'Viewfinders'

'Viewfinders' is a study in a moment in time and circumstance. What

are these two gazing at? That is left to your imagination. Your

ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate

harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful and consructive

comment; please share your superior photographic knowledge to help

improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Yes, another great photo, where we, spectators need to do all the narrative work. That is the power of it, but may be a difficult photo if we are not in inspirational mood ...

 

kind regards

 

laurent

 

Sencilla pero muy atractiva.

This is one of those photos I couldn't stop myself from taking, though I thought I could see no real 'interesting' thing that was the 'subject', as I usually do, and you know I desire to post 'interesting' photos as opposed (generally) to 'great art' or 'artful photos' as much of art (not yours by God as it's to my taste, and is generally dynamic and interesting in itself) is just a little too . . . 'static' for me -- I don't very much like 'still life's' generally, though if they're wonderfully done, they can inspire me to.

 

But why take this photo of a woman and a younger female on top a hillock overlooking something, and deliberately take it at a time and place where their view was obscured. Maybe it's something that fits into my life view -- that humans, caught at the proper moment, can be both artful and interesting, if only by their placement and their circumstance as well as their stance (as here), which indicates something very static.

 

But maybe they are looking at something that inspires some sort of stance like this: one where you have to just stand and put your hands on your hips and just . . . . well stand and stare . . . and that's what these two are doing.

 

It doesn't matter what they did moments before, whether they came from that place they are staring at, or they're going to it. And we don't know what it is, though it can be learned or intuited from the scene and the geography indicated in the posting.

 

Still, you can't ever be sure, and mostly it's unimportant. It might be titled 'Wait for Me!' as well, as if we're following them and want them not to proceed (if they're proceeding) until we can join them on that hillock to view that view which causes one to put hands on hips and just . . . . stare.

 

And I suppose it doesn't matter what they're staring at - you can intuit it, but that's rather beside the point.

 

I want to ask you, Laurent, whether in some way this reminds you maybe of the wistfulness of a Wyeth painting? I just thought of that this moment, but I have been ruminating since i started this brief essay on Wyeth's Christine)(?) spread out on a lawn, seen up close and in 'wide angle' (if that can happen in a painting . . .)

 

There seems to be a certain 'forlorn' quality or maybe just 'wistful' quality to this one . . . one that compelled me to (1) take it (post-process it and (3) post it, without regard for its ratings or even the criticism (I hardly thought it might be favorable, let alone from you.)

 

Thanks for the encouragement to go my own way . . . even if it's just a temporary excursion. I have always liked to take and post what I feel like, a process that was mostly encouraged by famous printer Michel Karman, though he may have felt he let something out of a bottle other than a 'genie', let alone any photographic 'genius' . . . . .

 

I am always delighted to see that one of my works has pleased you; I'm a neophyte at the 'art' business . . . and I nod my head to an expert.

 

Best.

 

John (Crosley)

Muchas gracias.

 

Juan

 

John (Crosley)

Christina's World is the only Wyeth painting that I know I'm affraid, but yes the analogy is a good one.

 

To be perfectly honest, I had a very late night / diner yesterday, and I am not in a full operating intellectual mode...

 

But this is why I really like this picture, especially today. I don't have to make any specific connections, or references : The simplicity of the scene doesn't force us into analytics. The composition is a perfect diagonale, the B&W giving all the right indications about space and time ( of the day ), and the position of the two women, looking at something we can't see, is a very simple narrative a priori.

 

But that is when we start to wonder.

 

This is a mystical image in the way that we know something is happening, because both women are looking at it, but we don;t know what it is. We can only project our ideas or feelings, and we will spend the time we want on this image : it is prone to trigger a meditative state, and is for me an image about "secret" more than "mystery". Secret, because we know that these two women really see and observe something, therefore it exists.

 

And a photo who will trigger our imagination, is for me always a more interesting image than one where the author is forcing his/her view on us.

 

( hoping I'm not too confusing today )

 

kind regards

 

laurent

 

 

Even with what you say is today's impaired intellect, your intellect shines though.

 

You have in your own meditative way, successfully analyzed this photo, and there isn't too much more I feel like saying.

 

That's the wonderful part of Photo.net and other service critiques -- when they're good, they really augment a photograph, and for those for whom it may be 'difficult' as you suggested above, a good critique may cause a second look.

 

For the life of me -- the guy who writes about 'including one's background' in a thoughtful and artistic way, this is the antithesis of that, or is it>

 

Here the background simply is unseen to ourselves, the viewers, but to these viewers it is seen. In a way it's sort of a continuation of my prior work about backgrounds, but it is far more subtle. Here the background is implied; it's the mystery background -- the one that's missing from a 'Crosley' photo.

 

It must be worth looking at, for these two are firmly planted there looking, but we don't know anything more than that it is 'viewable', and we are excluded from their gaze and as well cannot appreciate what probably is their appreciation of this scene. We intuit it's not a disaster -- nothing obvious tells that they're watching Martians or overlooking an auto or train wreck, and given the more 'natural' surroundings, we're given to suppose it's a landscape feature of some sort, but Lord knows what, or am I exceeding the bounds of this photo with my personal knowledge, or am I just projecting too.

 

For that's what this photo is about: projections of the viewer into the 'viewfinders'.

 

Funny how at first I couldn't think of a caption for this, but I actually chose what I think is the single best one possible, and it came to me in an instant and no other possible captions were competing.

 

I think I'm still in inchoate and inspired mode as opposed to analytical and studied when it comes to why and how I chose to take this photo, though it dovetails well as a continuation of my progressing theme(s).

 

Best to you my find analyst -- you throw off better critiques with a belly and/or headache than most people can do with great study when they are at their best.

 

John (Crosley)

"I think I'm still in inchoate and inspired mode [...]"

 

I don't agree : Actually your real artistical power in this photo and your work in general is that you art is "expiration" more than "inspiration" : it comes from within you, and is not coming from somewhere else.

 

And that is why you don't need to analyse before or when shooting.

 

But this is precisely the reason why any of your photos are first speaking straigh through the heart, and then, if we want, we CAN analyse them, and can stay on them for hours.

 

And your expirational work is an incredible inspiration for us all.

 

laurent

It sounds the way you you word it that I'm some product on a grocery shelf, and somehow 'expiring' or nearing my 'expiration' date. or an old guy (I'm not young) as though have some sort of condition that will lead to my demise - my 'expiration'.

 

But I actually do understand, that one inspires (breathes in) and one 'expires' (breathes out) and although I've never heard those terms applied to one's photo or art work, I do understand that you are saying not that I'm some old milk on the grocery shelf that has been 'dated' so it can be thrown out if not sold, that instead you believe that I had the artistic makings which drove the composition of this photo or a least caused me to make the choice of (1) taking it and (2) composing it as I did, and that was not 'inspiration' but 'skill', and I have to admit I felt a certain level of 'skill' in seeing such a mundane scene, stopping my car, backing up a very substantial distance to bring them within the frame of my zoom tele, and then when satisfied with the composition, to release the shutter about two times, both with the same essential shot.

 

And I look at this, and I notice that somehow the light and dark areas appear to be 'balanced' but not like on a balance scale, but in their relative and weighted distribution -- and there's even some white from that sideways sunlight in the foreground to emphasize that modeling effect of the late afternoon sun and also at the sides to show the tops of the brush, right, but the shadow 'top' of that is at the left, indicating it's a the tail end the day (or just after dawn, but I know which, and who looks at vistas in the early morning?)

 

So, somehow I breathed out (produced) this one, instead of 'taking it in' (inspiring), so I will add new uses for those words to my vocabulary and thank you for another edifying comment.

 

Somehow I am astonished that this even turned out to be a photo, must less one that is 'appreciated' but then I take all sorts of chances that don't turn out so well, either.

 

But then I remember the published story of a photographer/editor visiting Cartier-Bresson and picking up a photo, and proclaiming it among the master's best, and Cartier-Bresson's photo of a family member had this reaction: 'Really, you think it's worthy as art; I just thought it was a mere snapshot.'

 

Even le maitre was sometimes blind to his own captures.

 

Regrettably his powerful works leave me far, far behind, but I keep trying, and every once in a while I produce one I think he might have appreciated - or at least not cursed my lack of talent - which I hear he often did when presented with portfolios of photos from artists who wanted his perusal and who hoped for his support - he seldom gave it, and if he did, the photographer often ended up at Magnum Photo Agency which he founded.

 

(which is one 'hitherto secret' dream of mine - being in such exalted company.

 

Best to you L-P (hope your constitution has recovered from whatever).

 

John (Crosley) (with great thanks for the 'insight' -- and maybe holding up a giant mirror to me and saying 'see, look what's in there, and my 'seeing' something I didn't see before when I look.

 

It's a rare individual who has a critic who will hold up that mirror and say 'take a good hard look' - you may be missing something when you look at yourself.

 

(I have had wives and girlfriends who sometimes held up such symbolic mirros and said 'you see a nice guy there, but look carefully -- then again most re-converted after time away from me and they could see things in perspective and make comparisons. It's all a matter of perspective sometimes, and I am delighted to see things from your perspective.

 

John (Crosley)

I thought of "Christina's World" when I saw this, although this one is a bit more vague and asks the viewer to get more involved in creating the story because there is not a house in plain view to convey the feeling of determination for our subjects. It also hints at "Thelma and Louise", two friends in search of adventure.

In 'Christina's World' Christina is oriented to the viewer; in this the opposite, but she had a sort of anomie - an unawareness of the presence of the painter; she obviously was oblivious to her presence being recorded. Same here, but for more obvious reasons.

 

You might take a look at a photo posted in my Single Photo, Color folder wihch depicts a man and young woman gently touching each other, completely oblivious of being photographed and look at their hands.

 

The master, Elliott Erwitt always said that hands are more telling than expressions, because some can master and control their expressions, but hands generally are something we are unaware of and often give a window to the mind and maybe the soul.

 

I also put that photo somewhere in the 'feels like Wyeth' sort of folder, but certainly without the emptiness that 'Christina's World' evokes or some of his other work.

 

I appreciate always when you stop and make a critical comment; it almost always adds very much to my understanding of my own work.

 

 

And am I wrong about the other photo. I also wonder whether it might have been posted desaturated -- as the moment is in the composition. It has a 3/3 and a 3/4 . . . but I like it very much for the moment it chronicles. Go figure. But ratings can be very significant in showing the general entering photographer's attraction for this or that photo - a sort of indicator of 'appeal' if you will, so I do not scorn those who leave low ratings, whether or not there is an explanation, as I usually know why the ratings are there.

 

Raters have something to teach us; whether or not they even rate can be very significant about the 'worth' (= popularity) of a particular photo.

 

My best to you in the City where Mark Twain said he spent his coldest winter ever - summer in S.F.

 

So, winter is acoming for you up there.

 

John (Crosley)

 

After seeing this pair, driving past at highway speed, then stopping and backing (in a protected turnout area) a hundred or two hundred yards (about the same in meters), taking up my camera from car seat, adjusting it, and then getting out of car to take this photo, it left time for only a single shot before they moved away and left the scene.

 

(I still have the chip unerased on which they appear, and that struck me. I sometimes take only single frames - I like multiple frames in case an unseen movement or attitude affects the composition.

 

John (Crosley)

Multiple frames can lead to surprising results, especially when you are photographing people. I'm beginning to incorporate this habit into my shooting routine.

 

John, I have said it before and will say it again. I don't share your "optimism" when it comes to ratings. You should be a 7 in my book, no - make that a 10! How on earth some of your photographs can be so unfairly underrated is beyond me.

What my photos lack in high ratings, they make up for in stimulating and interesting (and interested) comments, such as yours.

 

Thank you for holding my photography in high regard, but it's not always anyone else's cup of tea. And that's OK.

 

I like what i do, very much.

 

That's enough and that you like it is frosting - same with others. I photograph for myself (and my friends here and elsewhere).

 

Actually, with all the wonderful phtography and that mine cause people to 'think' sometimes, it's amazing I have so many followers; people like 'pretty' photos, and mine are different.

 

I like my photos (and gave up plans to photograph nude women which is why I bought a camera in the first place, when I saw my first photo results at age 22).

 

Those plans for nude photography went down the drain when I developed my first roll of Tri-X.

 

I gave it up, thanks to misunderstanding the genius of Henri Cartier-Bresson -- not knowing he was retiring. I always measured my work against his and a few others, and knew I fell short, but not by lots and lots, just short.

 

And this isn't 'hand grenades' where 'close enough' is good enough (or horseshoes either).

 

Best to you Adan.

 

I treasure your comments, as you should know, not for the flattery but for the insight many of them show.

 

John (Crosley)

... is the fact that your title says so little about it. It is a general representation that does not take away the mystery of the shot. When I was in school, there was a great teacher who explained to us that the human mind has the extraordinary ability to be able to link up any objects, no matter how unrelated. The mind automatically makes a leap of imagination to connect them together in some way, and this act of imagination was crucial to the artist. When the photos are labelled too specifically, they block that act of imagination because it has already been given to us.

 

So here, "Viewfinders" is good, because that is the simplest description, but it doesn't tell us how to feel or what to think. Perfect! Now my eyes can roam through the picture accompanied by a fully active imagination.

 

BTW, just found your comments on Lavaudieu on PhotoCritique (which I seldom go to). My sincerest thanks for those words.

for a caption for this particular photo. It is such an amorphous and 'general' photo, and it does not say anything in particular.

 

So, after thinking for a while, and applying my considerable captioning skills, I decided it best just to describe them in one word and trust my audience to make any connections they wanted (are they watching a person, place or thing? - that's for one to decide for one's self. In fact, I cannot exactly be sure, for I didn't myself look over that hillock, which you may recognize by its general features as being some sort of landscape feature quite recognizable (in general), but which I failed to name to let those imaginations run wild.

 

But then again, this has not proved to be a popular photo, necessarily, but it's a good one, so that's that. It'll stay posted. I have only taken one down this year, and it was reposted, I think (it was posted at a bad hour or time and got no responses at the time -- but generally, I just post and sit back and wait . . . and if a photo's got faults or is any good, people will let me know, because I allow plenty of leeway for honest critiques, (I hope anyway).

 

And your photo I commented at that other site was just stunning and well-deserving of every word I wrote.

 

Thanks for stopping by; it's always a delight.

 

John (Crosley)

 

for a caption for this particular photo. It is such an amorphous and 'general' photo, and it does not say anything in particular.

 

So, after thinking for a while, and applying my considerable captioning skills, I decided it best just to describe them in one word and trust my audience to make any connections they wanted.

 

Are they watching a person, place or thing? - that's for one to decide for one's self.

 

In fact, I cannot exactly be sure, for I didn't myself look over that hillock, which you may recognize by its general features as being some sort of landscape feature quite recognizable (in general), but which I failed to name to let those imaginations run wild.

 

Then again, this has not proved to be a popular photo, necessarily, but it's a good one, so that's that. It'll stay posted.

 

I have only taken one down this year, and it was reposted. I think that one just was posted at a bad hour or time and got no responses at the time -- but generally, I just post, sit back, and wait -- and if a photo's got faults or is any good, people will let me know, because I allow plenty of leeway for honest critiques, (I hope anyway).

 

And your photo I commented at that other site was just stunning and well-deserving of every word I wrote.

 

Thanks for stopping by; it's always a delight.

 

John (Crosley)