'Lurking Near You'

'Lurking Near You' is a photo that I feel needs little description or

explanation. 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

Freezed reality vs. a moving one," freezed youth" vs. time development.... well juxtaposed John.

I wish you all the best for the season and coming new year.

I like your analysis. Very capable and very succinct.

 

Best wishes also to you for coming New Year.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Thanks for the nice comment. I appreciate that.

 

John (Crosley)

That is it...

I hope you mean that in a complimentary way --- I know you by past comments/actions and believe so, and so I thank you.

 

[i guess this comment proves the point I've made previously -- I don't look at rates before I write my reply comments; I'm glad this pleases you that you rank it so highly as 7/7]

 

John (Crosley)

Really a clever use of the poster to create this nice composition.

Excellent motion blur.

Anna

Taking a photo like this is 'second nature' to me, but at the same time it's still almost like a miracle to get just one to come out right.

 

I see and catalog on my mind likely posters, signs, wall art, windows, billboards, etc., as I move about by foot or by vehicle, so when I am in the vicinity of those things, I roughly know when I'm near something that might make a good background.

 

If, on a particular day, I see something of interest, like this poster of half a man's face, and I am in a car on a street, I might try to park across the street, and maybe get out.

 

In this instance, however, there was 'no parking' and I would have blocked traffic, so I had to circle 12 full blocks several times to return to the same place at least three or four times - maybe more. Each time, I would stop, focus on the same area across the front seat of my car with the passenger window rolled down (automatically), and focus with my 70~200 mm V.R. telephoto. Light conditions were relatively low, as this was very late in afternoon/early evening and also in the shade, my iso was relatively 'slow' so the pedestrian came out blurred, and it worked very well.

 

I had another photo which also worked very well, except the couple (a man and woman) just barely broke the 'frame' of the building blocks behind them and it just destroyed the composition, but their actions were wonderful -- it was consigned to the 'might have been' rubbish bin, to be gazed at with best wishes only by me.

 

But when I did look at this, it worked out better than even I had hoped; that is the nature of 'street shooting' -- especially where one hopes to capture what Cartier-Bresson called 'geometry' which he really meant was 'composition'. However, in this instance, it really is geometry, as the proportions of this capture are well laid out geometrically, and on purpose of course.

 

Cartier-Bresson never would have considered taking such a photo -- and not because he didn't use a telephoto. It is a calumny that he didn't use telephotos and confined himself to a 50 mm lens. An examination of his photos, especially his landscapes will reveal some substantial foreshortening, that reveals the use of a telephoto.

 

Also, his biographer notes an eyewitness who remarks on Cartier-Bresson working with FOUR LEICAS around his neck, and the probable purpose was to have a choice of lenses, including telephoto, since there were not many choices then for wide and 'normal' lenses.

 

The real reason is that Cartier-Bresson, the biographer deftly noted, almost never confronted his subjects 'head-on' but at an angle, apparently to leave room for an ethereal or perhaps 'spiritual side' to emerge or be captured.(my words, not the biographer's). Here, my capture is both 'head-on' and 'sideways' at once. Did I 'split the difference?'

 

In any case, this is a one-of-a kind.

 

I'm glad you like it.

 

John (Crosley)

I'd like to see it without the blur.

This would not be exhibited without the blur. It is correct as it is.

 

On reflection, let me explain. One of the strengths of this photo is contrasts. Male/female - straight-on view/sideways view -- head view/full body -- sharp/blur.

 

To show her in sharp focus would take away one of the contrasts and defeat one of the strengths of this photo, I feel. I hope that explains my reason sufficiently. I don't like just to express opinions without explanations, but it took me a minute (so this is added a few hours later. jc)

 

John (Crosley)

Not to everyone. Street should be reality; that is the whole point of street. If you shot from a tripod at a long shutter then it is different thing altoghether -then the blur becomes reality and it would be a better photo. If the photoshop were done better than we would not know it was photoshop would we. Photo is fine aside from that blur. It was your choice; it is not your usual style.

Beautiful combination.