The Man Passing By

This photo, 'The Man Passing By . . . ', is intentionally not cropped and

left somewhat amorphous . . . .so it does NOT contain answers to all

the questions one may pose . . . and is meant to stand alone It also

might have been posted as 'fine art' instead of 'street'. 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

I like it ! Have a great day !

This is not a 'usual' Crosley photo, but I shoot in many genres and subgrenres, depending on what presents itself.

 

If there are no good 'street' shots in the typical fashion, I might see something that is more 'fine art' such as this, or would you put it into another category entirely?

 

In fact, I am not sure what category to place it into, but I liked it right away . . . . it is underexposed substantially, then lightened slightly, for smaller gradations between colors -- a form of unforeseen and unplanned 'manipulation' that I happen to like.

 

Thanks Jeffrey for dropping by and giving your approval.

 

John (Crosley)

I like this very much but certainly not because it is not a normal John photo, but because it is simply very clean with a very good balanced composition of colours and elements. The eye is surely John'sk.

In the camera it was greatly underexposed, this is a 'rescued' version, and I almost wish I could have posted the unrescued version with the colors only slightly distinguishable, one from the other and his outline barely showing, but that would be near death on PN.

 

I may print it that way some day -- maybe to show an 'art' gallery owner or 'art' aficionado.

 

This is an 'enhanced for viewing on PN' version' still underexposed. Note I kept in the right wall instead of cropping just because it 'felt right, and not because I like 'dead space'. I just like its aspect ratio this way and the darkness serves a purpose for me though I can't articulate it.

 

I'm glad you like it and just as glad you took the time to tell me.

 

Thank you.

 

John (Crosley)

For me that is a "pure" John Crosley photo :

1 : A Crosley excellent composition : the use of the dark wall on the right in order to balance the bottom dark aprk of the fimage, both enhancing the conter lit character, who , by catching just anough light to cut him out and giving him some depth and volume is perfect

2 : A Typical Crosley way of using architectural elements and especially text signs

3 : What really defines Crosley's style : a powerfull understanding of humanity : The incredible tension and ( opposition even ) here, between the man in the shadows plus the inclination of his head and the whole posture and the "over-the-topish "bright sign, is for me at least all about the question of identity, and how we fit in this world.

The environment, we ourselves, built, is trying to attract us deep into its guts, looking inviting, full of bright promisses, and tempting us all the time to experiment escapism from ourselves.

The world wnats to make us believe it is open

But in reality we are alone, living and moving in the shadows of this environment, our personality and identity annihilated, not alowed to shine and be colorful.

And we need to to protect ourselves from this environment wearing a warm coat, a hat very down over our eyes. Also wearing a beard is helping us ( at least us men ) to hide from reality, from our fears.

 

**** EDIT ****

Now what really was supposed to be the whole point, but that I actually forgot to write ! ( I knew I shoudn;t reduce my coffee consumption ) :

The more the world offers us an illusional opening, the more we just tend to close ourselves

 

**** end of EDIT ****

 

And back into composition : The way the sign and man are placed, "open" really seems to be such an heavy weight over hos shoulders that he can only go on bending his whole body.

 

... A very fine John Crosley's Art piece with deep meaning(s)

thankslaurent

This is a photo that almost never was.

 

I actually had my Nikon 'Easy Exposure' left set for some very bright scene, and it was underexposed by nearly 1-2/3 stops when I took this photo.

 

So what might have been a 'normal' photo with 'normal' exposure values turned out to be vastly muted -- so muted that it was almost impossible to see this photo among the many I took of this man as he wandered around the window and as my car was parked in traffic, but there was no traffic, so I was able to stay, then I simply parked across the street as traffic came alive.

 

And I had not discovered the exposure defect, so intent was I in framing properly the subject, for I felt this one had real promise, and when I viewed the preview after the man simply walked away (maybe finishing a cigarette or finishing a mobile -- cell -- phone call) I was aghast, but then I take so many photos, if I miss one or two, opportunities, well, that's just life. Sometimes I forget to readjust an exposure -- though rarely and a frame or series will come out wrongly exposed.

 

But there was sufficient information, and actually the histogram, all bunched up toward the left (black) side, showed very little contrast - far less than here, and very muted colors. It might be worth it some day, just to print the photo out with even less contrast -- contrast was heightened from this late afternoon capture (in shadows) just for Photo.net exposition, and it might do well if it were printed out much darker if it were displayed in print before a rather sophisticated audience.

 

But I note that it got rather poor reviews from raters at first, but at the same time, this was an absolute 'must' for me to post. It is the epitome of my 'art' side.

 

When the Lucie Award winner curated my terabytes of captures, he placed certain ones in a folder called 'John Artsy' and this certainly would have fit in that.

 

And I absolutely love your analysis, which is why I am not going to try to re-do or re-explain it.

 

As you know, I do not believe in the school that 'the photo speaks for itself' on Photo.net but in the world of 'art' in general, then the photo DOES speak for itself.

 

This is one such photo.

 

You have made an interpretation, and it is one I purposefully did not make for this particular photo-- I did not try to explain it, and I was delighted to see your rating (knowing you had understood this photo, and just now to open up this photo again to find your wonderful explication). I endorse it . . . . . and wholeheartedly.

 

Do I agree with it in all parts -- probably not -- but it is so explanatory and clear and captures so much of what I want to say in a photo such as this, that I must applaud you for going to the considerable effort not only of trying to 'understand' this photo, but of actually dissecting it in a very capable manner - in fact I am elated.

 

It is hard for me, perhaps, to explain a photo such as this, as practiced as I am in commenting on my own photos. That practice is borne of the need for someone on Photo.net to help amateurs who browse understand the 'process' of how those with experienced portfolios and 'styles come about having higher ranking and how choices are made which go into formation of those styles and choice of photos to post -- and also the editing and processing decisions that to into posting -- and that is a teaching function that I have undertaken as a member, now a more senior member.

 

But you are an 'artist' more than a photographer, and your analysis means the world to me. 'Art' and acclaim for your art are in your being; I wonder sometimes if I am not just a fraud with a camera armed with a bag of tricks. But I never seem to run out of new tricks . . . . and new and different captures, even different styles, so maybe I'm not a complete fraud.

 

I knew when I saw your rating that you, like me, understood this photo,whether or not I could put my 'instincts' for this particular 'genre' into words. I am not often at a 'loss for words' but for this particular photo, I had a harder time than usual explaining it; I'll just let you do the explanation for me as you have done an admirable job, and I'll just think about it.

 

I did not know why, but I left the building wall black even though it was 'negative space' just because it 'worked' and I was not about to conform to any Photo.net 'standard' of cropping for this photo. It was to be displayed full frame, just as I had seen and framed it.

 

Your visits here are always welcome (I prepared and thought I sent a large response to your e-mail, but on checking my 'sent' folder, find it never went out -- something's wrong with my e-mail system.)

 

If you just want to find out the weather on the West Coast of America (or Ukraine as the case may be) or more weighty matters, please to not hesitate to call on me or contact me. I look forward to your weighty (if irregular) contact with anticipation.

 

(and I still like the first version of that particular melody . . . . which is part of what I wrote you in the e-mail that apparently never got sent, and I hope it does not languish . . . it's very nice -- as well as personally flattering -- it really captures the 'essence' of what it is I do, and needs no further refinement, as far as I'm concerned.)

 

When you come up for your periodic 'breaths of air' I always am glad to see your communications . . . . and never ignore them (appearances to the contrary, perhaps).

 

John (Crosley)