Carl

I was interested in some 'street art' - e.g., the background mural, but I

don't just copy artwork -- what's the sense in that? Along loped tall,

gangling Carl (Karl?) who had a very interesting face, so I took his street

portrait and used the 'art' as a background. Carl is minimum 6'6" tall

and probably taller, so I had to pre-focus, then hold my camera blind

over my head after approximating the direction I wanted to aim (even

though I am average height) just to take this photo. Your ratings and

critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate this 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

This photo is not intended to be a 'feel-good' photo.

 

I personally find it a little 'haunting'. It was posed, and it was my intent to show Carl, the subject here, in a little menacing light.

 

This is an extemporaneous 'street' portrait.

 

Carl, the very tall subject, loped along, just as I was eyeing the 'street art' (mural) in the background, and agreed to pose for this street portrait..

 

Many thanks to Carl -- this does not portray the friendliness he showed me, and in a sense misrepresents the benevolent nature he revealed by agreeing to pose, when I stopped him as he walked down an alley, and told him I was composing a photo featuring that 'artwork' and needed a 'subject'.

 

He readily complied (and liked this photo very much).

 

John (Crosley)

John, I like the photo and I really liked that you posted a little info about taking the photo. You did some work on this. It paid off. Good job.

I view this as a 'sharing' site. When I came here, few did such things; now some he newer and more prominent members are more forthcoming about 'talking' or 'chatting' with their viewers.

 

I think it is all for the best.

 

When I came here, there were some wonderful captures but no one would tell how they came about (that still exists today, but it is less serious than before - and is sometimes a 'language' problem, or simply a matter of 'inarticulateness' - some photographers are notoriously inarticulate (or just closed mouthed).

 

I am not, as you can see.

 

My goal is to take 'interesting photos' of whatever genre, though my emphasis is 'street'.

 

John (Crosley)

John;

 

This is a terrific street portrait. I like the balance you have achieved between Carl and his surroundings. There is an intriguing implied relationship between his eyes and those of the steers skull in the mural. The lighting here on your subject, the darkness around his eyes in particular, as well as the camera angle and focal length, do give him a menacing appearance. Nonetheless the benevolence you mentioned still comes through in Carl's eyes, which look more inquisitive than threatening. Although I do pick up a bit of the sense of a wolf pondering a rabbit in his curiosity. He knows he can hold his own ground, that is for certain.

 

I like your B&W conversion work on this one, Carl's face in particular is handled well and convey a lot of drama. My only little nit would be that small rectangular strip of white emptiness in the top left corner. It is quite bright and keeps pulling my eye up into the corner. I would be tempted to bring it down in tone to fall more in line with the rest of the wall.

 

I love that you shot this while holding the camera up over your head.

I hardly expected such low rates as this photo got preliminarily -- in fact it got no rates for the longest period.

 

I thought it among my better work -- good enough to show to others and not just on Photo.net.

 

I also like the color version, which has excellent colors, but it fits into my general emphasis on black and white in this service, so I may post it in color elsewhere, after a decent interval -- (that means quite a long wait, so people are not 'tired' of it ;~))

 

I like your analysis.

 

I didn't sit down and analyze this one, like I sometimes do, so your analysis caught me a bit by surprise -- I am capable of analyzing my own photos as you have, but you have done so better than I, and coming from a photographer whom I highly respect, it has special meaning to me.

 

Thanks.

 

Your point about the 'whiteness' in the upper left also surprised me because I overlooked it, and on reflection, if I work it up for printing or other showing, I probably will 'fix' that. Thank you for pointing it out, and letting me know its effect on you, an educated and sophisticated viewer.

 

And thanks also for taking the trouble and effort to write an intelligent critique (they needn't be laudatory to get my attention, either -- I value your opinion -- positive or negative -- because I know you to be intellectually honest.

 

Best wishes for the New Year.

 

John (Crosley)

I must admit to be very much attracted to your work; it seems to me that you have one of the best eyes for the unexpectedly beautiful, around this site.

Looking at some of your work, it is clear that your proficiency goes far beyond managing the technical aspects of photography, and in to the challenging realms of making art, out of the ordinary.

 

I have to thank Gordon, for commenting on this image, as it was he doing so, that lead me here.

 

Your idea to shoot Carl from above, has really paid of well, also interesting is the fact that the horizon is tilted; whether that comes from holding the camera above you, and intentionally tilting it a little, or just as a consequence of your position and the camera's, it is with out doubt one of the aspects that I found most alluring bout this shot.

 

I'll surely be coming back here often; there's a lot to see and observe here. Cheers!

 

One of my 'rules' -- maybe the most important of all -- transcending most every other rule except to achieve proper focus and exposure -- is to keep all the interesting stuff within the four sides of the frame.

 

That is essential, as all cameras (except pinhole pinhole perhaps), have four sides to a frame, and consideration for a square or rectangular frame is essential for pursuing creating a proper photograph.

 

Here, shooting slightly from above, with my camera held by outstretched hands (something I have practice with -- see photo of Richard Nixon, taken with an overhead 28 mm which shows him reach around my body, head ducked)), since I started shooting.

 

It's both 'chance' and 'educated guess'.

 

The most important thing in framing this is to understand that if i messed it up, Carl was easygoing and he would have stuck it out if I had goofed, but I didn't.

 

So, I had no real big pressure with an impatient subject -- he was interested -- as this was probably the most interesting thing to happen to him in a while.

 

Now, the key to taking a photo, as said above, is to keep all the interesting stuff within the four lines of the frame - and that included both Carl (the main subject of this street portrait) and the graffiti, without which this would not have been successful.

 

So, that called for 'tilting the camera, since I was not tall enough to reach high enough to do otherwise, and I happened to like the perspective.

 

In another case, I was stuck with an extreme wide angle (a 12~24 mm) taking a street photo of a man (nude from waist up) against a long wall. The lens would have made him appear to have been leaning back, which he was not, so to counter the distortion, I twisted the lens/camera in the countervailing direction. It shows in the long concrete wall/fence as it stretches in the distance, and appears to 'tilt' forward, as it stretches out, but where the guy is, he is appropriately portrayed.

 

I didn't really think it through for more than a second, to make that correction - I just did it and wondered at the results later.

 

It worked.

 

I'll try just about anything that works, and keeps things looking good enough and 'interesting.

 

This is just one example.

 

So, unlike Garry Winogrand, who purposely tilted his camera as a form of expression and maybe aggressiveness, I don't particularly, though occasionally I will take a photo that might be mistaken for one of his (see businessman in New York City, in front of bank, suit jacket over shoulder, taken this fall, taken with a tilt. In that case, the tilt came from firing while walking, camera around my neck. A happenstance, but a good one.

 

That's the way it works. You just shoot a lot, and learn what your equipment can do, then you can 'play' with it under unusual circumstances, sometimes even take a good enough photo while not breaking stride while walking. ;~))

 

(not often, but sometimes)

 

Best to you and welcome.

 

John (Crosley)

John...A teriffic street shot caught with your amazing eye...I like the sinister feel in this image...The steer looks alot like the devil as does Carl...HAHAHA.adds to the atmosphere as does Carl's darkened face and empty,staring eyes...Well done...Marjorie

I like your comment very much; it shows I achieved the effect I hoped for.

 

But great thanks to Carl (Karl), for being a complete pussycat and very 'game' participant. Carl, if you read this -- even years later -- thanks for helping me 'make' a good photo by being so cooperative -- you did this out of the goodness of your heart when I stopped you as you were walking down the alley and were completely 'game' for this.

 

Marjorie, the above should show you that Carl is somewhat misrepresented as a person in this photo, but the photo does 'stand by itself' and is not biographical of 'Carl' at all.

 

And thanks for taking the time to write me your impressions.

 

I always look forward to a comment from you. You won't ever be a stranger to me, even if your comments may be intermittent - plus they are always respected by me and needn't be full of praise to get my respect.

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

What I like about your pictures most is that they seem to be just 'one of many' when you look at them for the first time but when you start to get a little bit into, you start to discover things, feel emotions and read the story. I've seen a lot of pictures with murals in the background but hardly ever seen such a unity between the scene on the wall and the expressive face of your model. The point of view made Carl's look really fierce and imho made this shot. The top left hand corner is indeed a bit distracting but the photo in general is outstanding. Best regards, -wm

If you read the book which was sent to me in PDF format written by two well-respected photo critics, one a Magnum photographer -- Jay and Hurd - (or Hurd and Jay ;~)), they make a case that a photo is a poor way to 'tell a story' or that it is not possible to 'tell a story' with a photograph, but from the start, when an expert I owe many thanks to, looked at my photos, he said 'each one seems to tell its own story -- you are story teller with photos'. That was enough for him, and he became a mentor for six months at the highest level.

 

Today, I went to one of the world's most famous printing firms and picked up the world's only copy of a book -- 'John Crosley -- More Than Forty Years With a Camera' - some 100 pages filled with 200 photos.in 8-1/2' x 12' landscape orientation.

 

It took me months to design it, even with a template as I never laid out a photo or art 'book' before for any reason.

 

It never will be circulated generally, but is only for galleries and museums, if I ever can get enough money together to print enough (at nearly $150 a copy) plus shipping and return) to send to museums and 'high level' galleries.

 

My mentor, who won a 'Lucie Award' figured somehow I'd never get to this stage -- he mentored me but figured I would never progress to the stage where I would be ready to present my work to galleries as he urged. I have been mostly hampered by lack of funds - and that's about it.

 

With the help of templates and 'home brew' publishing, I managed not only to put a photo book together, but if one doesn't look too closely at alignment, layout etc., from a pro publisher's standpoint, it really is stunning (and I use that word advisedly). I am absurdly pleased with the work A&I Lepejian of Hollywood did with the job, and in an inordinately short time, to help me save money on lodging locally. (I submitted electronically and got a PDF file for confirmation - overprinted 'PROOF' and 'locked' so I couldn't print my own copies - their printing was outstanding.

 

When presented with the task of trying to describe my work favorably, several years ago, a young PN member of enormous talent who is based in Canada and is now a well-known pro, basically said (paraphrased of course), 'interestingly, some images do not seem so strong, but when all the images are taken together, they take on a whole new meaning.'

 

That was member Matt Vardy, and he was still in high school, I think, but his was the most cogent analysis of how my 'work' --- as disparate as it is - conforms - one photo with the other - held together by the commonality of composition and my search for 'interesting' captures.

 

Who wants to take uninteresting stuff?

 

I hope my photos are among the most interesting anywhere - but of course they're not 'significant' like those of Salgado, or others' taken of starving kids in Africa or genocide somewhere, - or of such shock value as one in which, say, a warrior passes a defeated foe's severed head around.

 

By necessity, mine must be more subtle.

 

Those photos demand and command attention; mine sort of 'insinuate themselves into the consciousness - which is what I think happened with this photo of 'Carl' to your own consciousness -- it's an interesting process, isn't' it?

 

Naturally, mYphotos strive to be compelling in a different way than shock documentary photos (dead cat's bulging eye excepted, of course - if you saw it, you'LLemember it.)

 

So, I strive to take 'interesting' photos - and if not 'interesting' to you, then at least 'interesting' to me, and I am my own worst critic. (That doesn't stop me from posting a work that may have only one minor point of interest mainly to me, and may never score well or be of real import, because right now at least, this is not me trying to impress the world about how 'good' I am as a photographer.

 

(That may change, if I get hooked up with a gallery, depending on how they counsel me).

 

I need all the encouragement I can get at this stage.

 

I walked into a world famous gallery the other day, sweaty and smelly from driving ten hours overnight just previously and without any ability to refresh myself and just before undertaking another eight hours drive to another state, and only wanted to look at the gallery's exhibition expecting to be unrecognized, then walk out unnoticed.

 

But one of the gallery owners figured he 'knew' me or had met me -- and he was right - he had been introduced to me a year and four months previously -- how uncanny.

 

So, I found one never gets a second chance to undo a bad impression. (A hard way to learn a good lesson).

 

Maybe fatal, however, for receiving a good reception at that wonderful gallery (but they have every great photographer ever, it seems represented, or available to them in their collection . . . . and why do they need me?)

 

They were showing Mary Ellen Mark's work for movie studios, and it was very, very wonderful and both entertaining and wonderfully crafted. She's a pro through and through, which is what attracted me there.

 

So, there I was, my right shoe torn, my shirt stained from when I went over that bump on Interstate Five on-ramp while drinking a soft drink, I'd been driving overnight without sleep and my LA stop was for 3 hours only, with another eight hours to drive in an altogether different direction to go far out of state before resting.

 

What a bad time to try to make a good impression -- all because a very nice and wonderful man had an excellent memory and happened to 'recognize' me from a very brief meeting over a year previously at a gala opening attended by glitterati - I never would have thought he could possibly have figured he'd ever seen me before.

 

I never figured we'd end up talking -- I figured I'd look at some photos on the wall, then walk out -- unrecognized.

 

Fates decreed otherwise.

 

Wieslaw, I go largely on 'instinct' but when I see something 'interesting' such as a background of an interesting area, object, or even just 'something' -- anything -- it often gets cataloged in my mind -- in no particular place, but it's there nonetheless, and if a proper circumstance develops, I may already be prepared to develop on the knowledge of the 'thing'/ background, etc., and thus to 'develop on it' without having to consciously figure things out.

 

It's often pretty instinctive, but then again,if you read my Presentation -- 'Photographers, Watch Your Background', it's was all about teaching myself (and other Photo.netters how to recognize and manipulate those situations.

 

If you haven't looked at that 'Presentation' of mine,you might click on it. It's very, very very long (I think it's Photo.net's largest, and could form the basis of a book in itself - photos and text -- just by copying it all myself and sending it to a publishing house. (and putting in new photos for some areas.

 

This photo of Carl was taken a block or two away from that world famous gallery, which has sold $75 million worth of photo fine art from the world's greatest photographers, and immediately after I left that noon.

 

I took other photos in that alley too -- including a couple I haven't worked up, and one may be 'fine art' if I can work it up right.

 

I try never to pass up an opportunity - if you see me, you'll probably see me with one and almost certainly two cameras at all times.

 

(I took a very good photo at dinner tonight in a restaurant as I walked past a couple just about to kiss, I stutter-stepped to snap. They never realized they'd been photographed).

 

The waiter - who is an admirable critic - saw the photo later, and commented favorably on it, and showed he truly understood the photo (which was blurred but had wonderful lighting and might easily quality as 'fine art').

 

I just 'see' a possible photo, process it inchoately, photoshop it in my poor way, and 'see' how it will turn out -- if I start with something interesting, sometimes no amount of hacking at a photo with bad photoshopping will harm it too much.

 

;~))

 

It all boils down to what I've written before.

 

Keep all the interesting stuff within the frame - and all the uninteresting stuff outside the frame (and learn to tell which is which and under which circumstances).

 

(Of course, that's really a tall order . . . . despite its simplicity of expression.)

 

My best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(edited)

i love it! its descriptive - dynamic - and emotional! well done

Thank you so much.

 

I never took such a photo, and probably never will again -- each photo with me is unique.

 

I'm glad you like it.

 

John (Crosley)