'The Ecclesiastical and the Secular'

This unusual view of Paris's landmark Cathedral de Notre Dame

(Cathedral of Our Mother), is taken from the playground in back and

contrasts the staid old religious building that has been there for

centuries with the ephemeral play of youth. 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

the first time i've seen the rear photographed. great contrast between old and young, staid and informal

Paris was home to so many wonderful photographers who chronicled it and this cathedral, it's a wonder this is not a copy of their work -- at least I hope not.

 

Consider Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Ronis; they all could have shot this photo easily just by going to this play yard and patiently waiting on a Sunday just a short time, I think.

 

Their speed contrasts with the immovability, also, of that giant edifice; their bent legs with the fixed flying buttresses and giant walls of the cathedral behind them.

 

They are 'down to earth' and slanted while the cathedral reaches for the heavens and is upright. (Photo slanted on purpose.)

 

They are happy while all things before God were supposed to be 'serious' except maybe a baptism, and I'm not so sure about that.

 

And this playground was classless, but in the cathedral, the top floor was reserved for royalty -- the commoners worshipped in what we'd call the basement.

 

Yes, contrasts abound if you know history and the history of the church, France and this edifice.

 

Thanks for the comment; I hope there'll be more.

 

John (Crosley)

While easily enough rotated to a perfect horizon, this photo was left slanted more with the boys on purpose; the better to emphasize their play and sympathy for their action than the church in the background.

 

John (Crosley)

Interestingly this photo has a geometric shape that helps it, I think.

 

It requires for analysis that one 'connect the dots' in a certain way, from the black shoe of the boy nearest the camera to the 'wings' of the cathedral on each side, then to the top of the tower.

 

One then has described a parallelogram or diamond shape.

 

What's more, because the boy and the tower both are centered, it gives the geometric shape the appearance of being bisected into two triangles; triangles are dynamic shapes and while a diamond standing on end is dynamic, even more so are two triangles standing on end.

 

With the racing boys and the geometric shapes, that may explain why this photo seems to very dynamic, considering it is just two running boys and a building.

 

That's my analysis.

 

Any comments?

 

John (Crosley)

To my eye the photo's aesthetic would improve if shot in landscape format --just the boys-- and exclude the cathedral. I understand your secular/something-I cannot-spell idea but I think of 3 or 4 reasons in my mind to shoot horizontal and exclulde the building. Otherwise I'd go along with your idea. The thumbnail does not so much suggest landscape. Not sure why. Maybe because I see the entire photo witout scrolling.

Meir, you haven't articulated a good enough reason to photograph landscape. that would just show two boys playing, not two boys playing in the shadow of the Cathedral de Notre Dame, which is something different.

 

Because of not scrolling doesn't cut it with me; one has to scroll to see all my verticals the way I post 'em.

 

I'll wait for better articulation.

 

Maybe you have a more cogent argument.

 

I'm not bound to accept every idea tendered, but I do listen to them all, and I do filter them, as you can imagine.

 

You can keep trying, however. Not everyone is right 100% of the time.

 

John (Crosley)

Read again John. I prefaced my entire comment (not argument as you call it) with "To my eye..". That makes me right 100% of the time. And as you requested, I am sharing my superior knowledge to help you improve your photography. Seriously, perhaps someday you will simply reply something like, "thanks meir for looking". Well actually you did such a thing On the other photo, "look at those lines" I wrote "it is a very good color photograph and you wrote "Thanks for commenting". hmmmmmmmmm ...John, I do not like to critique and I do not like to rate. I do this because photo.net ask me. When I critique I do not write "junk" such as "Great composition; bravo. Regards."or chio whatever that means. When I critique as with this photo I spend a lot of time looking. before I write anything and sometimes I come back looking to form a better opinion or look for a mistake that i might have missed. If I have nothing good to say I go look at the guy's/girl's picture and bio and they seem so nice that how can I say something that might hurt their feelings. And if I do then I go and look through their portfolio as I did with yours tonight and find a photo that I can praise. I try to balance it out. I think that is more fair. I rated you twice honestly tonight in accordance to my opinion, "To my eye" and spent a good deal of time doing so. It took me 5 or more minutes to come up with the idea that horizontal might be better.. And then you come back and insult me with remarks such as poor articulation and not cogent, maybe I should try reading books, etc. And a final thing...you never come to my space and pay me the courtesy to leave a critique and I'd know that you took the time to look. You are too wrapped up in your own "stuff". You should be ashamed of your self; John not your photos just yourself.

This photo is required to be a vertical by the lens available. It must include the cathedral and that requires it to be a vertical if only by the contrast that I sought to make as well as my own artistic sensibility. The vagaries of the aspect ratio of a horizontal presentation prevented this from being presented in a horizontal presentation and still including the cathedral and literally would have gutted the photo - and literally these kids could then have been anywhere. As such, this would have been an entirely different photo and not the photo I took.

 

As i t was, I took three different such veritical 'contrast' photos and it was impossible to take a 'horizontal' photo with my equipment. So, I am baffled how you came about the idea that this should have been 'horizontal' and was stunned by the lack of understanding of the situation that brought forth that comment.

 

Anything else misses the point, no matter how much you criticise me (again).

 

Please confine your comments to critiquing photos only or I will be required to take your remarks to abuse@photo.net and ask that you be barred from commenting on my photos on account of ad hominm attacks against me (and my commenters)..

 

Ad hominem remarks such as your rant here are forbidden under the terms of use, I believe, clearly are inappropriate, and are way outside the norm of good taste for members and contributors You of course are entitled to your personal feelings and opinions, however sensitive they might be, but harangues against me and my manner of behavior are clearly inappropriate,and I must say 'no more', or I will take action against your commenting here, having seriously warned you before.

 

John (Crosley)