black and white: then to now The Path

This is 'the path' with three passersby, all stepping together in unison for

a geometric view. 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 is a full frame capture -- no cropping.

John (Crosley)

Smile! What is photography about? Given a story! Great shot.

With regards.

Some of my photos are about 'stories' I am told, and when I was told that I was somewhat surprised -- it seemed EVERYVBODY knew that but me.

Well, now I know, but some of my interesting captures also are about patterns and geometry.

This capture features the 'C' Curve in concentric partial 'circles' (portions of a circle is what a 'C' curve is).

And each concentric ring is punctuated intermittently by the juncture of each brick/paving stone with the next at odd intervals.

So, there is both uniformity in the concentricity of the 'C' curves (partial or portions of circles) and non-uniformity in the punctuation of the paving stone at regular but somewhat dissimilar intervals.

Now come the feet which, being in step, are both similar and dissimilar.

It is summer so each foot is wearing summer footwear, but each is different in some way.

Yet at the same time each is stepping in unison with the left foot forward.

Indeed, this is a study in dissimilarity and similarity at once several ways within the same photo.

It seems very simple, and of course it is from a design standpoint -- there are concentric circles -- 'C' curves -- and three uniform bodies stepping in unison.

But if one looks more closely there is more richness to this photo than one might imagine.

Have I analyzed this one right?

And of course a 'C' curve is next to an 'S' curve in drawing the viewers' eyes to the background - making us want to see what is in the beyond -- a very important element sometimes in drawing the eye into a photograph.

Can you imagine that I hadn't thought two seconds about this photograph and its elements until I read your critique, then sat down to analyze it, and this is whatI I came up with?

Finally, there is the textural element of the bricks/pavers which add another interesting element as one's eyes are drawn from the foreground to the background, to, and beyond the feet of the three.

Yes, we wish we could see the three, and that is its mystery.

This is a photo about all those elements,

Richer than I had ever hoped when I took it, and I took it in a split second - one of two of this triad walking toward me.

I could not be more pleased, as I was trying very hard with other shots and coming up with not much the rest of the day.

Thanks for bearing with what may seem an overly didactic or verbose analysis. I just write until I feel I've said what needs to be said, then I stop.

Thanks for your comment.

John (Crosley)

[Mr. Samel removed his comment, orphaning the comment below]

The above comment also probably should be addressed to you, as it also covers points that you raised.

Yes, there is mystery in this shot, rings or circles (portions of rings) that carry our eyes toward the back of the photo, feet and lower bodies that pull our eyes toward the top of the photo, but 'wait' we are stopped by the upper boundary of the photo's frame . . . .

This is partially a photo about expectations and wanting but not getting.

Our eyes are trained to follow lines until we see the end, but here we see the 'start' of lines and/or ideas/bodies but we don't see these things fulfilled, and our expectations are left wanting.

That leaves us with slightly unfulfilled expectations.

Some expectations unfulfilled can be a very bad thing, like when a man spies a tremendous figure on a blond-haired woman wearing youthful clothes only to find out it's a 50-ish or 60-ish woman masquerading and having a heavily wrinkled face full of makeup -- ugh.

Other times, it can be more like the mystery book that one does not want to put down because one does not want to leave it before the end.

We can follow a young woman a few steps or longer and savor her beauty (us men only probably) and get an idea of what she might look like if she turned around, but never get a glimpse of her front, but we aren't disappointed -- only a little enraptured at the joy of having 'seen' her beauty at all.

We have not been treated in each of these three examples to the full expectation of the beauty we expected, but each has played out in a different way.

Such is the way of our expectations.

The eye is a part of the brain (the optic nerve is a part of the brain -- the only exposed part) and it creates its own expectations when it views a scene together with our experiences.

If we see the start of a 'circle' or a 'c' curve, we expect that it will continue and we 'want' to see the remainder or our mind fills it in for us (or tells us that it will continue).

If we see the lower portion of three people close together stepping in unison, in summer shoes, we assume these people are happy people, enjoying the weather and their mutual company, and we want to see them.

To me, that's what this photo is about, and why I took it, not because I thought this through (I didn't have time, of course), but looking back, this is why I would have justified it beforehand if I had to have justified taking it.

Fortunately to me, I don't have to answer to anyone for lifting my camera to eye and shooting. I can throw away what I don't like and only show those captures that appear to take on meaning, complexity and/or beauty, such as this unlikely one.

(I am not sure what the final words of your critique mean, but that's perhaps for you to explain.)

Thanks for giving me jumping off place -- a so-called 'sounding board' to explain what I now see in retrospect about this photo.

John (Crosley)

These youths are not exactly stepping in perfect unison or cadence -- the leftmost has the leftmost foot out while the two on the right (as we face them) have their right feet out.

So, it's not marching cadence, but it's still a unison of sorts, with each stepping together, step . . . step . . . step . . . step.

And the rightmost handbag is swinging which shows that there is action. This is not a group of models photographed standing there as though they were walking in unison but it is truly a group of youths actually walking and walking briskly enough that the purse (on our right) is swinging.

I did not comment on the brick/pavers and how they appear to create a texture, but that is what they do -- create a texture, and the texture, due to the low contrast of the evening lighting, seems to be repeated in the low contrast of the walkers coming towards us, I feel.

Do you feel the same?

Just some thoughts.

Others' views?

John (Crosley)

But there are books about many of the works in museums and galleries.

Some artists are silent about their works and some are articulate.

Many of the oldest artists had no way to express themselves in written form, so we are left without the gift of their ideas, which they may readily have articulated to others around them but are lost to antiquity.

Many photographers are astonisingly inarticulate about their own work and cannot speak about it at all.

I am not one such.

For you, of course, any comment here by me is purely optional reading.

If you object - you needn't read, of course.

Just look at the photos and rate and/or critique.

I have no problem with that;~))

(I get much favorable feedback for the extensive comments that I write, so I guess I'll continue the practice.)

John (Crosley)

Or three needles, for some cacophony.

Interesting perspective.

I like your observation.

John (Crosley)

[in response to a comment removed by Mr.Meir Samel, 'orphaning' this comment]

Absent any indication, Meir, that the NY Times or the Miami Herald are going to review and/or critique my photos, I'll just keep on critiquing some of them.

I have knowledge about sociological events that surround some of the documentary parts of some of them that make the explanations make sense and place them in context. Perhaps someday they'll end up in a book or an exhibition or both about things such as the growth of modern-day Ukraine and my comments together with my photos will serve as guideposts for understanding events together with illustrations.

In any case, that part of my comments is very well documented; I'll hang my hat on it.

I used to belong to a critique group that almost anonymously trolled the galleries selecting various unsung but interesting photos, and then the group of us would weigh in with some very, very interesting critiques, and that was a great deal of fun.

It also gave a sense of community, which I find wanting in the new Photo.net with its hundreds of thousands of ANONYMNOUS members -- people you cannot get to know so well because when they rate they are hidden, unless they stop by specially and then their name is attached. I understand the reasons for the (semi)-anonymous system and endorse them, but it tore the social fabric of Photo.net apart somewhat and it has not recovered the society that was here for me, at least.

And there us a slew of photos uploaded every day; it I were to even begin to critique a small part of them, with the precision that I do with my own, I'd never finish the task. And I don't do things half way, generally.

I used to rate and critique more frequently, but I now post on two sites and spend more time Photoshopping and downloading -- feeding the maw with my photos, and getting prepared (I hope) to introduce myself to galleries, as I have been aiming to do for the last half year.

So, rather than spread myself too thin, I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing, and hope that it's good enough (except perhaps for you). And that will be good enough for me.

I have a prodigious output photographically, in any case with this site (and another) and the continual preparations possibly for a book and galleries in the works from reworking my stored captures, so I have plenty to do without adding to it.

And the process of critiquing my work makes me sharper when I go to take that next photo -- there, you see, it's all about ME, as I think you may have been intimating.

On the other hand, even since you've complained, I've been complimented for doing just what I've done all along -- many seem to appreciate what I write very much. Imagine if Gary Winogrand had kept a diary of the things he articulated to his classes at the Art Institute of Chicago and/or the University of Texas at Austin, and his thoughts about each photo were preserved for posterity, as mine are.

Now, if somebody will just notice them.

Now, just when do the NY and Miami photo critics call and stop by so I can shave and get my hair cut?

;~))

John (Crosley)

(for simplicity's sake why don't we just label these arguments A, and B. and the next time you can critique my comments by saying

Criticism A and I can rejoin by saying Reply B?)

Might save us some time and pixels.

Good health to you.

John (Crosley)

[Prior to 9-21-08, Mr. Meir Samel left a note that he had deleted his comment(s). Now it appears he has even deleted that note/comment as well, further orphaning this following comment]

By deleting your comments, you orphan mine.

Good give and take is not discouraged at all on this forum; whatever gave you that idea?

Come and express yourself!

That's why they make chocolate and vanilla (and occasionally strawberry).

I never was offended.

Now the readers will wonder why there are my remarks to some guy named Meir S., when there are no remarks from a guy named Meir S. -- it leaves a hole in the colloquy.

I'm a lot more thick-skinned than you give me credit for.

Next time don't be so shy to bolster your position.

John (Crosley)

Stupendous shot this. Attaching one of mine, in similar lines.

Thank you for the very kind comment.

I took this photo on the 'spur of the moment' with absolutely about two second's forethought, if that.

I think it came out well, and I thank you for expressing your appreciation and taking the time to do so.

John (Crosley)

There is a time-honored phrase: 'superfluity does not vitiate,' but you seem to put it to the test.

Answer B.

********

Please leave my commentator above, out of this colloquy -- your view that he is 'pandering' to me may do him an ultimate disservice -- you of course are entitled to write him (or me) directly your opinion, but please do not use my comments section to make a swipe at another -- that is ad hominem, abusive, and should not be tolerated.

To take such a swipe is a classic 'troll' technique, which is forbidden here on Photo.net

Please express yourself to me only, OK, without involving others into our discussions?

Also, I am reminded about the phrase that relates to 'attraction and honey as opposed to vinegar'' if you get what I mean.

Criticism and critiquing do not mean being obnoxious, ill-mannered or boorish -- this is not a salon of European nobility where a rapier tongue (or pen) is rewarded and points scored for getting the better of someone else; this is a 'sharing' site, meant to improve photography -- mine, yours and the next person's, and what you have that will further that end still remains quite welcome here, and I still invite your constructive criticisms that genuinely are meant to 'help improve my photography'.

John (Crosley)

Again, you have deleted a comment, this time in response to my objection above, about ad hominem attacks on fellow contributors,but also I think for quibbling rather than critiquing the photo or my photography; I will let my warning to you stand in case others venture such attacks and note that you wisely removed your ad hominem comment against my other recent critic, above and other off topic remark(s).

At the same time, you inserted a new comment, meant to answer (or question) the phrase I inserted in my last comment: 'Superfluity does not vitiate', which is a time-honored Maxim of Jurisprudence -- one that is incorporated into the California Civil Code and also may be found in any competent state or national legal encyclopedia and is incorporated into the law (and equity) of many or maybe all states of the Union and probably of the UK as well (except perhaps Louisiana which is founded on the Napoleanic Code (Code Civil).

In time, if you do your research, you will understand its meaning.

John (Crosley)