Composition With Walking Stick

'Composition With Walking Stick' is a study in lightness, darkness and

masses, with an 'accent' -- the man and walking stick. 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

An engaging study indeed. I like how you juxtaposed two opposite perspectives here. Starting with the man and ending with the door from left to right there is an ascending order by height. If one looks at the lit vs. the shaded areas of the "bars" protruding from the wall, the reverse effect takes place. The lit bars grow shorter from right to left.

This IS a complex photo for a trifle, with absolutely no meaning other than a play on light, shadow and mass (with an accent of the diagonal from the walking stick). I did use 'c' drive to capture that at the exact moment; no human really could have expected to capture it any other way, and do so in a meaningful way with any predictability while lurking across a highway in the driver's seat of an auto with a telephoto.

 

So, this is a trifle, but an interesting one -- one to keep keep me engaged rather than shooting birds, which I do when there are no pedestrians around for 'street' shooting, and indeed this is an indusrial area and he was the only pedestrian for miles -- really.

 

I never have seen a pedestrian in that area, let alone one that might make an interesting composition until I caught this guy -- walking presumably from the far-away beach to Watsonville, several miles distant along 'Beach Street' -- how appropriately named.

 

So, that's it.

 

Your analysis is too complex for me to follow in this heat, but I'm sure it's astute, as you are more astute with your analysis than sometimes I can follow, often until days later.

 

Then I get what you were saying; you seldom are wrong.

 

Thanks for weighing in (for my trifle).

 

John (Crosley)

... Adan sees everything. The shadow on the warehouse wall makes a diagonal line on the raised elements of the wall. That line passes right at the head of the passer-by and exactly along the walking stick. Adan, once again, your attention to detail is mind-boggling.

I like this trifle, and am finding there's more than a trifle to it; especially that elusive shadow.

 

How about that; I missed it entirely. I should have post-processed it a little to bring it out a little and may still do that. It was pretty bright sunlight and a little playing around might emphasize it a little without stretching anyone's bounds.

 

My mind is boggled too.

 

My hat's off to Adan W. (as well as you for pointing it out to me -- I think your analysis was more cogent than Adan W's. because yours hit me over the head, but Adan W. hardly misses anything. And here I thought the stick was the only diagonal.

 

Live and learn.

 

Thanks Dennis (and Adan W.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

(your observational powers both put mine to shame -- here I thought this was just a 'trifle' when I had nothing better to post . . . .and 'liked' this one for reasons that were hard to articulate, except for a study in masses, lines and the counterpoint of the one diagonal (not two as you both saw).

 

Actually, my hat's off to both of you.

 

jc

 

 

I now have seen this on another, more sensitive screen, and I note that the diagonal line, upper left, to middle, is in exact line with the man's cane, and in fact, the cane is an elongation of that line.

 

In fact, that is a great synchronicity -- that the cane is an elongation of that shadow, which is rarely seen, but when I get Photoshop re-installed on my laptop *(which Hewett Packard replaced the entire guts of out of warranty - as well as the case, etc., all gratis because I write a strong letter, even the broken screen and hinge, ) then I will attempt to darken that shadow line so it is a bit more prominent and one can see that synchronicity a bit easier.

 

It's a shame I didn't see it when post processing this copy.

 

And of course, you both have pointed that out; shame on me for not paying attention.

 

Thanks for the head's up.

 

John (Crosley)

what tops this off is obvious as Adan and Dennis have already pointed out. The amazing amount of verticals and horizontals and the way way you've placed him makes for a great composition even without that. So on that level it works great.

 

What doesn't make it work (as yet) is your sloppy post-processing. You point out that this is supposed to be a study in lightness and darkness but when I see this kind of tonality for me that's a no-no. Of course the light was very hard to begin with but I'm absolutely sure that with a bit of attention there is so much more to be gotten out of this one (as is often the case in your photo's).

 

Do it, it's worth it.

I post-processed this when I didn't see any 'worth' to it at all, and did it purely as a sort of 'vanity' thing and really posted it as a sort of vanity, thinking I would post it somewhere obscurely in my folders where it might get someone who is an aficionado to look at it.

 

I did not frankly see nearly as much worth in it, because in part I did not see that shadow that extended through the walking stick. Had I seen that (stupid me), I would have worked it up more extensively.

 

In fact, people (not you) may credit me with much more premeditation with what I post-process and post. In reality, I just post-process a great number of things that are of interest to me and at likely times just when the interest strikes me, I decide to post something that strikes my fancy, with little or no premeditation. There is a rare exception where I have just shot something that I LOVE and just have to post it; that happens but rarely. Even my photo of the week, I was not in love with and it had to wait its turn.

 

And I have been hampered by three computer burnouts (and all my photo-- nearly all -- having been recently stolen) so that's a double whammy. My software for post-processing and the 9-year-old computer and lousy monitor are just not up t the task. I just got one of my laptops back from HP and they overinstalled VISTA over XP and blocked in the BIOS re-installation of XP for which I think I will sue them for illegal anti-trust violations (Sherman act tying, which is treble damages for forbidden tying of their product with Microsoft's Vista -- it even won't 'see' my hard drive in XP or Linux, rendering my notebook unusable, even though they replaced everything -- and thus rendered my XP software unusable, so it may be a while before I can re-edit this one.

 

But Ton, if I had seen the worth of this one, I would have done the work; I just didn't. So, you are right, but for different reasons than you may have supposed. (They may have been evident from the discussion above.)

 

Peace.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

John, I really like this photo, and it really does stand on its own in terms of composition, a pure study of light and form. Knowing that it was yours, I immediately started looking for other meanings, possibly hidden ones, but finally I just settled back and enjoyed it for what it is, a fine photo.

 

--Lannie

Lannie,

 

(long time no hear from you . . . )

 

sometimes, as Gertrude Stein wrote, 'a rose is a rose is a rose' or perhaps a stinking rose is a stinking rose is a stinking rose.

 

Or a Crosley composition is just that sometimes -- a pure play on light, darkness, form and shadow, without any hidden meaning.

 

Perhaps that's an interesting commentary which you were unaware you were making -- that there is sometimes a complexity in my work that is 'hidden' or not readily apparent, so that when something absolutely as simple as this comes along, it may be hard for the viewer to believe that is all I intended.

 

But, no, nothing more.

 

Just form, light, shadow, and the composition.

 

Of course, you did not the play of light from the upper left to the middle right, didn't you. I had to be educated about that by viewers, but perhaps when I post something like that, I have already taken such things into mind -- I do not always 'study' my work formally before posting - and often rely a great deal on my commenters for just that -- which is why a good commenter like you fulfills an important purpose in my life (and welcome back).

 

John (Crosley)