'The DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles]'

Waiting is standard form for everyone at the DMV [Department of Motor

Vehicles] throughout the United States -- more in some states, less in

others. Some states have appointments -- others do not. Does this

woman seem overwhelmed and exhausted by her wait? Your ratings

and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful comment, please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

Perhaps she's getting her driver's license for the first time. ;) As always, you have a sharp eye for contrasts.

But raters don't seem to, so far. In fact, it doesn't seem so far to register on their radar.

 

Live and learn.

 

I've been showing it to people around on my camera and the acclaim is universal -- people 'love' this photo. It seems to tell an absolute (and humorous) truth about DMVs everywhere. (even if no longer 100% true).

 

Yes, an eye for the moment. (and it didn't really last too long; she got called almost immediately after 'assuming the position'). Not all photos tell the truth 100%; this is one of them.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Poor little hottie :) And the black dude must be either VERY nervous or gay :D He's not even LOOKING at her! Good eye.

perfect timing, imho could be cropped a bit on the left and a bit on the top - just to eliminate some of that white spot. Good dof considering the 17-55 2.8 lens. Thank you,

Giuseppe

I didn't experience her as a 'hottie' although she may have been; I sometimes live in Ukraine and American girls just don't do it for me. The black guy was just concentrating and she had just thrown herself back when I took this photo; he didn't have tiime to react.

 

I did though. Twice.

 

[Les, FYI, gay guys are ALWAYS checking out the chicks, for reasons that perhaps they best understand -- maybe as a sort of brotherhood/sisterhood sort of thing, just as girls check out chicks more than guys check out chicks. It's true. Girls dress for girls more than they dress for guys generally, and are always the first to notice when some girl has changed her appearance even though guys might be totally clueless. It's not always true, but true enough for generalization).

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)

After studying more of H C-B's photos, I decided to begin taking in more of the background and cropping a little less.

 

This one was deliberately taken more contextual, (with more surrounding area for context) including more of the scene, including the test-taking area, left and, of course, to include that, one almost must include the ceiling area if one is to keep the same aspect ratio of 2:3,

 

In my opinion, although this was indeed taken in only maybe two seconds, it was framed as good as I could, and includes all the elements I would choose if I had a long time to frame. I framed the foreground guy just as I wished and trimmed the rightmost woman just right to avoid distraction.

 

Enough of the background is visible to place this firmly in context.

 

The f 2.8 lens was set at widest aperture too, with focus point on her hair (I looked), and still got this depth of field, which pleased me enormously (you commented).

 

I'm very happy about this photo; not a crowd pleaser but a very, very telling photo full of 'truth' even if it distorts the 'truth' from that particular moment.

 

Nearly every American can 'identify' with it.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful critique; I'm just changing my style a little, for this photo at least, as far as a 'tight crop' is concerned.

 

John (Crosley)

Perfectly capturing the emotion that goes with waiting. I love it, and makes me think of the waiting I recently experienced during jury duty. I also like that there is a lot going on in the photo around the girl. Great Work!

Les, FYI, gay guys are ALWAYS checking out the chicks, for reasons that perhaps they best understand -- maybe as a sort of brotherhood/sisterhood sort of thing, just as girls check out chicks more than guys check out chicks.

I know. I'm straight, but I've worked in theaters a lot and have had fun contrasting gay rituals to straight ones, as well as male to female. And my wife wants to marry this Swedish babe she saw on House Hunters.

I only called her hot because, as far as I can see, she has nice hair, skin and shoulders and a cute top.

Very nice capture of an interesting moment. Best regards.

Just as you connected with this photo in relation to recent jury duty (very apt I might say), I think most Americans can in some way or another connect with this.

 

It went from being a 'stinker' in ratings early this morning to being fairly successful; apparently it has gathered a wider viewership. That's in part, I think because it 'tells a story' and the story it tells is universal and I captured it with near perfection -- it's not a perfect picture, but just this one moment is as good as I think one can capture the moment.

 

(No false modesty -- I learned that from Ukrainians and Russians. If a woman there is beautiful, she will say 'I'm a beautiful woman -- end of subject. She's beautiful, she acknowledged it, and no false modesty.

 

(Same for the computer tech who's a genius; he will tell you so, and no fooling, if he says he is, then he is. End of story. I find that charming and endearing.

 

(I dislike the falseness that goes with 'oh, do you REALLY think I'm cute, i think my left cheeck is too hollow . . . and my nose is crooked right here . . . . indicating -- from the American woman, professing such 'modesty' while revealing that she has indeed studied AND admired her 'looks' a great, great deal, and indeed feels very strongly about them but feels compelled to profess otherwise.)

 

So, as I said above, I really love this photo, and that's when it was getting 3s and 4s in ratings.

 

And you may note, I almost never remove a photo; if I believe in a photo enough to post it, it stays posted unless I discover a defect or perhaps no one rates it or comments on it, in which case I may have another look.

 

I'm really glad you like this one ;~))

 

I shoot to please not only me but interested viewers like you.

 

John (Crosley)

'. . . my wife wants to marry this Swedish babe she saw on House Hunters.. . . . '

 

If by babe you mean beautiful woman, that indicates lesbianism, which places you in an interesting situation about which I will not comment.

 

I do note that in hundreds of very intimate and revealing conversations with women in which they were allowed to 'let their hair down' about everything, including their sexuality, I have gained some 'expert' knowledge about the subject of female sexuality and have moved into a completely new realm of understanding.

 

A wife that I sent away, and was sent away by her next boyfriend, suddenly 'became' a lesbian, and as reported by her daughter 'cruised' the lesbian ads on Match.com, so no fooling, she was a practicing lesbian.

 

But she recently also had a baby and is married to a guy -- and who knows what he knows about her lesbianism and whether it was temporary or permanent and born out of her rejection by me (and a subsequent suitor) or part of her makeup. Of course, for it to flourish, it had to be part of her makeup anyway.

 

Women, far more than men, I think, are more apt to regard women as close buddies for 'affection and to do sexual experimentation in lesbianism. Women spend a great deal of time looking at other women and evaluating them -- even admiring their looks and feeling good about them. The term 'girl crush' comes to mind, also.

 

Even women who profess roundly and loudly their heterosexuality to me (in such conversations) when asked a question such as 'who kisses better, a man or a woman, will answer promptly and without hesitation, often 'A woman of course' and that from experience. But of course, the woman who says that will deny any touch of lesbianism . . . . . until she lets her defenses down some more.

 

Women are given to hugging one another, even in the 'don't touch' American society -- it's a woman sort of thing. In some societies males do the same thing, but not in America very much, and even in foreign countries, it's done with a great deal of formality (except in Southern Italy and those of Southern Italian descent if one believes the depiction in The Sopranos and other Mafia movies where guy kisses are part of the scenery.

 

Now get this, I've kissed a guy.

 

Yes.

 

A bunch of gay German guys drove me around Koln (Cologne) during Photokina one year before I began taking photos, searching for a room for me, without success, and as their reward before they put me on an overnight train to Hamburg (where i finally slept) was that I give one a kiss. I did, and felt absolutely nutin'.

 

It pleased them no end, as they had me figured for being pretty straight, which I am.

 

You couldn't have sold that kiss as a 'real kiss' in the movies though -- it wasn't 'real' at all -- just two mouths smashing together.

 

Didn't even harm my masculinity, as that's pretty secure (enough that I can tell that story and not worry if anybody thinks I'm gay or even care. 'Not that there's anything wrong with that' . . . . . as the famous joke goes.

 

I just think that women are far more polymorphous (in general) in their sexuality than men -- in my far from limited experience, but then maybe I have much more to learn.

 

Of course, no one has splained to me how those prison inmates who are 'gay for the stay' fit into this paradigm so it may have some more work needed.

 

Since by all accounts those men resume normal heterosexuality when they are released from population for the most part.

 

So, who really knows?

 

(my comments tend to be rather free-form; some people actually read them for these sorts of discussions)

 

Best to you, Les.

 

John (Crosley)

That this photo exists is testimony to carrying a camera with full capabilities EVERYWHERE, as this was taken with a camera and lens with low-light capabilities (f 2.8) and with a rather large zoom lens that allowed me to frame the photo without changing my position, as I could not reveal that I was photographing by getting up from my seat without running the risk of getting shouted down or possibly even getting thrown out.

 

This photo (and a companion) took about two seconds to frame, focus (auto with pre-selected focal length on zoom and pre-selected focal point on autofocus), and then to snap to sequential photos, which in this case were identical.

 

One would have been enough, but sometimes people blink so I usually take two of any photo and if two is too much,I can always delete, but if someone 'blinks and ruins an otherwise great shot, if I shoot two, the blink is usually not caught on one, so I can delete the photo with the blink or just lay it to rest on a hard drive.

 

Time was of the essence of this photo. This young woman was laid back for a long wait but within 20 seconds they called her number and she shot bolt upright, and strode far away to her window. Opportunity then was lost. She was in this position like this for no more than 20 . . . maybe 30 seconds, although she apparently intended it to be a very long time.

 

Ya can't hesitate when you see something worthy . . . just shoot it and ask questions later, or shoot it first and then recompose it later if the first leaves something to be desired. Often the actors will walk out of a scene and then there's nothing if one waits to perfectly compose a scene. Notice the photos of Cartier-Bresson. Very few of them involve people (except portraits) involved 'in motion' because he was interested in 'the composition' and if people moved about, they might destroy the composition, and in his photos in which people were moving, their movements often were not capable of crossing a large part of the frame in a short time . . . . often they were strolling or doing some other slow movement.

 

Cartier-Bresson photo and 'action' are almost oxymoronic, although some of his children photos are an exception, but most of those were framed 'large' to allow for children's movement within the frame.

 

Of course, as with everything, there are exceptions, as the guy took hundreds of thousands or more photos in his lifetime.

 

But no matter what, you are not going to get that impromptu or candid shot -- sometimes even a great or telling shot, unless you have that camera with you at all times, no matter what people say.

 

Besides, it's a good conversation starter; it's surprising how many people WANT to talk TO YOU, about Photography, about Cameras, or just talk about anything and lack an excuse except for the fact that you're obviously engaged in photography.

 

Unless you're a hermit, why not give them a chance?

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for the very kind compliment.

 

It is comments like yours and viewers like you that keep me carrying one and mostly two absurdly heavy cameras around my neck at all times -- even though my neck was broken and badly reconstructed and in a lot of pain through my arm.

 

To get a good capture (this is one I consider 'good') is worth several 'pills' of narcotics for the pain.

 

It may just be that photography is an outstanding analgesic potentiated by the favorable reaction of viewers like you.

 

Thank you again.

 

John (Crosley)

interesting moment and you do need to to click faster. good pictures don't wait, and they are always tell good stories. regards.

I think you mean 'fast', not 'faster' -- this was as fast as needed.

 

Thank you for stopping by and for your compliment.

 

You never know when something truly interesting - even noteworthy -- will happen within near eyesight, and you'd like to tell people about it because it impressed you in some way, but words would fail you so you don't even try (or if you try you just bore your audience because of inability to capture the scene).

 

That's why I carry one or two cameras at all times.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

I shoot with a large camera/lens combination. This was a Nikon D300 digital DX slr with a very large wide to tele zoom, the 17~55 dx f 2.8, which is rather substantial because it has a large front element.

 

The combination looks rather impressive, and people always assume I'm a professional, and many approach me with these words or similar 'I assume you're a professional photographer . . . ' and are disbelieving of my disavowal.

 

So, how does one take a photo like this with a large camera/lens combination like that while seated in the Department of Motor Vehicles without getting reprimanded, warned or even thrown out, let alone (as here) having no one acknowledge having seen me take the photograph at all.

 

The first step is preparation.

 

As a photographer, when I walk in to a building, I reset always the ISO on my digital camera and also adjust my focus point using the multi-purpose adjustment wheel on the back, of the camera. To do this, must have my camera 'on' and also have the back panel lighted up, as that is where the chosen focus point is illuminated as well as various others, plus other capture info.

 

It serves double purpose as the image review screen after taking a photo, or triple purpose, as the menu screen.

 

So, having set my ISO, and reviewed that it is correct by pressing my shutter to see that my camera adjusts to a shutter speed (at my chosen aperture) that I can live with given possible focal length settings, I move about. This can be done in three to five seconds, so it is not a show-stopper.

 

Two identical cameras take slightly less than twice as long as there are fewer judgments to make on the second camera.

 

If one 'sees' a potential image like this, the first thing one might do (if one wishes to remain inconspicuous, is to set the focus point on the back of the camera while it's not pointed at the subject. Do this by turning on the camera, illuminating the 'focus point' panel, and manipulating the focus point to how you envision framing the photo. This requires knowledge of how to 'previsualize' a photo -- to choose in advance how you're going to frame it. You may want to change that, but for the first shot, that's your choice.

 

Next, choose a likely focal length by looking at the mm settings on the lens's barrel. If the widest is desired, no looking should be required as you instinctively should know for each lens which way to turn it to achieve wide/tele settings.

 

Quickly turn the lens to desired focal length, raise to eye, see if the subject is preframed and focus point in place as preplanned and just fire, once or twice (I do usually two frames on continuous drive), and then if you're pretending just to be fiddling around with your camera as I often do, I just in one motion continue scanning the room to one or the other side with the camera/lens combination -- pointing it sideways, up to the ceiling, down to the floor, rather demonstrably showing that I appear 'NOT' to be taking photos and just playing with my camera.

 

Of course, it's a ruse.

 

But then ruses are not illegal and in fact, in basketball, football, baseball and other team sports, ruses are a high art. Same in boxing. Never be ashamed of a skillful ruse, especially if it gets you to your goal. One famous photographer (Walker Evans?) devised a special camera with lens through a coat buttonhole to photograph on the New York subways. His photos are photographic classics and historical documents. His ruse was quite successful.

 

Over time you will develop your own ruses.

 

One is to point your lens at a subject, take the photo and when they get antsy and move away, continue pointing the photo in the same direction as though it didn't mean anything that they moved away. They'll assume (wrongly) that you are not interested in capturing their image with your camera. In fact, you've already photographed them and are just finishing the ruse. It helps keep the peace and avoids ruffled feathers from people who are touchy.

 

People who engage in touchy behavior can also be touchy about being photographed; same with people with particular appearance, be it beauty, ugliness, special qualities, etc. Worst of course is the stuck-up young girl who assumes she's the object of being photographed when you have no wish to photograph her at all, but she's near a likely subject. Young women often assume they are the target of lenses, even when they have no special appearance attributes and often those who do NOT possess those attributes are the most demanding that one 'stop' photographing them, when one has not in fact had any intention of photographing them at all, but they are near someone or something worthy of being photographed.

 

(That relates to the USA especially; women in other countries have differing reactions depending on culture.)

 

Also, in the USA is a prevalent idea among the youth that 'photographing is illegal' which is pure hogwash, so best to avoid the issue. Some invite being photographed. Two very attractive young women passed me in downtown Santa Cruz last night and asked loudly 'Will you take our photographs?' 'Are you here to photograph us?' I replied in standard form 'Well, I don't think so, you have your clothes on.' They burst out laughing and were still laughing and talking excitedly between themselves when they were 2/3 of a block away, obviously having a hilarious time.

 

Reactions differ, and the photographer will develop a grab bag of ways to handle various situations, and will learn, with time, to improve on the spot.

 

Cartier-Bresson until he gave up photography, used to go to great lengths to avoid being photographed. To be recognized, he felt, as the man with the camera, was to court danger, even death.

 

There are very few photographs of Cartier-Bresson during his active years.

 

He liked it that way.

 

He used ruses of all sorts, many of which are not written about. One ruse was to dine in a restaurant (he liked his restaurants) and hide his Leica under a napkin.

 

Leicas were (and are) small and easy to hide. If one uses a wrist strap as he did, the arm can be pulled into a long overcoat and the camera can 'disappear'. Voila, no hand and no camera. There are advantages to being a Leica photographer, especially when one is photographing surreptitiously.

 

If one uses a SLR as I do with a large lens for lots of light and higher shutter speeds to stop action, then one must have highly-defined feints and ruses.

 

In case you were interested.

 

John (Crosley)

Love how someone else noticed that the guy wasn't looking at the attractive female...lol..that's hillarious. I don't necessarily think he is gay as much as I think he is so focused on that paperwork...this photograph is a hillarious way to emphasize how long the wait at the BMV really is..and everytime you pull up in that lot, you know there's gonna be a long wait; and a lot of dirty people...just sayin

Jus' Saying,

 

This is an emblematic photo, as you have noted . . . . not because the guy may or may not be gay (I personally don't think he is because she's not THAT compelling and he may have sneaked the famous men's one-second peek), but because it it captures the almost universal frustration one encounters when one has visited that 'august' bureaucracy.

 

I had my own frustrating run-in with that institution this year, but did not write of it under this photo, but I think under the photo of the circus tent . . . . a real Kafka-esque experience. . . . they wanted me to go to a Driver's Safety Hearing and have a driver's test (from Ukraine) for which I would win obviously since they had NO CONTENTION I was unsafe or had any difficulties (100% clean driving record), so obviously going to win the record and a M.D. enthusiastic clearance.

 

They just said 'just saying, John, our rules say you gotta go to a hearing . . . .but I argued and argued and later (in face of embarrassment at their Kafkaesque interpretation of their own rules, they withdrew their decision -- all for my simple failure to get a letter from them (Misaddressed).

 

It was total absurdity, to have driving privileges revoked, then when I proved the point they inquired about and they had no adverse into to be asked to fly 8,000 miles (one-way, 16,000 miles round-trip) to be present t a hearing to a predetermined outcome -- if I also had a driving test when my driving ability was acknowledged to be perfect.

 

Kafka, where are you now that we need you?

 

I think that proves that this photo is emblematic.

 

As to gayness or lack thereof . . . . thatis not part of anything I am trying to show . . .. and think any reference is misplaced.

 

I'm glad you enjoy my photo.

 

Jus saying.

 

John (Crosley)