Alexei

This is Alexei, whose face shows a longer life than it actually has been

in actual years. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please leave a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your superior photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Well, you've made it pretty clear you don't want any negative feedback. An interesting image. It looks like it was taken in 1917. How did you get this gentleman to stand still for a quarter second???

Perhaps as a newcomer, you're unaware of my continuing colloquy with nearly all comers in the critique department where nearly all my critics (and critiques) are individually answered, both good and bad.

 

Of course, I hope, like all PN members, that each and every critique will have a little substance to it -- that it will be backed up by some substantial reason rather than just be what we used to call a 'drive-by' which sometimes used to be done here for purposes of spite or revenge or other reasons or ill will.

 

That is when I developed the language above and since it fully embodies the spirit of why we request ratings and critiques, I have kept and intend to keep it well into the future as I continue into my fifth year.

 

If you have some negative thing to say about this image, don't be shy, Go ahead and say it; but have something concrete to say and have a 'reason' that you've thought out for saying it. In other words, if you can articulate your reason, have a shot at it; I post plenty of 'stinkers' and generally I know which ones, though at times I can be quite surprised, Likewise, I can be quite surprised when am image I think is ordinary or just better than average can turn out to score somewhere the 6s or even be a Photo of the Week. Live and Learn.

 

In fact, that's what this forum is all about -- LIving and Learning, and if you pull your punches - if you think it's too contrasty, or not contrasty enough, too sharpened, or not sharpened enough, etc., or the wrong subject, wrong century or have other criticisms, just let me know. That's why I use the critique forum -- I'm not just seeking accolades -- I get enough of them in the course of my photography, and some of the best criticisms have helped me genuinely improve my photography (which is what I say in my Request for Critique), and that is the ultimate goal -- to improve my photography.

 

I long ago was a serious writer with millions of words in print, but when I started, I rankled at being edited. I writer one day took me out for a beer and said to me, the fledgling journalist 'hey kid, don't get your back up when you're being edited. The editor knows more about writing than you may ever know, and he's dedicated to making your stories make you and your writing look good.'

 

So, after that, I never complained about good editing.

 

Likewise about good criticism.

 

Good criticism is healthy, but it should come from a good-spirited place -- not with a mean spirit.

 

I sometimes criticise the heck out of others' photos, but with a genuine touch of empathy for the photos I criticise, and I often get kudos for having done so from grateful fledgling photographers who are somewhat 'lost' and need some guidelines, and for those people in my lengthy critiques I often provide them.

 

Now, as to the guy's 'holding still' -- he is a 'down and out' kind of guy, and he was highly flattered that I chose him to be the subject of a 'portrait' (emphasis on the last syllable in Russian).

 

When I showed him the first photo, he was surprised he looked 'Like Lenin!', and he happily posed for several more. My lens has Vibration Reduction series II stabilization, and I set it in the gloaming at ISO 200 when anyone looking for a sharp image would have set it at 1200 ISO, but I persisted and took multiple frames, holding steadily.

 

I actually held in my youth, a non stabilized waterfall frame -- back braced against my car and elbows to my chest -- a hand held 2 second exposure which is posted in this portfolio). And to the doubters, it actually can be done, but I think you have to will your heart to stop, as I once nearly was able to do, and then deeply exhale and be propped six ways from Sunday. (and that was a telephoto shot as well, with not a trace of shakiness, all taken 'after sundown')

 

I often take photos 'on the run' or as Cartier-Bresson said in a French version of his book about 'The Decisive Moment' which in French was called 'Images a la Sauvette' (on the run, or better 'on the sly'), which means that one must 'get the image' and get it now, because there'll be no second chance.

 

I still, 40 or so years later, am a pretty good hand holder, and it still surprises me, and this guy was so flattered, I think he would have stayed there all night to see a good photo of himself.

 

You make some unusual friends 'on the street' and Alexei and I have a mutual commonality we will recognize whenever we spy each other, though we may have little else in common.

 

Thanks for your comment. I hope you understand my approach better now.

 

John (Crosley)

But you must admit John that the technical quality is kind of poor! Lacks sharpness! I have something similar which although "corrected" in PS has more sharpness and was relatively low rated!

 

PDE

I started out with a mediocre photo with low contrast taken in the gloaming, then proceeded to enhance the contrast to the limit, then 'save' it, then enhance it again 'to taste'.

 

It was an attempt to create an image just like the subject had described himself 'Like Lenin'.

 

If anyone has seen the photography taken by early Leica lenses or those of other top-level lens manufacturers, then compared them with today's top-level 'pro' prime lenses, one is in for a big surprise.

 

Today's Leica lenses are purportedly (I'm not an expert, but I listen carefully when experts speak and this is what they tell me) quite a great deal sharper than early Leica lenses.

 

And the same for most other lenses.

 

Sally Mann, Time Magazine Photographer of the Year, shifted from taking photos of her then young kids to ethereal full-format photos of landscapes with old lenses that were not corrected for the fact that light of differing wavelengths arrives at the focal plane at differing places. Today's lenses correct for that; she chose lenses that didn't.

 

Early (old time) photos were uncorrected for that and suffered from poorer quality lenses, emulsions, etc., and this guy's image had me setting out to emulate the 'look' he thought he embodied. (The image I did take wouldn't hold a candle to this anyway, though it was technically quote good, but completely lacked contrast.)

 

This to me looks like a historical photo -- something out of the history books. Am I wrong? I think Alexei here would be proud of his image and what it has become.

 

Poor quality?

 

Sally Mann took 'poor quality' images in the sense that none of her landscape images were 'sharp' and she even used leaky bellows and her images ended up in the Gagosian gallery in Beverly Hills where I viewed, them, and I understand they're now in another outlet of the world-sprawling Gagosian Galleries (New York (3), London, Paris, Rome?, and maybe Dubai soon (?).

 

And they're 'art' galleries, not photo galleries. Her photos sell for about $40,000 per, and the gallery, I am told maybe even takes a loss on showing her work, but it's so prestigious, they're willing to take that loss.

 

Sometimes one has to 'take chances' with work, and I'm willing to do that.

 

I may not be a Sally Mann or a Gracielle Iturbede or a Nann Goldin (thankfully), but I have some sort of knack, and that knack involves not just taking representational photos, but also in experimenting. And some of my better photos are not pin-sharp. Take a look, and you'll find that some of the best photo.net critiques are touting some of my least-sharp photos as among my best and most gallery-worthy.

 

This was produced with that in mind and the eventuality that I will soon be knocking on gallery doors -- whether or not with this image is to be seen.

 

(I have 'sharp' lenses -- much sharper than this one -- too, but I eschewed them, for my work recently, because 'sharpness' is not everything)

 

I hope you get my point.

 

Thanks for making the comment; do you understand what I'm getting at? I've had some prestigious mentors in photographer urge me to display my work in fora other than Photo.net and Photocritiq.com, and I fully intend to seek that when I return to the USA. Let's hope the galleries cooperate.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I enjoyed your response(s). I have very little interest in technical critiques of photos in this forum. It's all very obvious and who really cares. I'm more interested in the question of meaning, - What is being represented?

 

In terms of this photo, the question comes to mind - what is the meaning of a digital shot taken in 2008 made to look like an historical photo from the revolution of 1917? Does it attest the enduring nature of the human spirit? Maybe the lingering presence of ancient cultural forms and types? How about comparing that to the meaning of this same subject (and time and place) taken in a contemporary technical form, color even? Then there is the question of technical capture. The woman whose $40K photos you mentioned achieved her results through a novel technical approach using old equipment. I would hazard that her photos would not fetch such prices were they digital remakes. Part of the perceived value (and value in art is a matter of perception - or is it?) resides in the way she made the images. Just thoughts I'm throwing out because I love a good discussion.

 

Lastly, may I recommend the following site as an outstanding example of alternative techniques resulting in truly original images.

 

http://www.waltercrump.com/

 

Regards.

Interesting subject,good differential focusing,nice one,regards,Steve

Thanks for the compliment on the focusing and the photo.

 

At first with the ratings, it seemed this photo was headed for ignominy, but the ratings seem to be elevating lately; it feels vindicating, but I do not live by ratings. I post what I feel like and ratings will come or go as they will. I do take note, as they are a good indicator of popularity, though.

 

I went on my evening stroll at the exact time to the exact place where Alexei spends his evenings and took new photos of him with a 70~200 VR (I) f 2.8 and I couldn't hold the focus at 1/320th of a second, while the former was with a f 3.5~5.6 at 5.6 at 1/4 of a second with VR II on an 18~200 Nikkor. The VR II really seems to be an improvement for stability in low light according to my test. The metered light was about the same.

 

I did forget to mention that I used Easy Exposure adjustment to underexpose this photo by 2/3 of a stop or 70% to properly expose his beard. A problem with Nikon's matrix metering and white hair or beards (or white horses and no doubt, unicorns) is that it will wash out white hair in early evening light leaving no detail, so one has to deliberately underexpose, as here, and consciously make the decision to do just that.

 

Before I took Alexei's photo, I took many of a white bearded guy engaged in vigorous debate, but his beard was washed out in all photos, until I underexposed his photos, leaving his eyes somewhat dark (remember what Roseanne Roseannadanna said . . . '\it's always something . . . . ')

 

I'll take a photo in any kind of light, even at 2:00 a.m. indoors or outdoors as a browse through my vast portfolio will show, and sometimes get wonderful results (not always of course), and some of my best photos were taken at that hour, so an early evening shot is just another shot for me.

 

My days and most of my nights are full these days and the only time I get to shoot is an evening stroll, so I have to make it count . . . . even if it's in very low light.

 

By the way, Alexei can stand far more still than I can hold my camera (and friends say he has a very big pension -- from where I don't know -- so they say he's not impoverished as I supposed).

 

I very much appreciate your taking the time to leave a comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

John, Are you shooting in RAW? It shouldn't be such a problem to salvage hot spots on the image if you're shooting in raw.

This was developed from an in-camera conversion, something I've had huge luck with. Often I can get usable captures from those better than anything I can do with any work with Photoshop when it's difficult lighting circumstances, which baffles me.

 

I do shoot almost everything in RAW (NEF), and if I get a chance, I may work on this again in the raw capture, but frankly, I stepped on the contrast really hard and it held up pretty well.

 

Blowouts are still common in Adobe Camera Raw conversion for me, and using Nikon Capture is beyond the pale because of the poor work flow -- you have to teach yourself a huge lesson just to process one image, and then the processing of more than one image is a huge task beyond that. If you absolutely HAVE to have the absolutely best possible image, then it may be the way to go, but I prefer Adobe Camera Raw, and I just shut down the sharpening and prefer to sharpen (if at all) in the JPEG version, as I intensely dislike the artifacts that ACR leaves when you sharpen at all in Adobe Camera Raw if you do any post-processing or additional sharpening. I prefer to do all my sharpening at once, at the end, even though ACR's sharpening is supposed to replace native, in-camera sharpening (which I just 'don't see working as it's supposed to' -- one of my few gripes about Adobe CS3' ACR.

 

Still, I blame the actual Nikon Matrix Metering for blowout problems in low evening light with white surfaces in low contrast situations at or after sundown. I've encountered the same problem again and again in my shooting, as I often am busy and cannot shoot until the sun just is about to go down or has gone down, and then Nikon Matrix Metering just does not get it right -- lots of images are over-exposed.

 

At first I blamed it on one of my first D300s, and thought it was faulty metering, but it also happened to a lesser extent in my D200s, D2Xs, D2X, etc. I got rid of a D300 and thieves relieved me of another, and I'm shooting with two new ones, and the problem no longer can be blamed on any in-camera malfunction (as it surely was in one camera to the great extent it was -- that camera needed to go to Nikon Service which indeed I think was waiting for it, as an early D300 it had several minimal problems that could be worked around (focus beep didn't work, overexposure problem beyond Nikon Matrix Metering issue which persists and one or two other minor issues, but Nikon Service in El. Segundo had not even seen a D300 when I first broached the issue with them except one they passed around from person to person as a demonstrator.

 

So, I waited, and then the problem 'went away', and the new cameras don't present any problems at all.

 

I saw Alexei today, and he is proud to be featured here (to the extent he can understand that his photo can be seen worldwide . . . he's not exactly sure how that works).

 

Thanks for returning with a helpful comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

John, I have not yet found time to read the exchange above, but I find the portrait here very good. I like the character and the expressive eyes looking upwards towards something in the frame that else would have been attracting comments for cloning it away: The white spot in the upper corner. because of this the direction of his attention the photo becomes coherent and creates a scene that "tells a story" within the frame, as so many other of your marvelous shots.

 

Although it is banal to an experienced photographer like you I also like of course the extreme burred background, but also the lack of sharpness of his face. I think in general we are prisoners of striving towards technical perfection and we invest too much of our attention, time and money on rendering photos technically perfect - and in the efforts we often kill any touch of artistic expression. In my eyes Photonet is overfilled with such photos and the great majority of comments centre on how photos could have eliminated perceived technical flaws.

 

I have just the other day visited an exposition of the Czech photographer Miroslav Tichý presenting a selection of his life production (he is more than 80 years old and does not shoot anymore). None of his photos are anywhere near sharp and correctly exposed. They are all made with home made camera and lenses (lenses of plexiglas; cameras of cardboard and the like). They are however also overall highly artistic and provide an image of small town life throughout decenniums during communist rule. Great art in my eyes that tells us a story of photography being must more than what can be bought in a shop or learned from "professionals".

I note from many of your photos here, that you often stop down to achieve maximum depth of field in your personal photographs and they are just about as technically perfect as one could imagine, often embodying perspective, lines and a vanishing point and similarly often involving architectural motifs, which call often for maximum sharpness.

 

So it is interesting to receive such a comment from you.

 

Photo.net is helpful to an amateur hoping to achieve technical skills, and I have learned much from the technical help here, but I also have learned much from a former mentor Michel Karman who taught me to look at 'the photo' rather than the technical aspects of the photo. This man, who really didn't know how to manipulate Photoshop but could direct others to do so in the most minute detail, was of the opinion that 'People often use Photoshop because they can, NOT because the should', and that is a great lesson he taught me, among many others when we were meeting actively and discussing in great depth my photography and my photos, sometimes nightly.

 

I defer to him because he has terrific photo credentials as a master printer with a Lucie Award in his pocket and a host of high-level photographer followers. I have been blessed to have been mentored by him for a very substantial time, and I hope I have learned my lessons well.

 

This is NOT the best of the bunch of 'Alexei' -- there was one other that was sharper, and I may post it -- perhaps on another service (unnamed here). It also was quite good and at 1/10th second was quite a bit sharper. But it was not better, except from a technical standpoint. This has the 'look and feel' of an old-time photo.

 

There is a substantial difference between great technical excellence and great photography (this does not claim to be the latter) and Michel Karman made me more aware of the latter. Many times, often over dinner and in conversation, he would refer to a particular photo of mine or others and say 'that's a great photo' or a 'fantastic photo' or even a 'brilliant photo' that had one or more serious technical flaws which hindered my accepting the photo, and I scoffed.

 

Well, his judgment was far better than mine; the pupil, a sort of grasshopper to this photographic guru, and over time I have grown to see the worth in the photos he judged that had merit that previously I scoffed at because they did not have technical perfection, or perhaps seemed too 'trite' for me.

 

He thought about 'the image' as a whole and its 'impact' rather than any particular one part. The individual parts he could attack in the darkroom, fixing what could be fixed, but without a good or great photo, he was left with nothing to work with, and he knew that. With junk to start with, he was just a technician, but with a great photo to begin with he was at the top of his class in photo reproduction -- a man without peer in photo printing (others did his photoshopping).

 

So, when I see an image like this emerge from Photoshop, and the choice is to post it or let it molder on my hard drive, I just go ahead and post it. If it gets high rates or not, it matters not so much to me. I also learned from him the story of Sally Mann, I told above, and numerous others I will not repeat (I had his permission to tell the Sally Mann story).

 

So, this may not be a 'great' image, but it is a 'very good' in my estimation, and certainly worthy of being called 'art' from my point of view -- maybe from some others. Others will simply call it technically deficient.

 

I'm glad you tend toward my point of view.

 

John (Crosley)

 

To grasp the freedom of contradicting the dogma of technical perfection is a sign of artistic maturity that you obviously have reached.

 

As concerns me, that is clearly another story. When I started up-loading photos, I discovered very rapidly that sharpness and depth were rewarded and any blur resulted mostly in a series of 3/3s. I have since, as you might have noticed, stopped asking for ratings and consequently stopped rating others. I maybe fell into the trap however of mainly up-loading photos that I expect would please viewers on PN. Another reason why my photos tend to strive towards technical "perfection" (sic!) might be that the type of scenes that mainly catches my eyes seem to me to demand sharpness and depth as well as, first and foremost, a precise composition. I feel less comfortable when I try to make photos of the sort we discuss here - but I admire them greatly.

Early on I learned to understand the vagaries and the deficiencies of the ratings system . . . and consequently uploaded several hundred photos without requesting ratings at all, and even though I didn't request ratings those folders went on to achieve millions of "views' under the 'old system' in which thumbnail views were counted as 'views' under the 'view counter' as opposed to today in which it requires a 'full frame' 'view' -- a change in the rules.

 

Whether I have 'maturity' or not remains to be seen. My closest one suggests I'm still somewhere just past my teenage years in certain non-photographic departments, but chronologically, I certainly make the 'maturity' grade.

 

I have seen that you tend to take subjects that demand that 'technical 'perfection (sic)' that you refer to, above, and they are very good and pleasing, and relate well to the subject matters you have chosen, such as architecture and themes that relate to perspective, lines, vanishing point, etc., but with 'people photos' it's quite something else, as they are among the most elusive and variegated of all photos to take -- people constantly change their faces, their placement, their emotions, their relationships to their surroundings and one another, etc., and that's all for me to chronicle.

 

I can pass one spot and 'see' a person or a thing and never imagine I'd photograph it or them, but one day I might see a slight change or a juxtaposition that was not there before, and suddenly a photographic opportunity arises, sometimes only for only minutes and even seconds (sometimes a fraction of a second).

 

That's sport in my book.

 

But it takes a true artistic sense to stalk the elusive prey that you do, and maybe it's quite different from 'seeing' as I see, although there's probably some substantial overlap..

 

I suggest that probably my cerebral cortex now is pretty well developed towards a particular type of 'seeing' as it relates to 'people and their surroundings', their facial expressions, etc., whereas you probably have yours developed in a slightly different way . . . . maybe more toward an artistic sensibility.

 

Any time you feel like showing off any new developments in your craft and art, please let me know -- I'll be glad to take a fresh look. The art of 'street' photography is a special art, and it requires a substantial taking of personal inventory, for, after all, it IS intrusive by its very nature, and for some persons that is absolutely something they cannot engage in.

 

I tend to justify it personally by saying (and hopefully demonstrating) that I am documenting the 'human condition' in its multiple variations, and that if I don't do it 'my way' that way will be lost forever. Of course, that presumes 'my way' has some worth, and I must flatter myself that it does have some worth. In a previous life, I was unable to make that justification, and it helped me in the decision to give up photography for the main part, but with the Internet, here I am again and going strong.

 

Maybe until the very end.

 

Thanks for the helpful comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Pardon me for overlooking your most interesting comment above.

 

I did look at the site, Waltercrump.com and found it most interesting, and find the whole discussion and topic of what comprises value in 'art' most interesting as well.

 

It is interesting to go to an opening at a place such as the Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills and see all the stick-thin women dressed to the nines recognizing one another (and each others' wealth and social standing) -- as 'being there' (in the words of Chauncey Gardner), is partly the name of the game and recognizing what is considered currently 'worthwhile' in 'art' is also part of the name of the game or is the game of naming?

 

What is 'in' and what is 'out' in 'art' is a somewhat ethereal matter.

 

When I was younger, the Keane paintings and prints of children with HUGE eyes were everywhere and people bought them in large amounts.

 

A guy named Keane was the artist, or so we thought, but when he divorced and his wife said she drew them and he was asked in divorce Court to draw just one one, he had excuse after excuse and just couldn't draw one, but she could. She finally got credit for the paintings and the rights to them, but converted to some strict religion and mostly abandoned the task.

 

Alas, the Keane mark means to me now and most others, predictable trash.

 

Other famous names of the '60s and '70s now have been consigned to the cultural trash heap, whereas others whose work largely was used for lining the trashcan now are very famous and their works sell for millions or tens of millions -- perhaps more.

 

That famous self-promoter, Andy Warhol's tomato soup can sold a few years ago for $144 million at auction, if you 'can' imagine that (excuse the pun -- intentional of course).

 

There are trends, and there are trends. One can imagine that Jackson Pollock's works are going to endure, but who can know for sure? Same with other artists.

 

What is the worth of making a photo with a digital camera that looks like a photo taken with film of Lenin long ago? That is a good question, and maybe it's not for me to decide. I did it, and I did it for the shear pleasure of doing it and of pleasing Alexei's idea of himself as looking like his former leader, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and perhaps for the same reason that Mr Crump derives obvious pleasure from making photos from all sorts of contraptions that I would never consider.

 

Some aficionados are going to consider Crumo work art because of their renderings, and others (many others) are going to consider them 'art' because of the 'new' ways or the unusual ways in which they were derived.

 

In Los Angeles, one high-profile photo gallery is playing big that one of its photographers (presumably while a little high) threw some photo paper into a large format negative holder, pointed it at the sum, and literally burned a print, with smoke emanating from the camera during sunset photos, with literally holes and huge dark spots in the prints where the suns rays were focused. That, the gallery says, is ART (with capital letters) and sure enough, museums, they say, are buying them.

 

The artist of course, couldn't be happier. (He really loved seeing smoke come from his view camera -- can't you just imagine it, and now he's laughing all the way to the bank).

 

One famous mentor whose name I won't mention now, said he really didn't like photography per se, though he made his living from photography, but he did like the 'concept' of art, and if that involved photography, that was great.

 

He was more into the 'concept' than I ever will be, I think. In fact, he seemed to revere 'the concept'.

 

For him, an artist with a new 'statement' or way of doing something that was interesting enough to hold one's attention was sufficient excuse for doing so, and also for commanding huge prices.

 

For me, that is not enough justification (until my crap starts selling for $40,000 per photograph), which he assures me will never happen.

 

But he also assures me with some reason, that with good gallery representation, worldwide, my work will be 'very popular' because it speaks to universal truths, and therefore knows no audience boundaries worldwide.

 

'Look to Beijing, Moscow Seoul, and Tokyo, as well as the rest of the known art and photographic art world -- and he did differentiate between photographic and 'art' for my work, as he said some belongs in 'art' galleries and some in 'photo galleries', as I shoot in more than one genre and style.

 

That's IF I can get in the door.

 

A big IF.

 

And I'm old enough I don't have time to work my way up.

 

I have to do a lateral entry, or it won't happen in my lifetime.

 

Fortunately I have good mentors, and they've taught me much, including that brilliant gentleman, who saw the chance of a lifetime to mentor me, and did.

 

The time soon will come when I will knock on gallery doors.

 

Wish me luck.

 

It matters little whether something is classified as 'art' because of the 'process' or because somebody just 'likes' something, when one seeks to 'sell' something -- for all that really matters is they reach for that checkbook, and hopefully it is full of petrodollars, Euros, rubles, renminbi, or ringgit or whatever else the truly wealthy buy their 'art' with for their collections this year in this day and age.

 

I'll happily accept them all.

 

And of course gladly share that 50% with my gallery owner(s).

 

For they create the excitement and find the buyers -- something that truly is important. Without them, there'd be no sales at all.

 

Must art be 'representational', abstract, of this school or that, or even come from a 'school' that has a name?

 

I think not, but I think to those who buy such things, they are interested not so much in collecting what appeals to them personally.

 

They are interesting more in collecting what goes up in value.

 

The late, great Helmut Newton, unbeknownst to me, also was a great marketer.

 

When one work sold at a certain price, I am given to believe by someone who was a friend, he required that the same work be raised in price, giving the previous buyer an automatic 'premium' or profit, even if on paper.

 

He recognized that 'art' was a commodity, and he was a 'manufacturer' or 'artisan' of commodities in that marketplace, (or perhaps a guildsman in Renaissance language), and he sought to protect his prices and his customers' expectations in rising prices.

 

Many can learn lessons from Mr. Newton, including one Photo.net regular I had an exchange with who lost his buyer/collectors from overseas for his outstanding work just because he did NOT raise his prices. The buyers reasoned they were not going to 'make money' by collecting his work, since he was not raising prices.

 

(I have seen 'marketing campaigns' by artists in which they have 'guaranteed' there will be regular prices rises' just to encourage such buyers. Just as we expect Nikon to raise the price of its cameras and lenses each year, so do buyers of 'art' and 'fine art' photography, and if it doesn't happen, someone 'smells a rat' or at least suspects that their inventory of that artist's work is not getting them any return.

 

If you're gonna sell something for peanuts, somebody's gonna value it at peanuts, but if you ask a lot for it (and get some sales), you have established a higher worth, and hopefully that is greater than peanuts.

 

I'll be testing that soon, I hope (in my spare time, as I'm pretty busy doing other things right now).

 

John (Crosley)

Okay, so we know the art market boils down to what any given group of people want to buy on any given day, and we can obviously make no meaningful generalizations about the "meaning" of a particular photograph from that chaos. Allow me to think out loud. I think the meaning of a photograph depends on context. There are very few meaningful shots on Photo.net because for the most part it is people shooting models or family members, and not people out creating memorable images of historic events. And by historic, it doesn't have to be World War II - it can be some subplot like the wheat situation in Somalia. Fred Goldsmith has a portfolio of portraits that I find meaningful because it expresses (or seems to express) or documents a group that seem thematically linked, and the way he has done it, well, I find it meaningful. Then we've got vacationers who like to post their tourist shots. You're in an interesting position because you're in Ukraine so your photos have documentary interest in that context (at least your street shots in Ukraine-and you're obviously not a tourist). Allow me to include myself in this speculative rant. I'm rather limited in my own shooting and subject matter these days. I'm living in WA DC with little opportunity for travel because my daughter has some medical issues that keep us close to home (and I have no interest in shooting W., at least not with my camera). I was living in Egypt and Ethiopia for a time before I got involved in photography, and look forward to the day I can return - but that doesn't ensure meaningful photos. I've got a project in the works related to my daughter's experience, which is to do portraits of children born prematurely and post them on my website (meadnotkin.com) along with audio clips about their stories. This is my way of trying to squeeze a little meaning out of a hobby that has focussed mainly around my daughter, though has involved some portraiture as well - that is meaningful primarily in a family context. Anyway, it's late, and I see no reason why I need conclude this meaningfully! And how'd you find yourself in Ukraine?

And here's the bonus question. Is this art: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7526225

 

I'm interested first in your comment that you're in Washington, D.C., yet you don't want to go out shooting, 'at least with [your] camera'.

 

I don't know what kind of camera it is that discourages you from shooting, but I would look at shooting in D.C. as a shooter's bonanza.

 

I was stuck for a while, off and on, last year and early this, in L.A. while a famous photo printer curated my work, and spent daytimes while he worked cruising the city looking for photo opportunities and literally found them every block or so, especially in the urban areas and ghetto areas, which were alive with culture.

 

You'll see a few of those shots in my portfolio which chronicles many areas of L.A. but concentrates on the South Central Area (which has been erased as a name from L.A. official maps) -- home of Watts and the famous Reginald Denney incident if you recall back that far, but far tamer now, especially now that there's anti-gang laws that make a committing a crime and being a gang member committing that crime an offense punishable by up to life in prison (people with gang insignia literally duck and run when they see a camera -- as they've got wise to this legislation -- something I proposed when I was practicing law over 20 years ago, but never went anywhere until recently (I haven't practiced in over 20 years).

 

The famous photo printer who met with me sometimes every evening to go over my work expressed amazement that I would find such a welter of photographic worth in Los Angeles since so many photographers would lament they had to travel far and wide to find anything interesting. Not me.

 

I can go just about anywhere but San Jose/Silicon Valley or the San Fernando Valley to find interesting stuff, and even find interesting stuff, there but it's a hard slog for me.

 

I went to Ukraine as a side trip when traveling to Europe four years ago just after taking up photography again and had a Eurailpass that got me to the Ukraine border from Hungary. I paid my way to Lvov and was interested in the culture, but saw none of the famous Ukrainian women (they apparently didn't live in Lvov then, I guess.

 

Later that year or early next, I traveled to Odessa to photograph primarily and also attended for one afternoon a meeting of a group of men meeting Ukrainian (Russian) women seeking American husbands.

 

Now, I had been married (and still was) to a Russian woman -- beautiful as a movie star and famously intelligent, and also a semi-famous Russian regional singer, but shortly after our marriage after three years of courtship, she got brain cancer, and that was the end of our relationship. It as predicted invariably to be fatal, and she blamed me for 'causing' it (it was brain cancer and affected her thinking). She did get the best of medical care available in the world, however and I think her tumor was so large and symptomless it ended up being written about in medical journals.

 

But the marriage was ended, I was depressed, and moreover, she was half my age, so I figured that was the end of the line with beautiful young women for me.

 

Alas, not so in Ukraine, where Ukrainian women are like Russian women and look less for youth than for a 'good man'.

 

I did not actually 'look' for a woman, but found the 'street' shooting wonderful and returned again and again, for weeks at a time, moving from Odessa to Dnipropetrovsk and also to Kyiv. This trip it's been Dnipropetrovsk and Kyiv and maybe somewhere else. I also keep residence in the Santa Clara Valley and or somewhere else in California (depending on who's asking) or even Nevada or Oregon depending on the circumstances.

 

But the street shooting still keeps my in Ukraine plus other business presently and the women still are stunning. High heels generally are worn in downtown areas by nearly everyone, and if it's too cold for them, high-heeled boots. And beautiful women are everywhere -0- they're common currency, and most are looking to get married by the age of 20 to start a family by age 21,or their parents will start nagging them ('What's Wrong -- where are my grandchildren?)

 

And I did find someone of great intelligence AND beauty, or let's say that someone found me, because frankly I wasn't looking -- and she's even less than half my current age, but absolutely no problems and completely a matter of her chasing me, not the other way around. (I learned a while ago not to chase women/girls -- it's counterproductive -- women only run so fast as they want so they can be caught, and if they want to be caught they'll run very slowly.)

 

Of course, I doubt that would happen in the West, but here it's nobody's business. I remember when I was invited with my Russian wife to meet her parents (11 years older than I, and they said 'but he's old enough to be your father!!!) And after 11 days living with them and her, they said 'Marry that man, he's the best thing ever happened to you,' and three years later we did.

 

I'm so sorry about the travails implicit in your tail about the medical problems you imply -- it obviously has been a great stress. I hope it has had and still has a happy and fortuitous outcome.

 

I've always been of the opinion that even if I now use fancy, modern, latest-,model digital equipment, I could make the same captures with my old 1968 Nikon or Nikkormat or old Leicas -- film cameras all, but just taking fewer of the same captures and being burdened with a lot of film. I'd get fewer captures and shoot in a different manner because of the exigencies of film vs. CF cards, but my shooting style hasn't changed appreciably during a 30-35 year hiatus.

 

So I can't blame it on a camera or camera quality. My best photo ever was made with a real cheapo lens -- it's first in my portfolio.

 

A once in a lifetime best in most people's book.

 

I wish you the best of health.

 

And the same to your family/offspring.

 

John (Crosley)