'Paris'

It's Paris, with everybody looking -- one, right, with a critical eye, it

appears -- and everybody else looking at something. 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 (If you have seen prior version, this

is new edit from NEF, full frame and unmanipulated.)

It looks like the shot was taken from point zero ...

imho the pov and timing are really good, I like them very much, because you succeded in composing another interesting story (one of the most difficult thing is to get a good balanced one out of a crowd of walking/moving people). The only thing I don't like very much is the cut left foot of the man in the foreground. It's obvious from the tilt that you caught this one in a snap [is this the right word?] and this is another reason for which I like it very much, thank you, Giuseppe

Aas you are mentioning the crop, I have to say that for my personal taste, i quite like the fact that the foot of the sitting man is cut out : It is grounding the whole character very srtongly as opposed to the man who is about to take off, ( idea of taking off beeing reinforced by the tree going out of frame and responding very well to the foot going out of frame )

 

But if there could be a crop to be done, I think that perhaps the photo could be a bit cropped on both sides to get rid of the stone on the far left and the foot on the far right just under the line on the ground

Beautiful work, very nicely composed, John!

I love the style and feel of this shot..it's slightly surreal. I am an avid follower of your street scenes and like this image very much...Marjorie

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Point Zero' but I'll get back to that as I answer other critiques, or at least consider that point open for discussion.

 

This is a rework of a photo already posted in this folder, so I am left in a quandary.

 

The prior photo had the left and right severely cropped; I didn't see the possibilities of this as a more 'street' photo, but instead as 'telling a story'

 

I've been viewing some videos on U-Tube of Cartier-Bresson's work in which he takes in more of a 'scene, and realized that if I could 'nail' the exposure on this, it might make a delightful scene, and I might get some practice with my 'scenery-making' with a less tight crop than usual.

 

Well, in copying my work onto DVDs I came across the original and lo and behold, I found I shot it in NEF (Nikon s proprietary 'raw' format) so I just adjusted the exposure and reworked it to the above.

 

If you scroll down in my folder you'll find the original (at least for now unless I merge these two photos). In fact, I think I will merge that photo and this, copying this photo as the 'main' photo, and I already have inserted the 'original' PN posting (in large format) as a connected link in the other, so it will never be lost for the discussion of its merits/demerits.

 

And then I probably will 'copy' the prior photos 'en masse' in a comment with a ';pointer' heading (such as 'comments on prior photo' and if that takes away the attachment' I'll re-attach the prior posted photo, again so it's not lost.

 

This photo definitely is the better photo -- the sky in the other was 'burned out' from JPEG underexposure and use of 'rescue attempts' that were unsuccessful. I just learned how to 'rescue' the original, like it, and have posted this one.

 

I'll reply to other comments elsewhere, as I get to them.

 

I'm always thankful for your artful (no, that's wrong, as artful means fraudulent or dodgy -- as in 'artful dodger') -- in any case, original and well-thought-out critiques, always of a very high order.

 

John (Crosley)

I actually spied this scene when the guy, left, was posing for a photo for a relative (in front of the Cathedral de Notre Dame -- Cathedral of Our Mother) in Paris. This is directly in front which accounts for why people are looking up. I think his wife is hidden behind our skeptic, right, but I am not sure if she really is, as I cannot see her in other frames (I actively tried to keep her out of the photo to add that 'surreal' touch commented on below.

 

This was taken with a 12~24 mm DX (small sensor format) lens on a Nikkor D2Xs, and the quality of the original was underexposed but I also shot in NEF (Nikon's raw) and just reprocessed it (see above) after posting another version I didn't like too much, (see below this folder -- far below).

 

The lens distorts vertical lines, so anything that is not directly in front of the lens that is vertical will show as a 'tilting' line. It is correctable in Photoshop, but why bother -- as you note it can be an attractive attribute.

 

Now, I'm not so much a fan of Gary Winogrand, although I did take one this weekend that I think he would approve of, tilt and all, just because I think I can take a few photos in most people's style -- even famous artists like him, and really his success rate was abysmal - consider how many hundreds of thousands of photos he took to get just a few keepers.

 

I'm much more productive, though certainly not as seminal or as famous by any means. (there's always hope, but John Swarkowsky is not available to me, regrettably,to champion my work, nor, sadly, would he probably.)

 

In any case, with such a lens, a 'tilt' at 12 mm is almost 'certain' -- this was not a 'snap' which is short for 'snapshot', as I practiced this shot a number of times until I got it about as right as I could get it, then the skeptical guy, right was joined by a friend, ending my series and my attempts.

 

More about that in a later comment.

 

Sometimes things just are felicitous. I always liked this one, and decided it worked better uncropped, although there is a subsequent cropping suggestion I probably will take (slight crops left and right).

 

I always appreciate your critiques -- able, to the point, and worthwhile.

 

John (Crosley)

Here I was kicking myself for cropping out part of the skeptical guy's foot, left, just before he was joined by his friend so i could not get a subsequent photo with 'everything' within the frame and you come up with a wonderful reason why the foot should be crossing the frame line. Bravo! You could make me look like a genius in spite of my poor technique. I would never have thought of 'grounding' the man, though his 'foot forward' was in a sense his 'grounding' to my photographer's eye (but out of frame, I considered a 'mistake' until I read your critique and now I'm sure it was just my brilliance showing through ;~))))

 

Not!

 

Your seeing the man, left, as 'about to take off' is also interesting to me, and worthy. That idea completely justifies the 'foot forward' and 'grounding' idea you posit.

 

I like it and will certainly repeat it, though exculpating myself from responsibility for being 'correct' as it was not my intent to take a photo with what I saw as a 'mistake' in it, but I got stuck when the guy, right, had his friend join him and the photography of this scene stopped before I could 'get it right'. Now I'm being lauded for my mistake . . . .

 

I like the idea of full-frame photos, but if there is a crop to be done, your cropping suggestions, calling for very minor crops, are very, very well taken.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

I worked on the composition -- something I do not always have luxury to do, then it suddenly stopped, as another party entered the scene, distracting the skeptic, right, destroying this scene entirely -- or as I usually put it, causing the scene to 'deconstruct'.

 

The 'visual relationship' one sees here between the two men with the skeptic showing his possible disdain for the erect man, was completely broken in an instant when the third man showed up.

 

End of photo opportunity.

 

Photography opportunities end like that, sometimes abruptly -- sometimes not -- sometimes the opportunities just linger, but one has taken one's best photo or just does not want to 'hang around' any longer after doing well enough.

 

Photos also 'construct', or it is the photographer's task to 'construct' them.

 

I came upon this scene from the other side, while the guy, left had the cathedral in the background, took a photo or two of him that way, was dissatisfied, walked around and saw that he had a 'critic' and took several of him and his critic.

 

That was what I wanted.

 

In this case, the essentials 'stood still' for far longer than I ever would have expected, so I could 'work the scene' or 'mine it' for its maximum potential. I seldom have such luxury -- I often see, frame and take a photo in one to three seconds, as I presume you may also, from time to time.

 

I do NOT walk around with a camera glued to my eye, and if I do have camera to eye, often stand behind someone -- sometimes even a willing bystander who will 'screen' for me ('screen' is a basketball term which I hope you understand -- and essentially means someone to hide behind) I do that with some frequency, also turning away from my subject except when I want to point and shoot, especially if I have a screener nearby -- sometimes even a friendly and willing stranger. You never know what bonds are formed briefly 'on the street' (well, I am sure you may know exactly that, but others may not).

 

In any case, both men were aware of cameras all around and mine was just another wielded by camera-wielding tourists. Little would they suspect that two years later they're having their images discussed.

 

I finally looked at ratings and note this is a photo people either 'like' or 'don't feel very much liking for'. I expected that.

 

I like it, very much.

 

It's far from my best, but I did post it twice -- something I cannot recall having done in recent memory.

 

I always appreciate a few words of critique from you -- whatever you choose to say. Don't be a stranger, y'all hear?

 

John (Crosley)

As you well know, from your work in the street -- street is one of the most difficult of all the photo genres to master. For many it's a matter of personality -- either you have the gene that lets you take photos of strangers or you don't.

 

Part of any success, I think is a matter of intellectual curiosity -- one wants to 'view' and to 'understand' life around one and revel in its diversity.

 

You do not find many 'ideologue' street photographers, and in this country, not many right-wing street photographers or even street photographers with well-formed world views that are inflexible. That is the antithesis of 'street photography' where curiosity is the coin of the realm.

 

A 'street photographer' who has lost curiosity might as well hang up his/her camera(s).

 

It's the driving force behind all great street photos -- and often is combined with substantial 'intelligence' -- defined as the ability to recognize meaningful relationships -- even though those relationships are not always too obvious to others.

 

Intelligence drives the curiosity and allows the mind's eye to distinguish those 'meaningful relationships' that one presents with one's camera.

 

Now not all street photographers are articulate individuals; some are notoriously tongue-tied, but most 'street photographers are a more articulate lot (as a group) than most other photographers (as a group) I think.

 

Street photography is a small fraternity, with no meetings, no real membership, no secret handshake and no common bond except one's output and the ability to make another 'street photographer' nod his head and say to himself 'that's pretty good' or 'I wish I'd been there and been able to take such a good photo'.

 

It's also addictive -- worse than opium and heroin when you 'nail one' -- so watch out!!!!

 

John (Crosley)

Is where you were when taking the shot, is the french equivalent of the Milliarium Aureum of the romans, and is the marker from which all distances are measured.

Aha!

 

I do see, and recall the Roman equivalent.

 

That had gone over my head, but it is appropriate this being on the Isle de la Cite (or at least my minimal geography says so), right in front of Cathedral Notre Dame.

 

(Thank you for your unique gift in the e-mail. I won't 'attach' it anywhere, while you figure out its copyrights -- as it might be something you want to copyright, and I don't want it to fall into general use. Of course, we know that copyrights don't mean much in this digital age, so maybe the best defense is to keep things private until you decide to make it public (still taking whatever legal steps you might wish; someday a suite of such works might prove valuable . . . )

 

Is there anything artistic you cannot do?

 

Photos, of course, are copyrighted from the time of their first publication, but I am unsure about copyright on your wonderful instrumental dedicated to me and my photography -- I would like to share it, but will not unless and until I have your permission. After all, it's your work, and you should control its dissemination.

 

Thanks from a place deep in my heart.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

This photo, like many of my others, has the elements of a triangle in it -- pursuant to my longstanding (from my first roll of film in fact,shown in this folder) interest in 'threes as elements in a composition.. (I have an entire presentation devoted to 'threes' and this is destined for it, when I get a chance to update it).

 

The man standing (flying as Laurent-Paul Robert says above), is one anchor point of the triangle. Another anchor point is the skeptical man, right front center.

 

Behind the skeptical man and to his right are two sets of tourists who string into the distance, extending the line of the inferred (or implied) triangle.

 

If one were looking from overhead, one could more clearly see it, much as one could look at Google Earth and view it from directly overhead or, using controls, 'zoom' over the earth, viewing it at different angles, including terrestrial details from almost head on -- 'horizontally'.

 

Viewed that way, this whole composition takees on an interesting compositional view -- with the two men as anchor points to a triangle, the twin sets of tourists in the right rear, extend the line of the triangle into the distance. The mind's eye can connect the points and form a triangle from them, as our minds often do.

 

That sometimes is why a person will say 'good compsition' without really knowing why . . . . to a geometrically created composition such as this.

 

Catching those tourists at the proper momnet was not just happenstance; I have studied in creating my presentation 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' an undying interest in ensuring that backgrounds do not have untoward things in them and are helpful to entire scenes.

 

So, I waited until the tourists, rear, were in place before I tripped the shutter on this one to achieve my compositional goal. You may view my 'Presentation" Photographers: Watch Your Background' which is still in progress and I am told Photo.net's largest. It is a good lesson for photographers, I think in composition and using the entire frame to further one's photographic goals.

 

I had posted this previously cropping out the tourists, background, because I could , in jpeg format, not get the proper exposures on them and the other pedestrians. This is from a newly discovered NEF version I then had been unable to convert to a photo with then available software -- now that Adobe's made it, I have the NEF (raw) file, and I've reprocessed it as I would have liked to have done in the first instance.

 

John (Crosley)

Here is the original 'Request for Critique and resulting comments from the original post.

 

Attached at the end is a link to the original much-crioticized workup of this photo.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

***********************

 

 

--John Crosley

The Speaker and the (Grudging) Listener

The 'subject line' tells the small story behind this 'street' photo taken in front of Paris's Cathedral de Notre Dame (its famous Gothic cathedral), with the man, left, using an auto stop, for an impromptu speaker's stand, to the dismay of the man, right. 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 photographic skills. Thanks! Enjoy! John

 

Critiques

Debasish Chatterjee , February 17, 2007; 01:34 P.M.

 

The connecting pigeon is a beautiful touch. I'm wondering about the burnt out clouds; this is difficult light no doubt. Don't you think film would have handled the dynamic range better?

 

Best regards.

 

John Crosley , February 17, 2007; 11:36 P.M. (edit | delete)

 

Debasish

You're 100% exactly right -0- if you mean negative film, but transparency film would have had same problems (it handles same as sensor, but has NO latitude for error at all What You See with Transparency Is What You Get and there is NO leeway.)

 

I wish there were someone who could help me work this one up better; any takers?

 

*****

[note on reposting: I shot this in JPEG and NEF (raw) and this is from the jpeg version, as I did not then have 'raw' processing software or did not then have the 'raw' (NEF) version available to me. jc]

*****

 

John.

 

Debasish Chatterjee , February 18, 2007; 02:20 P.M.

 

Yes, I meant negative film. I started off with digital equipment, but migrated to film, one of the primary reasons being its capability of handling a much larger dynamic range, and in general a greater degree of robustness. Photoshop is just not my cup of tea.

 

Best regards.

 

John Crosley , February 18, 2007; 07:28 P.M. (edit | delete)

 

Debasish C.

Photoshop is not 'my cup of tea' but it has saved some otherwise 'worthy' shots, including some of my most memorable, so I won't 'diss' it (disrespect it).

 

I am sure there is a way to improve this photo, but just don't know how. I have to look to see if I shot this in 'raw' or NEF to speak of it appropriately. Now I shoot everything in JPEG fine and 'raw' simultaneously which really eats up the memory, but everything is completely flexible from color temp to exposure (somewhat) without (much) image degradation fixed in by JPEG compression.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Debasish Chatterjee , February 18, 2007; 09:14 P.M.

 

Off the top of my head, it seems that there is too much concentrated middle gray in on the ground; perhaps some curves treatment would be of help, but I'm not sure. The burnt out sky---I'm clueless. I hope you find out somebody to help you with. Personally, my heart is with that pigeon :-)

 

Best regards.

 

John Crosley , February 19, 2007; 01:40 A.M. (edit | delete)

 

Debasish

The overall exposure was an 'average' or 'matrix' but with the sky very 'hot' it threw the exposure 'off' leaving the guys in somewhat of darkness (witness the guy with folded arms being totally without detail, despite application of shadow/highlight filter.

 

Some of the detail is the result of application of shadow/highlight filter, but for the advantages, it has disadvantages too, but it makes the photo actually look like what the eye saw, more than the version rendered on the thumbnail which was blocked up in the foreground and difficult to see the detail of/especially the out flung arms of the 'speaker' which is essential to understanding this photo.

 

I did use 'curves' as well as many other devices, but to no avail.

 

Anybody care to weigh in; I can post or e-mail an original file to anybody who'd like to give it a shot.

 

I think it's a worthy photo, or I wouldn't have worked on it a long time, nor would I have posted it. It's a 'slice of life', but more than an ordinary 'slice of life', I think.

 

John (Crosley)

 

*****

[Raw (NEF -- Nikon Electronic Format -- file which the new post was taken from this added additional 'latitude' to this shot, which shows the advantage of shooting in raw as well as jpeg. jc]

*****

 

Micki F. , February 20, 2007; 01:42 A.M.

 

nice bird.... (big smile)

I've tried to like it and I just can't do it at all. I don't know what it is except everything seems flat to me. Something seems wrong and I don't know if it is the angle or the way the lense took the picture or the feeling that everyone in the back is not clear enough for me in this picture. I just don't know what to focus on and the only thing I can come back to is a silly bird.

 

I also have to agree with the fact that the clouds do throw me off a bit too and they keep distracting me. I do like the man sitting there with his hands crossed and turning away but that alone doesn't make a picture. I know he is looking at the man standing and looking "preacher like" while probably trying to say something but it just doesn't "hit" me in anyway. When it is on it is on and when it is not it isn't for me and what I see. I think it is just to busy for me or it might be that the clouds in the back just cause the problem. Who knows but it just has something in it that is wrong. It has all the good elements but something is off and I have spent all day trying to figure out what. I do know I am very frustrated the that the poor gentlemens shoe is cut off and that is not anything that would cause the whole picture to be off.

 

Not my middle name yet ~ ;) ~ Semantic Rules ~ micki

 

John Crosley , February 20, 2007; 02:16 A.M. (edit | delete)

 

Micki

Regrettably, I also am frustrated, but more that the backlighting threw off the exposure of this photo, leaving it to shadow/highlight filter, curves and other methods to try to make it look like an ordinary photo, and alas, they did not.

 

I may try to 'rework' the photo, this time 'selecting' the sky for special treatment -- simply holding it back from processing entirely, then maybe applying shadow/highlight treatment (highlight portion only) to it, and then 'inversely select' the rest of the photo for treatment and then individually select various elements of the photo, for a heavily photoshopped photo.

 

I think the tones are what has you screwed up -- they're wrongly appearing mid-tones thrown off by the tones of the sky for an unnatural look.

 

What this photo needs is for an expert photoshopper to look at the JPEG file (no raw that I can identify) to determine whether it can be made 'whole' again.

 

I'm working on a worthy capture from December a year ago, an old woman about to enter an elevator in a magasin (department store) in France, bearing a cane and stooped over, and next to the elevator is the store's emblem (Monoprix is the store) of an attractive young woman running through a field. There are distracting elements within the photo and the old woman (taken with a D70 Nikon) shows up as a kind of blob until one applies shadow/highlight filter and then manipulates using 'selection' then brightness and contrast adjustments, and then begins to 'fade' the distracting department store merchandise and clerks more into the background by decreasing their contrast (and leaving the wall photo in sharp contrast).

 

I'm having a devil 'selecting' the old woman, as her form is so imprecise, and what to 'select' elsewhere and 'not select' is quite a problem, but I think it's a worthy capture, so I persist. I take enough 'quickie' captures (this actually was one) but this was not a facile capture -- it has some depth and contrast, that I think it's worth saving over those that just show a quick, bright or deep or unusual look or expression, and thus shows some 'story' and thus has some 'meaning'.

 

When I see something 'worthy' I persist. I'm going over photos from a year or two ago, to see what I missed in my hurry to post the facile photos. I'm finding some pretty good stuff I passed over, some of which I've posted and some of which is waiting to be posted.

 

I know this 'doesn't do it for you', but I think if it were presented as a 'regular photo' without technical distractions, you would not be bothered. It might not be a 'winner' but then again, no photo or photographer is going to tickle your fancy with every shot. For me, it's a triumph of will if I can rescue this shot. I would have a better one, except this is the last (cut off shoe and everything, as I moved around this pair photographing, looking for the best juxtaposition, and getting caught by the glaring sun through the clouds in the late afternoon (gads), but alas, the man, right, was joined by a friend, and uncrossed his arms and was distracted, destroying the composition, so this is the last of the efforts.

 

I enjoy your feedback -- positive or negative, but it's the place it comes from and the fact that it's honest feedback that is appreciated most of all.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Marco Ruggiero , February 24, 2007; 09:52 P.M.

 

Excellent documentary.

 

Complimenti.

 

John Crosley , February 26, 2007; 02:39 P.M. (edit | delete)

 

Marco

Multo Grazzi

 

With thanks, sincere best wishes, and proud to have you comment.

 

John

 

John Crosley , September 19, 2008; 08:55 A.M. (edit | delete)

 

Original Post

Here is a link to the original photo posted, in 'large size' that was commented on. This has been worked on now that a NEF version has been discovered and appropriate software is now available (It was now available then).

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

If one reviews the prior comments, one will see that I had criticized my own photo along with my commenters (commentators), primarily for its tones. I also had cut off the line that extended the imaginary triangle, right by cropping it slightly at the right,cutting off a tourist group essential for visualizing extension of that line.

 

This version is from NEF and adds latitude to the exposure and effectively resolves all the issues but the cuf-off foot,for which I give Laurent-Paul Robert, critic, my thanks for suggesting it actually 'helps' the photo instead of being a mistake -- by 'grounding' it next to the man, left, who is 'flying' as he stands atop the abutment.

 

Thanks to all who critiqued this photo before and caused me to continue to hunt for the original NEF (raw) version, so I could rework it, then post it.

 

Soon, I will be removing the original post as it has been saved in its entirety except the scores,which will go to oblivion, I think. I may copy the non-anonymous scores just for the fun of it, but am presently unsure of that,as it 'orphans' the anonymous' scores.

 

;~))

 

Thanks to those who endured this exercise -- it effectively appears to me a good lesson about the power of 'raw' (NEF) versus JPEG processing, if nothing else.

 

John (Crosley)

These are ratings from prior posting of this photo, now in process of being removed.

 

It ranked with 11 rates A 4.91 O. 5.09

 

John (Crosley)

 

***************

 

 

The Speaker and the (Grudging) Listener by John Crosley

 

 

 

Summary of ratings Aesth Orig Ratings

 

4 3 2

 

4 5 3

 

5 5 1

 

5 6 1

 

6 6 4

 

 

 

Members Who Rated this Photograph Directly Who Aesth Orig

 

Ruud Albers 6 6

 

Pedro Martínez Alhambra 5 6

 

Alfredo Muñoz de Oliveira 6 6

 

Marco Ruggiero 6 6

 

Average 5.75 6.00

 

There are 7 anonymous raters who rated the photo in the "Rate Recent Photos" or "Rate Category" features, with an average score of 4.43 for Aesthetics, and 4.57 for Originality. There are some Top Rated Photos rankings, including the default, which use only the anonymous ratings from the Rate Recent feature.

 

 

This is the B&W tonality that I like, especially in the jacket and face -diffuse light. I also do not like the foot cut off (somewhere up above) nor the slant. I have no other issues.

This 'tonality' was not available on the JPEG version, now taken down -- it was full of artifacts and the sky was burnt because of overuse of shadow/highlight tool, but this is a 'raw' capture (NEF).

 

The 'slant' is really both ways -- see background building which 'slants' both ways - and is distortion from a 12~24 mm lens at widest angle - an inherent 'issue' with that particular Nikkor lens.

 

As to the foot, you are right; it has been widely discussed. I like the argument of Laurent-Paul Robert above, that it 'anchors' this man while the man next to him is seen to be 'flying away'.

 

John Crosley

I know next to nothing about photoshop tools so I have no idea what is shadow/highlight tool or anything else.