"Those 'Glamorous' '60s Student Protests"

A mess of cigarette butts, an overturned coffee cup, a protester napping

with her head in arms (and a live pipe bomb in the building behind,

unknown to all of us) -- that's the face of the '60s student protests. 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. (and share your stories if you like). Thanks! Enjoy! John

This photo showed up darker on posting than it showed in Photoshop on my screen, so it was lightened, then the lightened version replaced the posted version.

 

As of this writing, the replacement has not yet taken place, but when it does, if you have seen the prior version, please 'refresh' your browser, to see the change to a lighter version.

 

Same with thumbnails. If you have seen the thumbnail, your system will hold onto the prior thumbnail without recognizing that the thumbnail has changed unless you refresh your browser when the thumbnail is showing.

 

Thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

You have an excellent eye for candids..this shot captures the various attitudes of students in those days..involved and vociferous(student holding sign)..apathy and possibly drugs(student on steps) and just hangin' (student sitting on wall)...and of course lots of smoking...Good work...Marjorie

Thanks Marjorie.

 

And I also knew how to cut off heads.

 

(cropping from full aspect ratio done by a darkroom worker -- 8 x 10 then and decades later when this was printed was very popular and considered de rigueur.

 

(Unfortunately -- this one suffered from the crop. The three were left in, but the composition was not helped by the man's scalping.)

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

John (Crosley)

So impressive image.Really powerful photojournalism.Composition.Timming is so great,I like woman's mood for alot.

 

Best Wishes

I lost most of my negatives (and transparencies) from this period, but some few were printed out. This print is saved by copy negative, and scanned from print for this reproduction.

 

This was one of them, and for the life of me, I couldn't really figure out why I spent (then really big) money to have it printed, especially since the photo has a major defect (man's head cut at top).

 

Worse, the photo finishers, in a fit of haste and without telling me, conformed to the tradition at the time and printed this not full frame as composed but 8 x 10, zeroing in on the main actors. It was their interpretation; not mine which you see. I would have kept more in the frame at the sides, to emphasize the 'threes' and the 'triangle' that one gets by 'connecting the dots' of the three individuals within the larger rectangle.

 

(Right now, and I am not for sure how long, it's next to a photo of two men and bystanders in front of the Cathedral Notre Dame, Paris, entitled 'Paris' which involves also a 'triangle' within its compositional theme -- separated by 40 years,they are compositional cousins. Maybe I just haven't learned, or my tastes just are well-founded (or ill-founded depending on whom you ask).

 

I expected to be roundly criticized for the 'mistake' above -- the cut head, but I suppose that's just too clear and the man's expression didn't help. A second frame (as I shoot now) would have helped. Film was then scarce, and I was unsure of myself. I framed carefully, then moved, on and if I missed one, that was too bad (no digital review to find 'cut heads' then).

 

But when I looked at this two days ago, I saw that it told a 'story' like many of my other photos, and then I understood my own photo. It had been taken in San Francisco on a very bright, sunny winter day in mid-winter with long shadows and extreme brightness. It printed very contrasty.

 

I threw it into Photoshop CS3, applied contrast/brightness filter, then began adjusting 'to taste' and came up with something too dark, posted it, didn't like it, and replaced it with this version which for my money is 'just right.'

 

It captures 'the moment' -- the glare of the sun, the cigarette butts, the solar rays pounding down on the tired (or spaced out) girl protester, right (is she actually protesting or just getting company), with the overturned trash cup and the man also surrounded by cigarette butts -- attesting that he's been there a very long time.

 

We see footage of students clashing with protesters, and I saw that too, both here and at Columbia University (my Alma mater, and the first) and also Berkeley (People's Park,-- supposedly -- but in reality 'ant'i everything including 'anti' VIet-nam and 'anti' corporate elite which helped it along, feeding off the profits that go with war.).

 

Doonesbury foretold it best when its author cartooned presciently through his character Duke, the profiteer, about potential corruption profits to be reaped from the upcoming Iraqi war. I am thankful always for the cartoons of Gary Trudeau, one of the planet's more prescient individuals, and personally thank him for his influence on my life and outlook.

 

So, this photo does tell a story, but only if one looks at it and studies it. And it does have some minor compositional values -- the 'threes' -- and an implied or inferred triangle (connect the dots), as well as showing the influence of the pretty hot, direct California winter sunlight in midday and how it affects these people -- sort of like cats, especially the woman, right, sunning herself -- absorbing 'rays' as we called them.

 

There was a lot of this then when there were 'strikes, often fomented by agitators who were in turn fomented directly and indirectly by Moscow, but Moscow would have had no influence if the US had been on a justified course.

 

And as we later learned the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident had been pretty much faked and misinterpreted, as related by US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who spent much of the last part of his life traveling, apologizing and atoning for the casualties of that misbegotten war and asking forgiveness for his major role in impelling it with resultant deaths.

 

If he were Japanese, he would have disemboweled himself in hara kiri,, but he was an auto chieftain.

 

He probably flew first class to do his atonements.

 

Stayed in luxury hotels

 

And ate sumptuous meals

 

Before public appearances 'atoning'.

 

You see, I see 'contrasts' in other parts of life than just in my photography, it's just that I don't always speak them or write about them.

 

Thanks for your comment, Afshin, which gave me a chance to reflect on this photo, what it depicts and its meaning within the culture of the times.

 

John (Crosley)

4 is not a "harsh" rating yet I will explain: once in a seminar we were told to just leave our cameras home in the middle of the day. On photo.net I have never seen what what I consider to be astheticly "good"/ or maybe even "average" photo under these conditions.

I note that all the time Cartier-Bresson took his camera out in the middle of the day.

 

You might look at some of his books.

 

Harsh lighting plays an important part in this photo/it just was printed too harshly for my taste and I brought it back into range with Photoshop, as the printer should have done but didn't. It was printed in a regular darkroom pre-Photoshop times.

 

The harsh, California winter daylight with long shadows, the cigarettes, the trash, the woman with head in arms, the arrangement of the protesters and their ennui all give this photo its essence.

 

I don't wait for a certain time of day or night to take photos -- never have. Ive always taken them 24 hours a day.

 

I'd have issues with your seminar leader -- no matter what his/her credentials. Perhaps he/she was talking about taking nature/landscape photos -- not 'street'. I refer you to the photography of Giuseppe Pasquale who takes much of his work in bright daylight and much is very very good.

 

Further, in Europe, it is overcast during 2/3 of the year, so light levels are lower and light is diffuse during daylight those months with heavy cloud cover and there is little problem with harsh lighting.

 

It is easy to take a simple statement and draw false conclusions or easy, as a seminar teacher, to mislead or misinform.

 

The man who curated my photos I expected to turn away from photos that were 'out of focus' in every instance, but sometimes he did not. This famous man looked only to whether the photo captured 'the essence' of the situation and cared hardly at all for 'rules' or even 'details', let alone 'maxims' such as you propose.

 

I'll keep shooting whenever.

 

Two of my finest portraits were shot on the same role of film at 2:00 a.m. at a bus stop in Yreka, California in color and help anchor my single photo, color folder.

 

They still are outstanding and both are quite different.

 

Yet much of my best work was shot in bright daylight, though through scheduling issues I often do not go out until the day creeps toward an end.

 

And yes, I am aware of the term 'magic light' or 'photographer's light' but those are just part of maxims and rules and rules are made to be ignored in proper circumstances.

 

In proper circumstances I even will include the bright daylight sun in a photo if it produces the correct effect.

 

So much for maxims, as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more concerned with 'the photo'.

 

I appreciate that you did explain; the photo may have deserved a 4/4 for other reasons, or for any reason, but your reason invited discussion.

 

John (Crosley)

The comment came up during the evaluation of a shot taken in St. Thomas Virgin Islands and so as matter of fact it probably was about a landscape

John, in your words critiques are, " invited and most welcome". I do not appreciate being insulted when I comply.

Then you should offer critiques that critique the photo not me personally and or the way I respond to commenters, whether it's you or other comenters - and especially not to denigrate as a 'panderer' someone who leaves me a good-faith comment. I was evaluating your 'apology' which I did receive to consider it in the view of subsequent events and see if it was 'sincere' and represented a change in your performance. Alas, it seems not to have been.

 

In short, overall, you did not comply, as you suggest you did and have remade history by removing text of comments.

 

You also should not orphan my replies to your comments by removing your comments to which I then reply. You have done that more than once, even after I complained. My comment then makes little sense, unless I summarize your removed comment, which I probably will.

 

To that end, I suggest using greater care when you post comments, so they do not invite a strong (and possibly objectionable) response. You might look at your curt answer to my long email you requested, as well, to determine how you are received here.

 

You apparently took offense that I corrected you (gently and politely) on the use of a term, but you ignored that I gave you a ton of useful information designed to help you as a member here in compliance with your request and at the expense of considerable time and trouble.

 

For that I got absolutely no acknowledgement or thanks, and in the absence of recent history might be understandable but in light of what I feel is an 'attitude' on your part, I find it less than tolerable.

 

I have a 99% good to wonderful rating with fellow PN members, and if you ask around you will find that is true.

 

If there is an 'issue' you might hold out a mirror and look into it.

 

I have advised you twice before about the affects of vinegar vs. honey.

 

This is the third time.

 

I'm here about photography; not personalities.

 

Please confine your future comments here to helpful critiques of photography and the critique 'string' which may lead all sorts of places, -- from poetry to philosophy, politics, economics, sociology, sexuality, travel, graffiti, arts, and even a recent song dedicated to my photography -- if you cannot so contribute, please refrain (it's not all about photography, but it must be related to the string or the photo in some way AND in good faith).

 

I have very few 'rules' for comments under my photos and my comments are some of the most liberal on this service (and widely read), but I do have some, and one is 'no ad hominem attacks', do not remove your comments (if you comment, stand by it and consider it before posting), and participate helpfully.

 

These comments are the heart of healthy give and take, but all in good humors and good faith.

 

I hope that is reasonable guidance, and if you can follow those 'rules' I will have no complaints.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(I will not be writing you again about 'vinegar vs. honey')

 

jc

 

?????