believe in yourself is strong. I appreciate that. I also agree with you about needing to roam a photograph with my eyes. The main difference for me is that human eyes have a specific way that we "roam". The "convention" is to roam from one side to the other. Not in a circle. I get dizzy roaming in circles.;-)

 

BTW the pair of 3's are not from me. I did not rate this photograph. I prefer to take my time and share my thoughts with you.

 

Thanks for sharing.

John, You have a portfolio that mine cannot touch. I leave my comments at that.

I started with posting the best photo I ever took (from long ago, age 22, and my highest rated) four years ago: 'Balloon Man', at the start of this folder.

 

And I've staked my tenancy here on this stake of cyberground on not really caring so much about ratings, even though they are important for popularity, but by going with my instinct.

 

Occasionally my viewers feel I've chosen a 'stinker' from what I think are gems.

 

Recently when a Master Printer to the photographic luminaries went through my photo captures for a solid six months, he came up with 'stunning capture after stunning capture' and what he called 'fabulous stuff' that wouldn't score at all well on Photo.net. That's just the way things are. (He has a Lucie Award -- the highest award in the photographic arts -- kind of like an Academy Award for the photographic industry, and prints for luminaries in the fine arts, gallery and museum photo field, and I have his judgment behind mine overall, but he also taught me how to go with my own judgment, for in the end, he said 'you have to be happy with your choices' . . . for what I send to galleries.

 

And galleries are where I'm headed.

 

My photoshopper (he will do my gallery work) is drawing work to a close on photos for a special book of photos, bound and all, that soon will be printed for distribution, one by one or two by two, to galleries worldwide -- on a case by case basis.

 

This Lucie Award Winner told me to aim for museums and the highest-level galleries. 'Aim for the highest level, your work deserves it,' he urged me.

 

Unless he was funnin' me, (and I think for sure he was not), I may end up in galleries some time in the future, or even museums with my work.

 

And it's my judgment that is the basis of that; I like Photo.net and the critiques for they often are cogent and intelligent under my photos (not everybody's, but mine in particular, because I think my photos - and replies -- require people to think a little).

 

So, I'll be presenting not only to photographic arts galleries but also 'art' galleries that also sell 'art' photos (even though you might wonder where is the 'fine art' in my work . . . it's there, if you look closely enough, as he did . . . and he said he was 'blown away' and encouraged me to pursue this with all my heart.

 

Which I am doing

 

Not every photo, though, is a true winner.

 

The one preceding this, in this folder, was a sure winner, of the 'street' category -- this might fit into a slightly different category -- more 'arty' - more cerebral (if at all).

 

It's my judgment, my photography, my money, my talent (if any), and my time, and I'm betting (now that I have someone of high stature who confirms it for me) that I have what it takes to get somewhere with my work -- we'll see if I die sooner, though, as I'm no spring chicken . . . . but not sickly or a grumpy old man, either (my girlfriend's in her mid '20s, and she has no problem with my age);~)

 

And it may be a wild goose chase, but oh what fun in chasing that goose!

 

From Thailand, to Hong Kong, to Argentina, to Russia, living in Ukraine, to Germany and Austria and all over the continent, Turkey and nearly everywhere else I can get.

 

Yet somehow all the photos seem to have some commonality to them; people can 'spot' them as mine, even though no two seem to be nearly alike.

 

And they're widely copied (illegally) on the Internet, though that is dying out somewhat as I upload smaller and smaller digital files -- I'm tired of having my work expropriated on 30 to 50 sites webwide. Abby Hoffman's slogan: 'Steal this Book' should not apply to my photography.

 

In the end, you may not appreciate this photo, and your judgment will be equally as valid as mine.

 

The question is whether some day there is a chance you might appreciate this one better or if it is now at its zenith for your appreciation in your photographic development.

 

I hope there's hope for this one if you look back at it a year or three from now -- even if you don't fall in love with it, and that you'll see it's rather complex in its 'statement'.

 

Which is why it isn't focused just on the face and her hand for a 'character study'.

 

In a sense, this photo is about simultaneously 'reaching out' (as two hands are doing above and the guy with the mobile phone is doing aurally on his mobile, and her clenched fist, tight-mouthed expression which are the antithesis.

 

There, I've said it; I've created another 'ironic juxtaposition' which is something I often do, however unknowingly. So, this is indeed a more complex photo than some may ever give it credit for. In a way it's a little morality story - or a play at least about differing attitudes within a confined space -- how some of us 'reach out' and try to 'touch someone' while others recoil from the same.

 

Life's like that in my eyes.

 

Thanks for the comments (both of them). I really do appreciate them.

 

And you don't have to be a first-rate photographer to be a first-rate critic -- that's an old 'canard' (duck in French, but it means 'joke' or 'jest' as we use it in English, or at best a false argument - e.g., 'you must upload great photos in order to be a great critic'. Naaah! Wrong.

 

Many great photographers cannot write their way out of a bag; I hope someday because I can write maybe I'll be an exception (if my work is accepted at a higher level, as I hope). Otherwise, I'll just be some grandiose writer all full of himself (which may be the case for some -- we'll see what the end of the story holds, whether in my lifetime or beyond.)

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

I'd call this photo, a "nervous" one, where the facial expression of the main character is well matched and "commented" by the hands [falsely] scattered all around. I understand that you wanted to focus the attention on the hands, and this is way you cropped out the head of the man on the left side, nonetheless I would have liked to see a bit more of this character. Thank you John. Happy Easter, Giuseppe

Thanks for the astute analysis -- you are mostly correct.

 

However there was an impediment that kept me from showing more of the phone man -- perhaps an interfering walker or customer -- but there was a good reason that I could not avoid.

 

Otherwise I would have shown more.

 

This looks very good in color -- red predominates -- but the 'prettiness' works somewhat at cross purposes with the theme and her expression.

 

Thanks for your attention to this work and my body of work.

 

John (Crosley)

John, first of all PN'ers don't exist. There are just photographers here, crappy amateurs as well as people who any gallery would be proud to represent, the range is as wide as that. Secondly, you've got some good and valid critiques here, especcialy Meir who I know to be very good on this kind of work.

Thirdly, I've looked at this one for some time and I agree there is what you call "something". In fact you know all too well what that is. Amongst all other things it is that composition which leads one almost in a "circular" fashion through this image.

 

What I find time and again is that you are incredibly sloppy in your editing (or even the total lack of it). Would this one have edited the way it should have been, and you know all too well how this one has to be edited and should look in the end, we would have seen an altogether different image.

John doesn't know how to edit worth beans and doesn't really care much to learn.

 

I know some fundamentals and that's about it.

 

Frankly, I don't even know how 'layers' works -- through some intent oversight on my part.

 

But when I submit to galleries, I have (currently am testing out) a Ukrainian equivalent of a 'master photoshopper' and if he lives up to the skills he's shown me, for any 'professional' or 'commercial' work, there will be no issue about Photoshopping or image editing (the correct term) techniques.

 

I take the photos and I interpret them, but I'm not always so good at rendering them. As it is I spend almost day and night just ORGANIZING my work for the past three and a half years on two computers -- it's so prodigious and that's just to keep it so i can find anything.

 

I've had two computers running full time (day and night) sorting into catalogs under Lightroom Library and also Photoshop Elements Catalog (and even trying out Picassa 2 library, to find some sensible way to view my voluminous captures.

 

Somewhere in there, there is gold, and it may be my retirmenet; my 'mentor' has told me to leave Photo.net altogether -- claims I'm 'way above it' or 'way beyond it' but I believe as you do, there's room for all kinds here, and I don't think that any particular image of mine is 'magic' or particularly deserving as opposed to the whole.

 

And for me this is just a testing ground, not a showplace. I try things out here that I couldn't put on a commercial web site. I am free to experiment. If my photoshop (or image editing if you prefer) skills are rudimentary, it's because of the ease with which I can go out and take new captures -- I almost always now can get something interesting if given a little bit of time and some approach to an interesting subject -- even last night to meet someone at Starbucks in a parking lot I stopped a guy with an armload of flowers and got a GREAT shot of him -- all in color. I almost never PLAN to go take photos anymore; it's just what I do as I go about my daily affairs.

 

 

But the business of preparing a book to send to galleries (better, drop it by with advance appointment), has taken all my time, together with outrageously enormous task of organizing terabytes of captures to search best for the ellusive most interesting ones that I've overlooked, and it is sure they are there (the last look turned up many, but the file that contained the 'hidden gems' was accidentally destroyed by a computer accident and not backed up -- all by the Lucie Award Winner who culled my enormous output.

 

So, my computers barely will run, they are so busy processing commands from the file organizing programs. If I enter a crop command, it might be ten minutes before my computer responds, and doing any 'fancy' image editing is right now beyond my computer capabilities unless I want tospent literaly 24 hours on a few images -- I can spend an hour just working on the background of a tricky image like this, what with my ULTRA SLOW computers -- not designed to be slow, or suffering from any viruses or operating system failures, but just simultaneously processing 15 to 22 hard drives of captures and organizing them -- thereby slowig down ANY process I attempt.

 

Also, Ton, you may note compared to before, new 'quality' issues that smack of JPEG compression issues. That is because I am minimizing my file size to the lowest so the blogs won't have so much to steal when they see my captures -- before they were taking my 'high' or 'maximum' files and even some were selling them on the Internet in Ukraine and Russia (and not paying me a penney or a kopek). So, rather than watermark (which I will do soon), I have reduced file size. There's a price in quality of image that will reflect the choice of smaller files -- it's a deliberate choice -- after all I post these things 9which i hope will augment my future income) for free, and to have them stolen and in high quality no less is a little much.

 

So, some 'quality' issues may result from vastly reduced file sizes -- try to see if you can spot the difference --- e.g. jpeg compression marks around subjects where shadow/highlight tool has been used, etc., are common artifacts, among other things.

 

Life is full of compromises and I'm mortgaging my future at the expense of posting the highest quality on Photo.net. Any personal web site will have small images and they may be watermrked (they surely will have embedded EXIF info marking them as copyrighted -- so I may no longer use the 'save for web' function -- we'll see the pros and cons of that.

 

You are right, Ton, but your criticism does not hurt. This is a converted color image with tricky background color/light and to make it show properly actually took a lot of editing -- if you saw the file you might have some trouble with it.

 

But since it's contrast and brightness, those changes generally don't count as 'manipulations' under the rules.

 

Don't hesitate to be a tough critic; for my money that's what a good critic doees when he comees from a place of good faith and is armed with some substantial knowledge, as you are.

 

Best to you and thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

I didn't really 'get' this photo and its symbolism entirely until I was forcded to defend my editing decision (to include all four hands); and in doing so, forced myself to articulate that which should have been apparent to me.

 

I'm sometimes a gestaltist kind of guy; I have an overview and a 'gut' which sometimes guides me, coupled with some well-deserved tricks for creating the 'ironic juxtapositions' that I seem to churn out with some regularity.

 

You are right, it does have something, but I'm probably not gonna burn the midnight oil bringing it out further -- if it ever appeals to a large audience, I'll turn it over to photoshopper Igor with instructions and then go out and try to do better. I just have soooooo many images and I haven't evven looked at more than a small percentage of them critically with my newfound 'critic's eye' as I have recently been taught by a mentor.

 

That is what drives me and keeps me from laboring over this or that individual shot - the drive to find excellence hidden away in something I dismissed outright at first, then passed over only to learn it might be a 'great shot' from things I've learned subsequently. That's shy I seldom delete unless it's out of focus or an accidental shutter release.

 

Already we've found literally files and files of such shots -- hundreds and maybe more.

 

I hope to find more (and rediscover those which were discovered and then lost by my former mentor before the findings could be conveyed to me.)

 

That's my approach these days.

 

The presentations to galleries can be found in three different Presentations under the 'Presentations' part of this folder (with some non-posted shots missing). Look for presentations (without explanatoin) on older b&W, newer b&w and color and invite you to take a critical look look through them.

 

I'd be interested in any feedback before such a book goes to a $350-a-copy press, and even after it is printed, I can custom change the book at any time.

 

So even tardy remarks are not wasted, even if the book has been printed 'once'.

 

John (Crosley)

Apparently the 'view' count is done at 6:00 or so a.m E.D.T.

 

I posted this about midnight or so, P.D.T. (Pacific Time) -- three hours from where the time where the view counting is done, so time from posting to view count was about three hours, and in that short time got just shy of 260 views -- an extraordinary number of click-throughs for ANY photo of mine.

 

Was that an accident, were people just looking for something that wasn't there, or, finally, did it truly engage viewers?

 

I'll only know more in subsequent days as I see if the views continue to mount or if they get 'stuck', and at the present ratings rate this photo won't be on the TRP engine (not enough rates).

 

John (Crosley)

I never have written or given a critique with the intention to hurt anyones feelings. What you call tough I would call honest (whether it be right or wrong)

 

What your mentor told you was told to me as well a few years ago by a gallery owner who invited me to exhibit some of my work but it's something I personally disagree on because first of all I think that to be very elitist Secondly, while in general you'll reach a more knowledgable audience it's also a limited one. Most importantly though in the end it boils all down to the same thing, people will like what one does or they won't.

I just do what I do because I like doing it and while I feel fortunate that some people like my work as well I wouldn't change a thing if they didn't.