Mirroring Noir

'Noir' is the French word for the English 'black', and in cinema 'film noir'

refers to a 'dark' plot and/or exposition, and in still photography to

a 'dark' photo also in subject and/or exposition. Here is a 'noir' photo

from me, in which the essentials of exposing grays to 17% or 18%

neutral have purposefully been overlooked, as the purpose of making

such a photo is to allow the image(s) just barely to to be noticed within

the photo's darkness for an appropriate emotional effect. Your ratings

and critiques for this 'noir' photo 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

This is posted full-frame.

Can you suggest a better crop?

I prefer to post without substantial changes, then seek aid.

I have a crop in mind.

Do you see it?

I'm interested.

John (Crosley)

since it is Noir,I have just cropped part of the white shirt,thus decreasing the area of white in the shot,and cropped the white reflex at the right eye,in my opinion ,it enhances the subject to some degree,my wishes.

it's all highly individual and as far as I'conceerned there are at least two crops you could consider. top down and bottum up. I'll give you one example on this one fwiw. Not the best of scans though

As usual, you are first and right on.

'Crop as usual, but all four eyes must stay.

Absolutely essential.

That is my guiding light.

Everything else is superplusage, compared to that, when cropping.

Further below in other responses.

You have very good judgment based on your critiques here, in my personal view. (you can quote me).

John (Crosley)

You have gone to considerable effort in cropping and some imagination -- it is a challenge to try to crop someone else's work and also to try to improve it. Any effort is bound to be open to critique in itself. As I see it, the presence of lightness per se does not necessarily detract; what is essential to a photo like this is the darkness overall, the departure from 17% or 18% gray scale for the gray tones, and 'into darkness' for them, and graininess overall, with a sense of foreboding, in keeping with the theme of 'noire'. So, the shirt is not necessarily a problem and may indeed add some needed lightness. But cutting off his left (as we see it) eye, is something that I cannot endorse, just as Vladimir Funtak (and I agreed) stated above. All eyes are necessary for this to 'work' as I view it, but you have cropped one out, and thus it doesn't 'work' as well for me cropped that way . . . . I think you can see why now. Correct? You are free to disagree, or to state your position and defend it, or to suggest even an alternate crop. Also, your view puts too much emphasis on the reflections on the man's left face (as he faces us), which I find distracting. Ton Mestrom did a little to try to remedy that. See below. All in all, though a worthy, and worthwhile effort, and if you didn't hit the nail on the head, you explored one avenue I might have tried -- and for having done that, now I don't have to try it. That is a worthy effort in itself . . . . and you have done so skillfully. Thank you so much.

John (Crosley)

Yours is the most commendable effort, for reason that you tackled the 'artistic underpinnings' of this photo.

You also did some photoshopping to this, which I had not.

I posted it without knocking out the highlights or increasing the contrast of the washed out portion, upper left, of the photo man's face, where it shows reflection.

I figured, 'why not show it more in the original, and let the experts critique something that has not been worked on with a heavy hand?'

Later, a photo -- any photo of any subject taken at dark behind glass as this man's photo, above left -- must be worked on considerable in Photoshop, and that is tedious work.

Why go to that work if nobody likes it, as often is the case with photos such as this?

I am delighted that this has attracted some attention; and I feel that further work is needed; a man has offered his Photoshop services to me 'on spec' to see if I like them and to test his skills, and this may provide a good test, along with some others.

(he's from Eastern Europe where such skills are not so common nor so highly compensated as in the West -- which is what my budget demands -- but my last foray into that was a disaster, as the highly skilled Photoshop guy who said he's work on my photos was a 'drama queen' who never finished his work and left me hanging.)

I don't want to get into that again, and until I develop a relationship of trust, it'll only be 'minor photos' that get sent to others for work (and not posted on Photo.net of course - that will always be my work).

Ton, I had envisioned cropping to the photo man's neckline, left, as the natural demarcation, or just below it -- maybe not exactly at the neckline but maybe just a little below it.

I won't post a revised crop - too much trouble, and then I'd have to start to 'clean up' this capture, but you already have started to do that.

I wonder whether having those bright spots' showing might be a positive attribute or is just negative; you removed them, and I'm interested whether in this genre they should stay or go? As you said, it's highly individual.

Thanks for skillful work and considerable effort (and though).

John (Crosley)

(and congratulations - much congratulations, on your new status as an honored Photo.net 'street' photographer)

(they'll never choose me for such status because my portfolio jumps all over the place and the good is mixed with the bad and the ugly, I think -- a fact I long ago acknowledged.)

JC

as I said, different crops would work. Yes, I photoshopped a bit, did some quick patching and curveswork. For a full edit though, you're right, more work needs to be done. About cleaning it up, I think there are two lines of approach. Some prefer the "raw" version of street photography while others, like myself prefer the more "clean" version. It doesn't mean I remove everything that doesn't suit me though. In this case though I would because I think overall it would make for a better photo. Still. that too is subject to individual preferences.

Thanks, a little notoriety never hurts ;-)

I had a look at your other one as well and yes, it could be done in b&w but I would be hesitant to do so because in colour it looks striking enough

Your response is great, and I read and acknowledge every word.

I am curious about which photo is 'the other one?'

I have posted over 1,180 photos including a lot of portraits.

Do you mean a recent color posting of a black guy at a tire company? A member posted a b&w version, and I also had one worked up for posting possibly elsewhere -- both are 'wonderful' in my opinion -- different and very, very good. I'm very proud of that photo, and thankful to the passerby/customer who was my willing model.

Is there perhaps another photo you're referring to -- there are two 'tire yard' photos in color, one with a white man and another with a black man?

They are from tire shopping. I take a camera just about wherever I go, and I hope in the process try to prove that great 'street shots' are wherever you happen to be.

My last ratings success was at night on my way home in my car from the supermarket!!!

That's my idea of a photo expedition.

Let me know which one you're referring to,would you?

John (Crosley)

(and you deserve the notoriety!)

jc

sorry about that, I meant this one

Based on your comment.

This is the one I referred to as my 'last ratings success' and taken on my way 'home from the supermarket' -- which I referred to as a satisfactory 'photo expedition'.

Who ever knew I would take such a photo?

I just never draw limits about what I will take, and come up with some startling results.

I never even though I'd be competing with 'artists' . . . but what do you know?

Here I am.

Thanks Ton.

I'm surprised, a little, but very happy that you like that one.

John (Crosley)

Hi,

I have suggest only my taste,and I guess you do not mind,

thank you for the reply in details,just one thing to add that I haven't said at first time,I thought it was so obvious,after all it is your work,

just take an other look at my crop,and you will see that I have unified the two persons in one,I have unified them through the crop of the eye,they both got two eyes only in my crop,the left eye of the poster,and the right eye of the pedestrian,

have a fine day,with my regards.

I'm pretty representational. Picasso was a skilled representational artist until he began experimenting after his 'Blue Period' with cubism, then with what became his 'signature style' -- with body parts coming from places they weren't expected to come from. He would have endorsed your idea of a unifying eye, I think, but perhaps placed it in some unusual place. He believed that the viewer might be presented with multiple viewpoints at once, often in conflict, and that was what gained him his final notoriety and earned him respect as the 'genius' he was. Alas, I won't be confined to the 'genius' shelf, but perhaps to the dustbin of wannabes. Perhaps when your genius mantle is placed on your shoulders, you can politely step around us peons, who were unable to see or share your greater artistic vision. (no fooling, I just did not see or 'get' what you had done, but only because I'm 'representational' and hopelessly so, and you have transcended.) Best wishes, and thanks for the explanation. John (Crosley)