Somewhere Up There . . . .

A lone boy looks skyward for what . . . . . ? Will he get an answer to

his imploring, and will it be what he expects or hopes for? 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

This isn't a critique so much as a preference, but I prefer a vertical composition for this as (to me) it adds to the sense of the boy's anticipation and rids the photo of what I perceived as dead space. I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty to illustrate my point. Regardless, I do like the photo.

Adding to Jeremy's observations, above, I added a "trial balloon" to make a point. The object of the child's interest in your original is outside the frame. It is anybody's guess as to what it is he's looking for. Putting the object of his interest within the frame makes for a much better image as well as a good story. Perhaps a vertical framing or crop would have done so. I simply (and crudely) darkened the unidentifiable background lights (door) and isolated the child in darkness. The image is now clean and simple without any confusion regarding the cause of the child's upward look. And, it tells me the child is watching his lost "balloon" disappear into the heavens. I hope you find this helpful.

Previous comment did not upload photo to match description. Here it is.

I am intrigued by your vertical composition and will consider it in possible future editions of this photo. (It also looks like you cleaned up some movement artifacts around the child -- through cloning, sharpening and/or other methods).

 

There is no 'correct' way to treat this photo.

 

It is enigmatic in itself, and in itself it is far from perfect. It also is subject to a variety of treatments, as you have shown and as the next poster also has shown.

 

I prefer it without the 'lost balloon' as the next poster has added, but we each have our preferences.

 

I like the vertical orientation, but sometimes 'dead space' serves a compositional purpose. I'll have to mull that one over and will not come to an immediate judgment.

 

Thanks for taking valuable time to help me try to improve this one.

 

John (Crosley)

 

I am grateful for two things that you have shown me.

 

One is that darkening the background may add greatly to the photo. Being a minimalist with Photoshop, I had not considered that. I seldom crop either, unless a very good subject is just too far away or my camera's aspect ratio is all wrong for the subject.

 

Second is for adding the balloon, for it helps me reach a decision about what is depicted here.

 

Yes, the boy is looking for something, and yes, you made a very good guess about what, but I like the fact that this story does NOT have an answer.

 

Not everything in life is neatly tied up in bows and ribbons and has a beginning, a middle and an end.

 

Sometimes we are playing and what we are playing with suddenly goes away, and conversely we suddenly lose interest (if we're small).

 

This photo does have a 'story'. It's about hopes and desperation, anticipation and dreams. It's about aspiration and about wishes.

 

It's about wondering, also.

 

Putting a balloon there does not help those purposes.

 

(Actually I have one with a balloon in it -- but it's not very good. I chose this one for its enigmatic qualities on purpose.)

 

Your pose and the considerable work you did, helped me cement my choice, although you certainly could not have known you were doing that, and may wonder why, but I thank you for helping confirm my choice with your posting.

 

I prefer to see the boy staring into the sky, looking for something we don't see and thus have to wonder about.

 

But I marvel at the work you went to to show me your point of view and thank you for that.

 

John (Crosley)

Very nice capture John.. A very 'true' example of your work and your reaction time to your surroundings. As you may remember I have commented on your photo journalist approach, and the admiration I have for your 'true to life' method of shooting. I picture you, almost like a sniper in a crowd, back turned to the subject, but aware.. And in that moment, that sixth sense, when you feel movement you shoot. This is what your technique, and your capture conveys to me. You see John even your methods leave a story line.. Best regards from the Deep South..

 

The interesting part is you are almost entirely correct. I do NOT turn my back to the subject, except when I am making adjustments to my camera and do not want to be 'made' by my subject, but more often try to turn sideways or pretend I am concentrating on some distant landmark or some more 'obvious' target in the near or far distance.

 

Usually I turn sideways or point my camera as a feint in some direction that suggests I am going to take a photo in that particular direction, all the while watching my intended subject, then when my subject begins to engage in the conduct which I intend to capture, I pull out all the stops.

 

If the conduct is going to be over quickly, then I allow myself to be revealed if I am close, but if it's going to be intermittent or repeat itself, I try to conceal and when I can will use a companion as a 'ruse' placing the companion sometimes 'near' the subject so it appears I am taking a 'snapshot' and then swing slightly sideways to take the subject. I get a few snapshots of my companion and a lot of my subject that way -- and I can delete those of my companion, which are not intended photos anyway and are mere filler (though she is very pretty).

 

This photo, taken with a zoom tele, involved standing far off and there was little reason for such feints. Pappa was nearby and so often parents are so proud of their kids that they don't care who is admiring them, so if he saw me, he didn't care (not always so in America where people will challenge you (WERE YOU TAKING A PHOTO OF MY CHILD???? WHY????? suggesting somehow an ill purpose, a leftover of some highly perverted individuals in the US who have exercised some freedoms.)

 

Fact is, when I finish my photographing, I almost automatically divert my facial attention (if not my eyes) to something else immediately, as if to say, I didn't take your photo, or if I did, it was of no importance to me, or I as just focusing my camera, and I certainly don't 'chimp' the shot until I get farther away when I'm trying to conceal my captures. Sometimes, of course, and especially with close-up shooting and certainly more with youths, I like to share my captures, as I did last light (they're probably reading this comment, all 10 or so of them.)

 

It all varies -- a different method for each subject, and it varies from photo to photo. One never knows. One can even use a variety of feints in one photo attempt, depending on the reaction. The idea is to be safe, GET THE PHOTO, do it to high standards, and keep the subjects natural and not posing.

 

Almost never ask them beforehand if you can take their photo; they'll just want to go home and change to better clothes or redo their makeup. (True).

 

Just ask forgiveness, and if they are curious and the shots show them well, make a decision sometimes to show them a representative shot or two at times. It can help make great friends, and result in many new viewers, as happened, say, last night.

 

Interesting commment you have made to me -- a guy who has never held a rifle, but knows how to capture an image without being noticed so much.

 

John (Crosley)

... I like the fact that the boy is on the "wrong" side of the frame here; the attached crop plays with that idea and the enigmatic feeling that results.

Just when I thought you were basking in your achievements taking some of the most wonderful photos ever taken of Romanesque churches and cathedrals, and getting ready for that book and gallery(ies) that are sure to follow, here you turn up critiquing a poor 'street' photo of mine taken in an instant the other day.

 

But just where did you get the idea that it's the 'wrong side'?

 

It's exactly the right side or to be more precise, the 'correct side, just so long as the boy and his varied whites and blacks was not in front of the semi-illuminated metalwork door which would have made a hell of a poor photo - as it is, and as your crop points out -- he has a solid black behind him, which makes him stand out clearly, and literally 'jumps' out of the screen . . . almost.

 

And although I had what he was reaching for and searching for in other frames I took (and the idea in a critique above was very on point), I didn't include it on purpose, just as Cartier-Bresson in his boy in Valencia, eyes to the sky, didn't include a shot of the skyward ball, and didn't explain himself either.

 

Better to let the photo speak for itself -- it has mystery as it is; life is too full of solved puzzles.

 

In our lives we are conditioned that when a puzzle is solved, we move on to the next one.

 

This one is left hanging . . . and so are we as viewers . . . to complete the story and to linger a little over the frame.

 

I long ago came to the conclusion that a photo on which the eye lingers a little generally is a more successful photo -- it is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. This one deserves an extra second or so of 'lingering' I think.

 

Perhaps it's not so much the photographer's skill, but the skill in photo editing . . . .

 

'Wrong side' indeed.

 

Then just where would the 'correct side' be? To the right?

 

Doesn't work for me.

 

Nor does cropping it to a vertical, or filling in the background. Photos can stand a little richness -- our eyes can be left to wander (and wonder) a little -- it doesn't hurt.

 

(now, I'm certainly not saying this is my best by a long shot, but it has its 'charms' . . . and I'm glad I posted it, in retrospect.)

 

Thanks.

 

Someday, you'll be known as the king of photographing Romanesque places of worship, and I'll be privileged enough to say 'I met him when that idea was more a gleam in his eye.'

 

You been doin' real good, Dennis . . . real, real good.

 

It humbles me and my meager street 'art'.

 

John (Crosley)

... meant only that conventionally the person faces into the shot ... that is how cinematographers are trained. That rule, like any other, is just a guideline, and that's why I put it in quotes. Actually, the shot is far more interesting, and has more of a sense of the motion that we sense from the slight blur around the hands, we feel his movement. Very interesting shot. Thanks for your amazing words on my work, John. I'm getting ready to go back in about four weeks, new cameras and all. Can't wait!

Being completely untrained in anything related to the reproductive arts -- either photography or cinematography -- I have little idea of what 'rules' there are, much less when and how I might be 'breaking' them.

 

I think, actually, for me, that's a pretty good idea.

 

I think I now understood why one of my professors I met after graduating from Columbia to whom I expressed delight at my position as a newsman having access to many of the world's newsmakers, suggested that my work and such access was mere 'dilettantism'.

 

I had then been unaware there was a struggle between the autodidacts of the world plus those who were just self-taught and ambitious, with those who were more formally educated often calling those with multidisciplinary (and often not formally trained) skills: 'dilettantes'.

 

Little did I know then.

 

So, I may just be a dilettante here in photography -- I don't care. I will be judged by the photos I take.

 

If that's the case, then why was not Cartier-Bresson (who practically invented this genre) also a dilettante and not an autodidact, or did he escape such a label because he studied formal painting under Andre Lohte?

 

It seems a stretch from formal painting to 'street photography' although a bright mind can interconnect the two rather well -- both rely rather heavily on strong compositional values.

 

I saw the motion blur of the boy's hands you mentioned and said to myself 'Oh, Good! It's just about like the blur lines that cartoonists draw around a figure's hands to indicate dynamism and/or motion . . . .'

 

It makes what appears to be a static shot much more dynamic, I think. One can 'sense' the boy's anticipation from his skyward look, but when looks at his hands, one can 'see' the dynamism of the shot -- one knows his hands are moving -- if not which direction, at least one knows that they are in motion.

 

I notice I seem to do very well around children, something I never showed so much interest in, but they can't be distracted by something as annoying as a photographer . . . . or denied their naturalness in most circumstances, which suits my style of photography.

 

Dennis, as to my remarks on your 'style' of photography or accomplishments, they're just the written truth, and the truth just cannot be denied.

 

Are you switching camera formats to something larger or with more megapixels or a greater dynamic range (or greater low-light sensitivity)?

 

I'd be curious to know, as you shoot for quality in some pretty demanding places, and there is little room for compromise in your shooting, whereas my shooting is absolutely full of compromises -- so much so that a properly exposed and framed photo may be the rare exception rather than the rule.

 

;~))

 

Once again, we may be missing each other on our transatlantic wanderings, I'm afraid.

 

France in the fall (or is it Northern Espana?). Now that's my idea of living.

 

(Except maybe Montpellier, the only European city I in which I ever felt fear to the bones when I walked in its downtown. Beware if you go there if les flics haven't cleaned it up.

 

(The local youths keep big vicious dogs with them in the town square -- or did just four years ago -- perhaps to drive away Arabs, who traditionally are said to be deathly afraid of dogs.

 

(Although leashed sometimes, when les flics are not watching, they're unleashed, very, very aggressive, and usually very large tough breeds which can move on a pedestrian extremely quickly. It can be very frightening to be approached across the town center by one or more of these running, barking, aggressive dogs whose owner does not call him/them off until the last minute -- if that.)

 

(From experience).

 

If you publish or have gallery work in progress, I'd love to hear privately about it; I think you know my e-mail, (it's publicly available many places).

 

John (Crosley)

I find that I think Dennis' suggested crop is probably the most constructive and effective thus far. I have enjoyed going through this dialogue as it has progressed, even though it is entirely unrelated to me. John, I appreciate your willingness to discuss your photo and acceptand consider the proposals, whether good or misplaced, of others. Best, JR

I'm a cropping minimalist.

 

I trust what I see and frame in the viewfinder; it's generally what guides me.

 

See two photos that are good examples of trusting what I shoot.

 

One is my first posted photo (it's in this folder as first): 'Balloon man' It started out as an 8 x 12 but got trimmed by a darkroom worker to 8 x 10 but he did it well. I don't have the original neg, but I can assure you the original was every bit as good and filled the frame just as well.

 

The second is my photo of the week 'The Progression of Age' from last October, cropped at the sides because the camera's aspect ratio was wrong for what was being framed and essentially a 4 x 5 was about right -- there were competing 'posters' in the background sides that had to be trimmed, left and right, but only a very little, and nothing at top or bottom.

 

I'm primarily an in-camera framer.

 

Dennis is a visual pro. One of the best, and when he does or says anything, it's to the highest standards.

 

And I pay particular attention.

 

But I also follow my own muse.

 

The very few shots I've tried to post which were cropped extensively have done poorly with viewers and ratings, though I liked them very much.

 

Just goes to show you.

 

To do what Dennis does best, maybe you have to be Dennis (or have him on staff or as an advisor.)

 

I 'see' things the way I 'see' them, and it's different from many people, including such skilled professionals, but I can assure you under the circumstances, I couldn't have taken Dennis's crop 'on the street' if my life depended on it -- it would have been physically impossible without a 200~400 lens, which is so heavy it almost requires its own huge tripod, and an 80-400 is too slow to focus to have caught this and too small in maximum aperture (e.g. a 'slow lens')

 

This was early evening with very low light.

 

I'm glad that this discussion is something you approve of; one other member did not in one photo posted next. He complained that he didn't need my commentary -- just the photo, and anything else was superfluous.

 

My reply was that some people like the commentary, and extensive commentary is something I'll seek to continue -- I think it's part of the education function of PN (and I often learn as much about my own photography and photography in general just by writing my commenters these replies, because otherwise I'd just post and forget).

 

Thanks for the generous spirit of your comment(s).

 

John (Crosley)

On one point of clarification on my end: I didn't intend to suggest that I didn't think the original photograph is extraordinary. It certainly is. I hope what I said didn't come out terribly wrong. I have been quite impressed by your work. JR

The fact that you and others, including luminary Dennis Aubrey, have spent time with what I thought was a photographic 'afterthought', almost barely worthy of posting, have re-opened my eyes to the possibilities of this particular shot.

 

I am being more careful now that I have had a Lucie Award winner cull my work from terabytes worth from last summer through January this year.

 

That primarily was something that happened because of the instigation of Dennis Aubrey himself -- the work was not done at his behest or because of anything he ordered, but he set in motion the events that culiminated in that Lucie Award winner spending over six months winnowing through over two terabytes worth of my digital captures, often proclaiming overlooked captures as 'fabulous'.

 

One of my 'lessons' (which Dennis slyly knew I would learn I am sure) was how not only to locate the good stuff from the junk, but also to place 'value' on images that otherwise might be consigned to one of my dozens of hard drives, where no one would ever see them.

 

Consider Gary Winogrand, who simply didn't even trust his own eye and let his work sit 'on ice' sometimes for years and left at his death hundreds of thousands of unreviewed images for others to cull. In my view, he was too myopic about his own vision, even though he was highly aritculate about it (he went to Columbia, too, although briefly, where he studied photography -- something that I don't even think was offered when I went to Columbia College, and if it were I would not have taken it, as I had no interest in being 'taught' anything by their stultifying faculty.

 

I learned photography on my own, even keeping and showing an image from my first roll in this folder (three men on Staten Island Ferry -- you might scroll down to take a look at it; it has ended up timeless, I think, and has hit the blogs, even, as evidence of my early good work.

 

Few would understand it's from my VERY FIRST ROLL of film ever.

 

I always trusted my images, though I didn't know what to do with them, so I gave up photography, but some of my edgier or different stuff, such as work like the above, I had no one to show to, and kept to myself.

 

I knew my work was good to me, and used it with new girlfriends as a sort of test: if they saw my photos and went 'ho hum' . . . . away they went, but if they started to laugh or become absorbed in my work, I knew they were 'keepers'.

 

My present, very dedicated (and beautiful in looks and spirit) girlfriend actively helps me with my work, often walks the streets with me, is not so greatly interested in my style of photography as much as in seeing my reaction to what I see when I take a good or great photo, very often points out what she knows will be scenes of interest to me, and almost always she is 'dead on'.

 

She knows what will please my look through the viewfinder, and in turn that pleases me about her -- which I know she values highly. Sometimes she helps critique my meager efforts at post-processing, all the time denying she has any 'taste' in such things, but her judgment is almost always dead on.

 

For instance in taking 'street', last year she pointed out to me the scene of the bum on the Kyiv Metro staircase, cup in hand upright, passed out, but still panhandling. I would have missed it entirely except for her. The man simply got up by the time our stroll would have gotten to him, and the shot been ruined. I consider it one of my very good shots.

 

She was walking with me when I got the recent well-received shot of two women with greatly pained faces and hands outstretched, panhandling to beat inflation on Kyiv's most fashionable boulevard.

 

She stood by and said nary a word while I shot away, then, when I said an 'amount', and then strolled ahead, she understood and simply dropped the women some money, as though she were paying it (it was from my money which she carries for me) so that I wouldn't be seen as the payor, and thus become known as a photographer either who 'pays for photos' or is a 'soft touch'.

 

It is she who sees me up working on my photos as the sun comes up -- did I tell you I'm dedicated?

 

And if you try to improve something I've taken, more power to you; I'm all attentive. I learned long ago that good editing only makes the writer (or photographer) look better. What a good deal -- free help to look better!

 

Thanks so much for your help.

 

John (Crosley)