Pretty in Pink and Pastel

A woman with a pinkish glow on her cheeks looks skyward, a man

approaches, and a building behind is covered with pastel background

and perfume bottles -- all in the pastel light of sundown. 'Pretty in Pink

and Pastel' -- I am told -- is mostly a color photo. Do you agree? I like

it also desaturated, but also feel it is best as a color capture. 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

Well done, John. Another winner. Cheers!

It was scoring 5.5/5.5 when a pair of 3/3s came in -I don't know from where -- Mars?

 

This is a very good work. I'm glad you agree.

 

Raters may have been looking for a fashion shoot or something.

 

These were passersby and the entire photo shoot took less than one minute, including several captures and shooting this final photo.

 

;~))

 

Colors were the final cap to prevent it from being shown as B&W.

 

I decided (and so did Giuseppe Pasquali) that this was a COLOR photo.

 

Thanks so much for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Ya, John, nothing takes the wind out of my sails faster than a pair of undeserved 3's (except maybe the traffic on the 405). They are spoilers here just like on the craps table. How could this ever be considered below average? And twice? I think PNers should be forced to attend a course on photo critiquing before being allowed access to the forum. All the best, John.

do not appeal to everybody -- they sail over the heads of many.

 

And there are a couple (maybe one man posing as two) who like to low-rate me . . . out of malice, spit or just general cussedness.

 

Frankly, this is 'high art' but I just posted one, I consider much higher art, so compared to that this is a 4/4, or lower and that is more like 'the last supper' and maybe I should have titled it that (but maybe it isn't 'the last supper at all, except in the idea that until tomorrow's supper it is the 'last' one. ;~))

 

I may be ok with one 3/3 but never two 3/3s and never on such a good photo. Damn. But I don't rate just to avoid mate-rating accusations and have gotten 10,000 ratings so far, so what the hey.

 

I am new to LA and these are newcomer's views, as you may have guessed.

 

Only 10 days or so.

 

And a little last year with some little more in January during a trip.

 

I find it exciting.

 

What a great, wonderful place to photograph, by car and/on foot or both.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

John, glad to see you are back on foot..... Geoff, your comment on raters on foto.net is something for intersting discussion but not to seem here that any certain foto or John's foto is singled out. I get 3s, lots of them and they do not take out my sails if I had any. If 4s are average than than 3 is not such a bad rating and there should be about as many 3s as 6s and a 7 should merit entry to a show and a chance for honerable mention and that is almost never the case on PN. If John says not true because people are supposed to post only there (their) best, than I say that if the case then the bar should be moved up. If I submit a photo to a juried show and everyones best is better than my best then I am not going to get into that show.And after all in the world is done (adom olam), what mostly counts is how we feel about our own work not so much about the ratings. If ratings and number of comments made my day than I'd be in constant depression :-) I'll also tell you this. If certain members who are popular submitted my photos under their name my ratings would jump up a full notch or more and I"d also get 20 comments instead of 1 or 2 -or none. You know that is true for me and for you as well. About a course in ratingf?.....A course if it made people knowlable/qualified judges would create even more 3s. I have a great trouble in this rating system. How should I rate? According to pn average or according to what is out there in the professional and gallery world. That answer is probable the line at the bottom of the sheet. I did not rate or praise this foto because it says nothing profound to me I'm entitled to that. Excuse my rambling; I don't have better to do today. I have been foto photographing for soon 20 years. I know exactly my level regardless of a ratings here (given that sometimes there is a mistake I did not see). My level wasn't good enough for the real world and I had to accept that. On fotonet my overall average is about 5 which says that on the average my fotos are "Good" but not "Very Good" and that is a pretty accurate statement.....john, if you don't want your page cluttered up with this say and I will delete. it is a lot of writing and not done very well.

 

 

 

Meir, great thoughts, and I appreciate them because this is why I want to be in a community of photographers. This is the kind of discussion that challenges and sharpens. I think you are right. I also feel that sometimes the bar here is too low. But then, just a quickly, I feel it is fine. I guess it comes down to the question of what is the standard by which we are rating? If a 4 is "average", do I mean average in a photo competition or average in what is generally found in my friends' photo albums? This is true that it is hard to rate without know what each rating is supposed to mean. Perhaps a rubric is necessary? My comment about the photo critiquing class was a bit tongue-in-cheek... but maybe not? But it is true here, like in real the entertainment industry, popular is rated better than the no-names.

 

And overall I agree: I should not be too worried about my ratings... and I've gotten better. But still, I grant them some value and hope they can provide some indication of how a photo is received by "the public". I dunno.

 

John, I ditto Meir here. If this patter frustrates you, we will erase. I know this is a well covered subject and perhaps better off in a different forum.

Thanks for reading and the reply. One thing, I do not imply that "4 -average" fotos in foto.net as not better than a friends' photo albums. Besides we are all trying and there should be credit given for trying and postive things that encourage not discourage. But, that in part makes the problem as to just how to rate and also be fair to the better photographers but not discourage those starting out or like myself who try very hard. (I get hard on John but John is not going to be discouraged bothered or hurt; he brushes it off ). I don't rate or comment often except a few such as John because I like to read the pages and because we disagree on everything :-). If I was giving someone who is really really serious some advise, I'd say forget all this and go find someone to apprentice with and leave the day job. If one wants to be excellent in anything then it needs to be given all you can give. fotonet is not for that. People come here or most, mostly because they enjoy not because they are obsessed and willing to be poor if necessary for that obsession. I am not a good photographer but I might have been if I trained under someone (meaning also shleped the equipment). It meant that much to me. So anyway my few shekels worth about rating, photo.net and this photo.

Hopefully the last thing. If one is not popular, gets few ratings and comments (comparitively) and people come and don't come again...then the overall average of many ratings will be a pretty accurate account of ones ability. The populars generraly will be overrated and not reflect their ability. The precision of ratings (not accuracy) will never be precise -forgetaboutit. That is why we have averages.

I don't mind any comment by you or colloquy by you or anybody else.

 

I do not respond to Meir for reasons he knows; he has abused the comment system, apparently created a doppelganger (the doppelganger does not deny accusations that it is so), has orphaned many comments, and when asked, did not apologize but merely said that was his nature -- no apology for his transgressions, so I do not respond to Mr. Samel. I have not asked that he be banned, but if proof were demanded, he probably would be banned and there are members who have asked me to initiate the process, but I have refused.

 

He offers explanations for low-rating a photo like 'you took it from a car' which is totally irrelevant. And then the advice 'get a bike' (I am disabled and cannot ride a bike.) I have trouble with Luddites and irrelevancies. He may make some or many good points, but he started out far worse and did many many transgressions many of which are documented in these pages and he continues to beg for attention from me.

 

And he low-rates photos for things like a 'street' photo that does not match Ansel Adams 'zone system' without regard for reasons for allowing certain portions of a photo to remain 'blown', overexposed, or underexposed for artistic reasons -- he is doctrinaire and does not seem to understand the medium as an 'art' form at all, but rather an agglomeration of rules which he is hidebound by . . . so for me his 'advice' is full of irrelevancy and much is meaningless. I do not want to be his tutor as he tries to tutor me. I am far beyond him and his purported 'knowledge'. I tolerate him, but not by much.

 

And, coupled with his past transgressions, (and only out or respect for his age and disabilities) I do not seek to have him banned, but only for that because his behavior here in the past has been very, very, very bad, and violated many Photo.net discussion rules (which I've documented and which other members have as well -- as they relate to me.)

 

So, he writes here by my grace, but not with my permission and frankly he writes mostly irrelevancies, but not without experience or some knowledge and mostly alien to my way of thinking about 'art', so I go my merry way and allow him his sport and indulge him his idiosyncrasy.

 

About the rating system: The raters here who are active are primarily (with exceptions such as Ruud Albers, Janusz, etc., and a few highly qualified very frequent raters -- one from Irvine comes to mind, -- are mostly new members.

 

I rated a bit when I was new but tired soon of the exercise and most do. Some make a sport of rating. Some do it very well, and those rates I give special attention to.

 

I give no credence to a rate from Mr. Samel.

 

I do not rate, mainly to avoid charges of mate-rating and because rating is so subjective - a well-placed comment, well-articulated means so much more to the photographer of a very marginal but improvable photograph (which is mainly what I comment on).

 

I actually do HELP marginal photographers become better, and have also prepared a HUGE presentation toward that end (have you looked at it . . . there have been no comments for over a year, but it's the biggest Presentation on Photo.net and has over 50 comments?)

Photographers: Watch Your Background -- a work still in progress - a book draft also).

 

And many read these colloquys -- and I get many positive comments on them (although there are a few nay-sayers.)

 

I do care about ratings but will resist sending anyone to ratings school. I want ratings to reflect 'popular taste'. I have galleries and museum sales in my view and want to know what photographers with aspiration who are members think is 'good'. 'rate-worthy' and thus 'popular', and for that I believe the ratings are rather trustworthy.

 

For absolute judgment of aesthetics, one should look at the folder of Giuseppe Pasquali and examine his ratings and see the beautiful work he's done -- he's off soon to his first exhibition (sponsored), but he does not get such good ratings.

 

He's one of Photo.net's finest photographers, but rather unheralded here on Photo.net - a relatively undiscovered genius at photography. He does not get such high rates, yet he has been compared to Kodelka,'better' than Kodelka it has been observed', and I thoroughly believe so, plus he is getting better day by day.

 

All ratings are subjective, and whether a photo (1) inspires a rate is important to me. (2) whether average raters feel it has aesthetics also is important to me regardless of their background and (3) whether it is original also is important to me.

 

But I look to Lenswork, B & W Magazine (and Colo our Magazine, Aperture Magazine (and Foundation etc.) and other sources to find what's really felt to be good -- far outside the fishbowl that is Photo.net and that's where I find and set my standards. I use Photo.net as my test audience, and it helps me choose which photos have certain kinds of impact with a certain sort of audience and for that for me it's invaluable. I don't want to mess with it. I also post on Photocritiq.com other types of work.

 

Without it, I'd be lost or at the mercy of my own judgment which is highly fallible.

 

Collectively, raters -- like jurors -- have pretty good ability to ferret out the good stuff.

 

Individually, most are pretty bad, but if you get them all together, they generally zero in on the good stuff (there are many exceptions and many popular categories here which mean 'zero' in the 'art', 'gallery' 'museum' and 'exhibition' world to which I compare, but I shoot 'street' and popularity is important to me, and this forum is my 'test audience'.

 

I don't want them 'trained'.

 

Actually, for my style of shooting, after starting here about 5 years ago, I have 'trained' my audience to accept my style of photography rather well. I don't need anyone 'training' them further, and how would one do that anyway?

 

It's intellectually a good idea,but breaks down in practice.

 

This ratings system once was almost unworkable, but now it works pretty well.

 

There's almost no mate-rating or reciprocal rating and gang-rating (high or low) and only one person I know of here seems to have two identities (Mr. Samel has been accused and not denied) whereas that used to be common. IAsher Lev has been accused of being Mr. Samel's doppelganger several times and not denied it.)

 

That alone would allow for Mr. Samel to be banned from this service but I have not brought it to the attention of Administration and asked others who wish to I have asked not to do so, . . . . yet out of charity and kindness.

 

Mr. Samel's history (much of which he has removed) reveals a record of bad behavior relating to others and being abandoned even by his photo agent (one can only guess why . . . . I have my own guess).

 

He formerly would post, then remove, orphaning my comments back to him and making them seem as though I just was writing to ghosts - and never apologized when I complained.

 

He seems incapable of apologizing and seems to have invented a doppelganger (I invite him to prove me wrong and invite a study of the IP addresses of his computer and Mr. Lev's computer for PAST POSTS, and see if they are the same. Content is the same too, for many posts (fear of Paris, fear of Paris subways, etc., and both personae have seemed to speak and iterate for one another from time to time in the past.

 

So, Geoff, you are fully entitled to carry on here or anywhere else any discussion you want with this man, but he has abused his privileges with me (the only man in the history of PN to do so, and I am remarkably tolerant).

 

You may carry on your discussions here with no problem and no interference from me right now - readers may be edified I hope, but I will not join in.

 

Mr. Lev/Samel makes much of his age/disabilities, but I am retirement age and disabled, and I seldom write of it at all; it is irrelevant to what it is I think or what I present. I am kept functioning by modern medicine but so what?

 

Without it i could not get out of bed, and he advises me to ride a bicycle or he'll low-rate my photos for taking some from a car and hail when I actually am able to walk which is not all the time.

 

Chutzpuh!

 

(Gall if you don't speak Yiddish!)

 

Don't even delete anything on my pages -- these are not a blackboard with an eraser. I do not spend such time writing only to have my writings made irrelevant.

 

If Mr. Samel feels wronged, let him say so and in detail and prove himself (I have my own proofs and feel they are sufficient. Other(s) have urged me to do more, but I have not yet done so.

 

In the meantime, carry on your discussion.

 

Raters serve a purpose; I use them and rely on them for a limited but very valuable purpose.

 

I argue with them and moan over them occasionally, but only when I think there has been abuse (severe abuse such as by robots or doppelgangers) do I write the Administration, and I seldom am wrong about such things.

 

I am a grown man, and I can be wrong, and I do know how to apologize if I make a mistake or several, but I also know how to keep silence while I gather my facts.

 

This is only a brief summary -- the rest of my facts and supporting evidence are spread throughout my portfolio (and his comments have been copied so his erasure of them will not help his cause).

 

(I once practiced law for a long time and do my work well).

 

(also, there are archives of ALL posts on the Internet kept by others, so anything 'erased' can be retrieved, although with some difficulty. There can be no permanent conniving.)

 

Geoff, please carry on and just be aware of the history, but also don't let it get in your way. You, Geoff are valuable to me, and this person may have something valuable to offer you, and I do not want to stand in the way (at present).

 

Or I would have done lots more a long time ago.

 

My very best to you,Geoff.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(Others

שטוית במיץ עגבנייה which means "nonsense in tomato juice". And if I delete a comment it is because you so strongly object to it; and I do not change the time/date in the server on my messages to hide them from you as you insist; nor am I DISABLED" etc. and you should not blow over comments for humor. And if you want an apology then I apologize. And what does all this have do to with discussion above on the rating system? John you are okay guy and most interesting maod, maod, but please leave my name out of your stories especially when you need to cut on someone -beginning now by not responding -please!

 

I have been photographing (intermittently albeit) for over 40 years.

 

I have just self-published a one-copy book; everyone who has seen it (including very high class pros) has praised it. It has 200 photos in 100 pages. It is my portfolio, basically, and only for galleries and museums when it is published with more copies.

 

I have devoted 100s of thousands to equipment -- nearly my life savings and the rest to pursuing my art of photography -- just look through these pages and ask yourself, 'who paid for all those experiences that are photographed in John's pages?' The answer is almost exclusively 'John paid' and in order to gain the experience, as there was no one who could 'teach me' what I already knew. I needed the experience but nobody could teach me that and no amount of hauling others' equipment around would teach me the art of doing what I do for myself. I am entirely self-taught and proud of it, and self-financed too.

 

For seven months ending January before last a Lucie Award winner (think Academy Awards of reproductive arts) tutored me and held masters classes with me as a class of one over his dinner table. when I was in the US. We sometimes shared his living quarters. He was most generous and did that out of generosity and unbidden and unasked.

 

He curated (organized and culled through about a half million of my photos -- my life's work' (there are many more now)

 

His advice.

 

'Stop shooting. You're good enough to go for the highest level art galleries and photo galleries' (and he made a distinction which he showed me between those photos which he thought belonged in 'art' galleries and those which belonged in 'photo galleries', and as to museums, his advice: Go for the Getty, which has substantial money for acquisitions, and he said I meet their standard in his opinion.

 

He has printed for all museums from the Louvre on down,and knows just about everybody in the art/photo world.

 

In my draft self-published 'book' there is a capture from my first roll of film. It has stood the test of time, though I was 21 at the time and gave up photography shortly after seeing Henri Cartier-Bresson's mammoth works touring a huge San Francisco museum -- at the behest of an old colleague of Cartier-Bresson I worked with at Associated Press.

 

I did not then know that Cartier-Bresson was in a league with Picasso as 'one of the ten greatest artists of the 20th Century -- source Charley Rose and Richard Avedon.

 

Otherwise, I might have stayed with photography.

 

Instead I became a writer, then a lawyer and only five years ago returned to photography, and with amazing results.

 

I have moved to be near galleries and museums and am now devoting my life to getting shows, etc., if they are in my future.

 

Who knows?

 

But I couldn't do that in Ukraine without money and a sponsor and although I did have a sponsor the economy did him in.

 

Tant pis.

 

The economy has done many things in.

 

I am now pretty poor, but I have rich experience and my skills get better every day.

 

I am going for the Getty or higher.

 

We'll see if I make it.

 

Photo.net is a proving ground for popularity and a social forum for me -- and for me it has a worth as that. And it's also a place to pass on knowledge -- and also to learn from guys like you (for you with your response to my photos also can teach me something . . . . I'm not to proud to learn from anybody. no matter what their level so long as they act in good faith, which is what the above post was all about -- good faith.

 

I value your contributions . . . .and let's let this above pass. I have made my point, it is truthful and not rebutted.

 

And it is not 'tomato sauce' at all.

 

I'd love to see continuing critiques and rates from you Geoff.

 

John (Crosley)

To me this multi-layered photograph with the woman in front, the man looking almost to us and the billboard-like perfume in the back has so much to offer. My eyes stray from her to him to the bench and back to her earrings, her nose, etc. Really, there is so much to see in this frozen slice of time.

 

 

I have no 'critical analysis' to offer. So I'll simply convey the knowledge that your photograph held me captivated far too long as I inhaled every detail. Nice work. Okay one critical analysis, I think, but am not sure that I'd like the man a bit sharper. He almost seems softer than the billboard behind him, though, that's just a trick of the eyes. I'd have to see it done both ways to know for sure. In all, a lovely image.

This is an example of how I would like many of my photographs to be constructed.

 

I am not sure I commented on this before, but this woman was mute (and therefore deaf) and the man as well, I think, as they were companions.

 

I approached, she looked up, I took her photograph, as I had positioned myself just in the proper position to create the photo with the background I had chosen.

 

If you have not seen my Presentation 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' which is Photo.net's largest, even though it never will be finished' it thoroughly and concisely for each photo (of hundreds) explains in a paragraph - sometimes two -- how each was constructed so that the 'subject' and the 'background' were integrated.

 

Cartier-Bresson was formally trained in composition, which he termed 'geometry' because that is what his teacher Lohte called it (as it was mathematically based), but I am not. I never completed even a lesson in photography, except from a Lucie Award winner -- masters classes for me alone over his dinner table - an enormous boon to my way of 'seeing' though my shooting then was already well developed.

 

For his sharing his knowledge of art and photography as 'art', I am most grateful.

 

This is carefully constructed, yet took only a second or two to frame and shoot.

 

The mute woman uttered some sounds that indicated pleasure on seeing the photo, and smiled and held 'thumbs up'.

 

She and the man both were very pleased.

 

This photo has not received a great reception here, and I think you are one of the few to recognize the care in its crafting.

 

It's an unusual and rare skill or talent to construct such a photo in a second or two, then move on, and take entirely other photos often with a minute or five.

 

The billboard sign may give the 'appearance' of sharpness because of its colors and other matters -- it's an 'optical illusion' I think.

 

The sharpness diminishes as one goes from front to back, no exceptions from the rules of photography.

 

Your observation caused me to look twice.

 

Thank you for very kind comment.

 

John (Crosley)