Waiting Room Pirouette

This rather large passenger looks like he's pirouetting on his toes as he

sits on a chair in a waiting room for a plane at Frankfurt Flughafen

(Airport), Germany recently. 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

Ah! the excitement of travel. Great trio shot conveying such effervescent enthusiasm. The perspective is effective creating an interesting "frame" with the two guys in the background looking down. My questions is...does that bag next to him has wheels that spin?

I don't remember which (or even if it was Disney),but remember the one with the Dancing Hippopotomuses (Hippopotami)?

 

This guy could be that -- dancing his pirouettes throughout that tiled or marbled waiting room floor, flinging his baggage around (a la Gene Kelley, or would it be Fred Astaire)?

 

Alas, no Ginger Rogers here to do it all backwards on high heels.

 

It's funny what one can take (and post) when one is left in a waiting room, and even the smallest thing can become somewhat comical -- maybe they should turn off my laughing gas . . . . I ain't at the dentist no more.

 

Alas, though I should be, before all my teeth fall out.

 

Best to you Adan (from the other side of the world.)

 

John (Crosley)

It is funny, but every time I find myself in that airport I probably look like them: Fairly uninspired and ready for everything that can cheer me up, but making "pirouettes" is surely not an option. Great shot.

I know almost every nook and cranny of THAT airport, as hard as that is to comprehend, even 'hidden' passageways or 'supposedly hidden' ones or 'previously hidden' ones, which comes from years of having flown as an 'airline dependant' from a 'relationship' with a flight attendant that lasted for many years and had me arriving and/or leaving there at least twice a month -- if you can imagine that.

 

I even commuted through there to court my (then) future wife in Moscow, and lived part-time in Moscow and the nearby regional capital of Ryazan, Russia.

 

But my sense of humor is a little absurdist and/or as H C-B might have called it, 'surrealist', I think. I just would get bored to tears in places like this (and have in times past before I took up photography once again), until I began to 'make up stories' or 'see things' like this guy 'performing pirouettes' in my imagination because his legs are twisted.

 

Anything to while away the time; and of course since I'm a 'street' photographer, I'm an 'opportunist' and thus carry at least one camera (here four) at all times around my neck (it's too much space to pack them in my carry-on luggage which already is stuffed to the gills with lenses and other camera bodies.)

 

And they all have large, pro f 2.8 lenses on them adding to the weight weighing me down, so I'm quite a sight myself, and I'm no skinny guy.

 

A little boy (innocent as all get out) actually came up to me in a park today by a fountain, patted my stomach and said in awe 'WOW!' then ran away, and I was full of respect for his naiivete and his honesty. (and came by the remark entirely honestly, of course . . . but not by drinking beer, mind you).

 

(Of course that was NOT in America where any mom would have freaked out, and I would have been murdered for any 'touching' with a small child, though I was looking the other way when it happened and was unaware it was coming -- the hysteria of France and America has NOT spread worldwide).

 

You may note I left part of the reflective floor in here to reflect this guy's crossed legs -- I'm trying to 'back off' more sometimes even though usually I'm a tight cropper in most cases, even here, as I don't like extraneous things in my photos that 'pull the viewer's eyes out of the photo.'

 

Thanks for the kind comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks John for this extensive putting us into the context of the photo and better understanding your approach to street photography. It's interesting for me also because I seem to go towards the other extreme as concerns bringing with me tons of cameras and lenses.

 

I'm surely not a professional photographer and my equipment is more rudimental than yours, but I think we might have one thing in common: We bring with us our photographical eyes and attention.

 

I have noticed that if I only carry with me, my fairly light-weight D5/50 1.4 combination, I see "frames" that fit to the lens and the camera and I see them better than if I have a wider range of possible alternative frames available and the corresponding equipment (17-40/4; 24-105/4 IS) - plus a sore back. A more down to earth reason for this approach is that I refuse to use fortunes on lenses and additional cameras that I might rarely use: Protestant ethics or what is left of it.

 

I must hover say that when I see the quality of your work I feel tempted to change my approach, and accept a sore back.

I often these days go out with one camera - a D300 and an 18~200 f 3.5~5.6 lens made by Nikon. What you read above was just for traveling.

 

True the Nikon D300 has a huge battery pack on it and inside the battery pack is an EN-EL4e battery that is the type that drove the D2X and D2Xs as well as other pro type cameras, so it's pretty heavy, but frankly with the increased ability of the D300 to make captures at high ISOs, the need to use low-light lenses is lessened, especially in daylight shooting.

 

An 18~200 lens covers every shooting situation my 'normal' combination of lenses would cover but just is not quite as sharp and must be used slightly more open.

 

But then again I'm generally not trying to isolate depth of field. Street photography in general is not about that, but if one wants to do that, all one has to do is zoom some substantial distance and open up and depth of field is pretty well isolated.

 

If I do use multi cameras, it's the 70~200 f 2.8 and the 17~55 f 2.8 both of which are razor sharp and if i absolutely must cover something and get the very best, I've added the 12~24 (new) at f 2.8 but seldom use it because it's supernumerary for most of my shooting.

 

If I were going to the 'porn convention' in Las Vegas though, I'd be carrying all three cameras and lenses, as back-breaking as that would be.

 

So, don't be discouraged -- one lens or three, one camera or three. In 'street' is capturing the 'moment' at acceptable sharpness that counts, and 'the moment' is paramount.

 

Of course, that's 'street' and not some other style of shooting -- where sharpness counts for more. (like yours).

 

I find with good equipment the proportion of potential shots that are captured to 'misses' just increases greatly -- that's the advantage of good, expensive equipment. Otherwise, I'd be carrying a cheap camera and it wouldn't matter. But I also have manual lenses and I want to use them, and some Nikons, for instance, won't drive those lenses, or earlier 'D' autofocus lenses. so that partially drives my choice of cameras. Finally the D300 is first in class for low-light rendition without spending $5,000 for a camera (or $3,000 when the new D700 really becomes available, but won't work properly with DX lenses).

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(not wanting to break my back every day but will if the occasion calls for it)

You wrote that. I'll say it again as in your "obsenity" photo; are you willing to go over and tell the man he is a "Dancing Hippopotomuses (Hippopotami)? " I think not. If you published would you print this as the title? I think not.

 

Again, you have exceeded the bounds of rudeness.

 

Do not tell me what to post or not to post or how to caption my posts.

 

You are not my censor or my moral arbiter.

 

Today in another post you have claimed I have made an invention of facts, which is another way of calling me a 'liar'.

 

This is not to be tolerated. It is an ad hominem attack; one of many you have made, and one which this time you cannot remove in time for it to be preserved.

 

I have no choice about your boorish and rude behavior now.

 

I complained to you directly about your ad hominem attacks on me, your removal of posts that were ad hominem, your misrepresenting e-mails that were just sent as having been sent long past, and numerous other transgressions.

 

Your response was you would no longer post under my photos.

 

I took you at your word.

 

You have not kept your word.

 

Your comments are not welcome under my photos.

 

Under my standard request for comment, I state that I request 'helpful' comments and critiques.

 

Yours to the trained eye with a history of this affair are just nettlesome and clearly intended to provoke rather than better my photography or the photographic community here at Photo.net as I have requested, when all your actions and transgressions are taken as a whole (and not isolated into individual posts).

 

Whether or not you may or may not make good points at times now is entirely beside the point, as I told you long ago your rude and boorish behavior and ad hominem attacks were intolerable and violated this site's terms of service and would not be tolerated by me.

 

You eventually relented and said you would post here no more, but have failed to keep your word.

 

Your comments appear to me NOT meant to be helpful but to be nettlesome, and it appears you thrive on negative attention, so even though I do not respond to your daily and sometimes more frequent posts, (in part because of your habit of removing your posts or changing them ex post facto thus orphaning my reponsive remarks as I complained to you) you have grown bolder and bolder, until you now are my moral arbiter AND you have called me a liar in a public forum under another photo.

 

Since I have photographic proof of the truth of the matter at issue, you are without grounds on which to stand.

 

I suggest that you adopt more reasonable behavior, and adhere to your original bargain with me, and recognize that it is apparent to me you are not acting in good faith in your postings here, but only to 'stir up the pot', which is intolerable.

 

I am reminded of the words spoken to Senator Joe McCarthy at the Army McCarthy hearings which I watched live on television. 'Have you no decency sir?'

 

John (Crosley)

John, I answered most of this on the other photo. Beyond that I did not say you lie. I said "invent" someone invented. I think eveyone invents sometimes. I am not boorish but I am "rude". There I have to agree with you. I live among people who are rude but no treated as personal. I shall try to be less obnoixous with you but cannot promise if I am offended. Your comment above offends my sense of valuies. I'd not raise that issue except those issues come up on your forum because you and others drift far from the photo. So, so do I. You offend me with remarks "some people just don't get it" and "go figure" I have no bona fides. (I had to look that up and it is an insult) and equating me with the senator.. If I do not like what you write I say so same as I say the focus or the framing or exposure are wrong. I have never wiitten anything on your forum which is untrue just because people do not agree. If I believed otherwise I'd not write it.

John, I too have been insulted on my on site. I said twice I think to someone that they are not welcome anymore. But because they insulted my subject. I could care less if I am insulted.

Your assertion that you were 'rude' is correct. My dictionary gives an alternate definition of 'rude' as 'boorish'. The two terms are nearly synonymous.

 

Repeated rudeness (and boorishness) in the face of someone who does not respond may be characterized as 'bullying' (and you were aware that for about a month I did not respond, because when you made an offending and/or trolling post, you then altered it or removed it, apparently to hide it.)

 

Point of fact: To say to someone who makes an assertion of fact that the 'fact' is invented is to call that person a 'liar' quite openly. You have just used more words.

 

There is no hiding behind semantics.

 

That is outrageous behavior for a Photo.net member, should not be tolerated, and I do not tolerate it.

 

I was there, you were not, and your assertion is based on a surmise and no more, and a false surmise at that.

 

That is poor grounds on which to say that I have 'invent[ed] the facts for a posting.

 

You say you will try to be 'less obnoxious'. That is not good enough.

 

That also is an admission that you have been obnoxious.

 

That behavior also is admitting an outrgage for this forum.

 

I do not accept your past 'obnoxious' behavior, nor accept that you can control your behavior in the future to be 'less obnoxious' especially in view of the rest of your post above.

 

'Less obnoxious' also is not good enough in any case.

 

Photo.net members are not expected to be 'obnoxious' at all in their postings, especially after having been warned with specifics.

 

That is not in the manner in which Photo.net members should act, and it is not in the way I have conducted myself on this forum for 4-1/2 years.

 

You previously communicated to me you would no longer post under my photos, and since you kept removing and/or altering the most offensive part of offending posts (which I considered 'trolls', thus orphaning my responsive comments) I ceased responding to your numerous posts, but the time has come to say 'no more'.

 

I have taken this matter to abuse@photo.net.

 

Ultimately, this is a moderated forum, though the moderator never has had to come here before.

 

John (Crosley)