The Masks

Interesting photo opportunities can come and go in a matter of minutes --

or as in this case -- seconds. These two youths unwittingly make a

statement about the status of US-Ukraine relations recently, in Kyiv,

Ukraine, while in the city's most prestigious park, stopping for a second

and away in a flash. 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

Mentoring in recognizing the worth of this photo and also in enhancing it for reproduction is due to the assistance of Giuseppe Pasquale, of Rome, Italy, who is not only an extremely capable 'street' shooter, but also who is a supremely skilled digital darkroom technician.

 

Special thanks for the aid of Giuseppe Pasquale in helping bring this photo to you.

 

John (Crosley)

Please explain.

I do not feel I need to explain as the tribute is complete within itself- - just personal thanks.

 

Thanks for viewing.

 

John (Crosley)

The one on the left has piercing eyes , well done I like it !

thank you for sharing your works here, it's always a pleasure to look at your portfolio. This shot says more than millions of words on your photographer skills and the actual status of US - Ukraine (and other Countries) recent relations. Thanks, Giuseppe

I took a fairly large number of shots of these two guys and the guy on the left, but in the late gloaming and with a very slow shutter speed, even with a vibration reduction lens, they were largely useless, in part because these guys were not in the business of being photographed . . . I just had to 'catch them' and that was nearly impossible.

 

Out a bunch of attempts, I got only two shots, and this was one.

 

I am very proud of this; Mr. Pasquale also has given me encouragement about this particular shot, and I now share his views about it. He helped me to a better understanding of its visual appeal and how to present it, for which I have thanked him.

 

I am glad you approve of this; I look forward to your periodic visits. Yes, those eyes are really something, aren't they?

 

There are more than a fair share of blue eyes in Ukraine, and this guy certainly had a good pair - which surely aids the photo a great deal.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

John (Crosley)

You and I have never met in person or even heard each other speak.

 

But as you have learned, here and elsewhere, I have a profound regard for your photographic judgment and your high level of education as well.

 

Sometimes it can be very helpful to be critiqued and simultaneously mentored by someone whose judment I respect, and that is the case here.

 

Thanks again for your great help in showing me what was special about this view.

 

John (Crosley)

I understood that it was a thanks given to Giuseppe Pasquale. I did/do not understand the meaning of the word "mentoring " in this context. That's all. Not important.

John... There is a signiture look about your photos that I love...Your "people"..shots often have a closeness yet feeling of distance at the same time...hard to explain...I greatly admire your street photography...Marjorie

Your is an interesting observation, about 'getting in close' yet being 'distant' at the same time.

 

It may be in part because of my technique and because of my relationship with so many of my subjects and the equipment I use.

 

Let's take these guys for instance.

 

I was walking in Kyiv's most prestigious park, near its most prestigious boulevard in a downtown area, surrounded by hotels and high rises and even some office buildings and commercial buildings - a very, very nice place to be and a place that many Ukrainians from all walks of life come from the whole country over to enjoy as well as many foreign tourists.

 

It was late, late afternoon and even after the sun has set, so light is at a vast premium, and I see these boys with their bandannas around their necks and for a brief while the boy with the American flat bandanna has his around his face.

 

I have two cameras and one has my 70~200 Nikkor f 2.8 E.D. vibration reduction lens on it, and if any lens can take a good photo of moving subjects in that circumstance that particular lens can.

 

I attempt a series of photos of these kids -- maybe ages 9 - 12 and no older, certainly. They aren't having any of it. If I turn my camera/lens toward them, they turn away and avoid the camera/lens combination, even though I'm at a substantial distance, but their heads mostly fill the frame - about a 200 mm setting.

 

Finally, after I've got something acceptable, I stop the little kid, right, by tagging his shoulder and put the digital screen in front of his face to show him that particular photo of his friend and him, (even though it's fuzzy, I recall, but not noticeably so far as he can tell).

 

I make it clear to him I'd like to take more photos, in my rudimentary Russian, and he likes the photo, instantly calls his friend with the flag bandanna over and for a second they hold still,but only a second. All but two of about 12 or so photos (maybe more) are hindered by subject movement and/or lens/camera movement - the light is very low and shutter speed is really, really low.

 

But I got this (and one other showing just the flag kid) although I thought I got more. But when I examined them there were only two that were sharp,and this was the sharpest. Luckily, this was also the best. Taken at f 2.8, I recall, and still pretty darn sharp. Giuseppe Pasquali happened to get an e-mail from me or a chat from me in which I inundated him with taken but unposted photos and he saw this one and said he wanted to look at it, and said it was 'really good'.

 

We discussed it, and he convinced me of its worth -- I thought it was good, but I wasn't sure how good. Now I am sure it is one of my best 'street' portraits -- especially those in color -- and the flag with its blues, the blue bandanna of the boy, right and the blue eyes of the flag boy all color coordinate to make this one 'work' in my eyes.

 

But when you take such a photo under such circumstances, you're taking a photo of strangers -- they're staring into an odd contraption they've never seen before, perhaps a little scared and a little curious all at once, and that may account for their stares. In any case, it's catch as catch can out on the street, taking head shots, and especially those of strangers -- especially stranger kids who aren't prepared initially (or for more than a few seconds) to be photographed.

 

In almost flash, these kids decided to follow their own spirit and off they went . . . leaving me with mostly blurry captures and this (and another, almost sharp and good enough to show, but not nearly as good).

 

Well, the end result is what counts, and I think this photo stands alone. If I only took one photo as good, it would probably be a 'fluke' -- but somehow I manage to get lots of 'flukes' so I must be doing something right.

 

Their 'look' also is in keeping with the fact they're behind bandannas -- their faces are masked and so are their emotion's which are not given away by their eyes.

 

If I knew them and they me, it might have been different.

 

I don't too often take photos of loved or close ones -- I'm more of a 'street shooter' though I do studio shoots from time to time, and in those circumstances I can build rapport with my subject -- something that sometimes I also can do on the street rather rapidly, but it depends on the subject. Some I have instant rapport with -- and I'm pretty good at that -- after all what good is it to be a 'street photographer' if one cannot speak or at least gesture amicably with potential subjects and put them off their guard to get respectable photographs, at least sometimes.

 

It's always hit or miss.

 

I talked to a person today who asked about my camera usage, and I explained to him, that really although my cameras get scraped somewhat, I do not shoot like a professional. I know professionals who shoot magazines, Internet, etc,, with models and they may easily shoot 20,000 frames a month. They absolutely must have the best built camera that is made, as they can wear out such a camera in a year or two, and even justify replacing the shutter after 150,000 or 200,000 actuations.

 

I seldom if ever get up to or above 20,000 actuations on any camera. I'm just not that heavy a shooter -- although one might guess that, based on the number of my postings, my geographic wanderings, and other factors, such as the vast number of huge hard drives I've made it known I have - but most are redundant. Who wants to lose a part of an entire photo collection in case a hard drive crashes? Not a good choice as our outgoing President's father might have said.

 

I'll keep your analysis in mind as I shoot. I think it's spot on, and it's a new way of looking at my photos that I had not considered -- at least in so many words.

 

My best to you, and thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

Well, several things, not all of which need to be discussed here, but primarily he recognized the worth of this particular photo -- especially its worth as it is cropped.

 

I originally did not regard it as highly because of the out-of-focus eyes and face of the boy, right, but Giuseppe quickly set me straight. He told me, quite correctly, that the out-of-focus eyes of the boy, right, helped to bring attention to the flag bandana boy, left, and that it drew the viewer's eyes toward that boy who is the central subject and made the eye linger over the photo -- in so many words, the little boy out of focus is a sort of foil (not Giuseppe's words, but his idea), who starts to draw our attention because he has a face, but we see his face really is not easily viewable so we look elsewhere, and are confronted with a much more interesting and viewable face complete with flag bandana and amazing blue eyes (no cloning either -- this is original).

 

Giuseppe also suggested that of all the photos he saw, this one was the best, and far and away so, and he was absolutely right -- he is one of PN's most capable photographers in my opinion, and his judgment is one of the few on PN I respect the most.

 

I am not a 'close friend' with Giuseppe - my admiration for him is largely professional or based on mutual love of good photography, but it is a bond, and a bond based on a particular qualification -- good quality and judgment. Nothing more and never any expectations. Giuseppe has never asked me for anything, ever, and the same with me. We have had some communications, but actually very little at that.

 

That is what Giuseppe Pasquali did to help bring this photo to you.

 

John (Crosley)

I love the photo. I see and agree about the sharper focus on the boy with the stars and stripes. I like your explanation of distance to Marjorie. I also think the picture has a sense of brotherhood, which seems in line with your description at the begining. These two may or may not be brothers, but having them both in view creates that moment for myself. It truly is one of your finer pictures... nicely done.

I have finished preparing recently a presentation book to be printed (when I have the money) for galleries -- one hundred pages and 200 photos.

 

Sixty per cent are black and white, and 40 per cent are color. Some photos are four to a page, a few three to a page, and on every two-page spread, one page has one single photo.

 

In the color section, of my lifetime best, this occupies one single page.

 

That is my personal estimation of it . . . after I was mentored by Giuseppe Pasquali.

 

I'm glad you agree, ultimately, with him, and now with me, also.

 

I am also glad that when I write for someone like Marjorie, that others also read those things.

 

From time to time someone will write me a note saying essentially 'shut up -- let the photo speak for itself.'

 

I usually write them back that they needn't read anything at all and can just look at the photos - why in the world would they read anything if they thought the words were garbage, worse yet, complain about such words?

 

I have received numerous compliments about the extensive colloquy beneath my photos, both from newer members as well as more accomplished and older members; I happen to like it . . . and it makes this more like a 'social club' than some stuffy museum with lots of junk hanging on the walls, punctuated by a few masterpieces.

 

And in the process of the various colloquys, members have taught me a lot, and helped me learn a lot about the process of (1) how to take photos myself; (2) how to interpret my own photographs; and ultimately (3) how to be a better photographer; while (4) helping educate those who are newer to the field about the 'process' of how one makes choices not only in how to select the proper subjects and framing, lenses, etc,. but also how to select one photo from numerous possibilities to post by explaining how my works happened to 'come about' and how many happened to be 'posted' or 'exhibited' here.

 

That frequently was a great mystery, I think, before I arrived at Photo.net. Some great photos were posted, but the vast majority of the membership would keep silent about how they made their captures.

 

Marjorie, herself, also does now a great job of the very same thing -- the colloquy. . .and she is to be congratulated - she has a wonderful following . . . and follows pretty much in the footsteps that I started here nearly five years ago.

 

Well, I don't know if I started it . . . I adapted something I saw member "Loft Portugal' doing and expanded it to include not only 'colloquy' with members who commented but more extensive commentary on the 'process' of photography, the process of posting -- as well as other, sometimes related subjects.

 

Most photographers do not express themselves well -- but a few express themselves very well, while a select few are brilliant and have extremely high education.

 

Often those are the members who stop by these pages to view the photos AND read the colloquy . . .or so I suppose.

 

I almost always have great regard for those who critique my photos without personal motive and do so from an honest place in their heart - which encompasses 99% of my critics.

 

Thank you Terry for expressing yourself.

 

(Now I can go look at your rate - I almost never look before I finish my comment in reply -- keeps my replies honest.)

 

John (Crosley)

I have an extremely high education, therefore I am brilliant. re; above

I am also one who suggested that you let the photo speak for itself etc. But I never said "shut up".

Thank you for explaining. I must now get sleep. I also think that the second boy's eyes should be in focus. Maybe there was not enough light for the DOF An opinion. Crispness on the other and the crop is attractive.

It was Giuseppe Pasquali who pointed out to me precisely why it was advantageous that the eyes of the boy on the right should NOT be in focus and that being 'out-of-focus' seemed to aid the photo by causing the viewer's eyes to move to the boy with the stars and stripes bandanna.

 

It is my understading that one mark of a successful photo is the photo that causes the viewer to 'engage' with it - and to have the viewer's eye(s) wander or move through it a little - and to 'interact' with it a little.

 

I prefer Giuseppe Pasquali's viewpoint that the young boy's eyes are like what I term a 'foil' which causes the viewer first to move toward his eyes, then (finding them not rewarding particularly) to move to the very sharp and very blue eyes of the flag bandanna boy -- and thus be rewarded.

 

In a way, this is a way of presenting the 'subject' 'off center' - a device I employed from my early days as a photographer . . . .

 

See for instance, 'Balloon Man', the first photo I posted in my portfolio' right after I joined which also is my highest rated, and which never was posted for critique.

 

If ever I had posted a photo that deserved Photo of the Week I believe it was that photo as I think it's my best ever, yet I hadn't even asked for a critique and didn't then know how.

 

I decided about then, in view of the results, that Photo of the Week really was superfluous, and I think, in retrospect, that was correct -- no matter how some people think it is prestigious, and what a great honorific.it may be -- Photo of the Week is just a 'good photo' that is posted and while it's a nice honor, it should not make or break anyone's reputation.

 

This service now has recognized the contributions of some of its more able photographers by recognizing 'featured photographers' which may be just as great or a greater honorific . . . .

 

I suspect, that one day Mr. Pasquali may find his name there. . . . . as his photos are of uniform superb quality and a tribute to his status as a superb artist in my view - one whose work is capable of being exhibited in galleries and/or museums.

 

Whenever Mr. Pasquali says anything, I surely listen - I respect his judgment very highly.

 

Thank you for viewing.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

On some photo in some comment but do not remember where I read your comment that monitors ( I do not remember the title you gave them) had better things to do than rate photos. I just posted a photo and withing (sp) 30 seconds was rated 4/7 4/7. This is almost always the case for me execept on certain times of the day (maybe on break). After this 4/7 rating I will not recieve another rating for some time, maybe not today, maybe not at all and probably no comments. This has to be monitor and I think they check every photo submited to confirm that the photo is not some kind of porno or offensive in another way and then throw in a rating. If I do not get this 3 or 4 rating then usually the ratings begin later at 5.

I agree.I do not put value on "Photo of The Week". As you point out they are just 'good' photos not great photos. I was told by a member that award to that position depends on number of comments and/or ratings. I do not know if this is true but I see that photo of the week are so highly rated. I have notj seem your photo ballon man. Why not submit it for rating.

I am an artist, not very good but I am. I write poetry in Hebrew of course (once in awhile good) and I have a paragraph beginning with Walk Softly... on the grave stone of someone's son by request, who died of drugs. You should repect my comments not disparage them. adn I an not diaparaging yio or abussing your work. YOu John are invited to reply but you will not. As for anyone to read the above this in none of their business.

John you wrote to Terry about preparing a book and publishing for gallerys or galleries when you have the money -this is an expensive venture. publishing. For what it is worth you can save yourself money, a lot, on my budget, and accomplish much more for the dollar and make the work ready now not when yo have money for a book. What I did was as follows. I had a print shop make a four panel foldiing brochure. The size folded is 21cm high and 9cm wide (width of each panel)- when the 4 panels are opened it is 21cm hight and 34cm wide.(I think, I am trying to measure now but cannot see the numbers very well) It folds up vertically like a street map. Each panel is 21x9cm. The front panel has "artist statement" and one photo below it. The last panel which is on back side has vita, one photo and attendant 10 lines of a poem by Whitman. There are photos on both sides when opened, there are twenty total photos with titles which were copied from 5x7 prints on a drum scanner by the printer. Total is 21 glossy photos.There are also quotes under some photos from approiate poetry that fits the image that I love and titles with all photos. You like to write, there is room for a bit of that since you are not going to get more than 3 photos an a panel. The paper is thick High Glossy. Glossy is very important and paper quality is very important. Thickness of the glossyi s about that of a soft cover book, thicker than a page is a phtoo book. You choose your own paper of course. ... For, I am not sure exactly because it was years ago but I think for $200 to $400 probably less than $400 I had probably about 500 or these printed. I still have on box unused in storage. I do not use them anymore because the photos are out of date and I do not use the alias name anymore and I gave up years ago trying to be somebody in photography. When folded you can carry a lot in your shirt pocket; always have them with you. You have enough to hand out not only to galleries but to people you photograph. I believe a gallery will thumb quickly through a book and miss the best and toss aside. The brochure they will see everyone and of your top photos without dilution in a few seconds. They will put a bunch of brochures in a little stand on the counter for customers to see and take away. With 200 pages in a book you dilute out the best with the not best and weaken the book for what you want to use it for and also you cannot afford for galleries to pass out books but brochures you can. Very useful is to give to subjects you photograph also. You show them what you do; they are impressed. They see that you are a serious photographer, and jsually very willing if not at first to be photographed and even maybe come to your studio. If you run out of brochures the comping has the plates and just prints you up another box at much less cost because the plates are already finished and ready to run off the press. Probably they will not do a job of less than 500 at a time. I found a very friendly shop to do this. We sat in the office for a number of sessions until photos were finally selected and folder size/design determined sampeles were printed for approval before going to presst... You certainly have the money to do this now not later and you will be totally satisfied. I used mine and myself tried for many years to make in in photography, did not because A am not good enough and more important have no name to start with and I did apprentice for a professional. I gave up years ago. I wish you bhaztlakha but the odds of the success that you want is less than the probablity of becoming a star pro football quarterback and has not much to do with talent. And galleries do not want to show anything that they cannot sell (and street they cannot sell) unless you are willing to pay a steep fee to show (rarely otherwise unless they are just starting out. They can sell Bresson. They cannot sell Crosely or Samel. Nevertheless you will have lots of satisfaction and fun trying and know that you gave it your best shot and the brochures are adequate at a hugely less cost. know that brochures do every thing you want with a book. If later you are not happy with brochure you do the book and you lost not much money on the brochure experiment. And you can have them in 2 months from the time you start planning with the print shop. This is not two cents worth of information, it is a lot of sense information. Good if you can read this because I cannot see what I wrote.