'Similarities'

Similarities are the theme of this photo; I leave it to the viewer to identify

and analyze the two or so similarities rather than point them out. 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

This photo is somewhat subtle by my standards. It has sat in my 'maybe to be posted' folder since fall, as I have looked at it, wondering what to do with it, evaluating it, and experiencing growing appreciation for it.

 

Now, as the months have passed, I have a very much greater appreciation for it than when I first saw it, and consider it among my better works of this sort -- a photo with a little visual humor, but very, very subtle.

 

So subtle, in fact, it has taken me months to understand why it appealed to me in the first place -- perhaps confused by other, lesser, photos I took at the same time using the same background and subject matter. This truly is the only photo of the group that has stood the test of examination and time.

 

John (Crosley)

Sir,

It is hard to find and analyze the similarities,as it were revealed in your eyes,so quickly spending only a couple of minutes instead of long drawn, repeated watching and critically evaluating a photo for its worth or merit.It is a lesson to me that you maintain a 'may be to be posted' folder to keep such photos which have thought-provoking potential.I appreciate you as a 'in-depth self-critiquer'.

 

Unless you keep the title 'similarities' and draw the attention of the viewers towards that by your own critiquinsg notes, people would have a wide range of interpretations looking at it from different angles and having a different thoughts playing in their minds.

 

Even if you have channeled the viewers towards the thought of 'similarities', there are still a lot more variations according to peoples' thoughts in interpreting the photo.And here comes the beauty of an art and this is the way I look at still photography.Viewers' view may not tally with the photographer and I feel, the more such deviations are there, the more sucessful the photo will be as an 'Art'.

 

With this humble prelude,I try my own way to visualize the similarities.

 

1.Two lamp posts are similar looking.

2.Man's right leg and foot has almost a similar bending (inclination) of the background black stripes.

3. Background stripes are all parallel and similar looking.

4.Focused lights inside the glass balls in lampost are having similar directions

5.My imagination goes as ' two lamposts are talking each other, so also the man is talking over mobile phone'

 

So far as 'visual humor' is concerened, my imagination goes as 'Imagine the focused light inside the glass ball as loud speakers. If you think so, it appears to me that what the man was telling softly, becomes public by the loud-speaker!'

 

 

I am eager to know your views on my way of looking at the 'similarities' and , of course yours own view of looking at it.I am also eager to know how this photo stands the test of appreciation by 'your standard'.

 

Sir, presently, I do not know how to rate this photo.Let me have some time to think over it again and may be i will be able to rate.

 

Regards,

Susmit.

 

Somewhere along the way, in my ancestry, there might have been a Crosley who wished to be known as 'sir'. I insist on that when people in authority or who think they are in authority are rude to me; then I ask them to address me as 'sir', to keep them in line.

 

To you, I am John and to almost all other Photo.net members (with one or two exceptions and they know who they are).

 

It is entirely possible to over analyze a photo.

 

I remember in science class at Columbia College, Columbia University, we were given a cage with a rat in it and the rat was starved for water one day prior to class.

 

We were given control of a built-in dipper and if the rat pushed a pedal, we were to give the rat a drop of water with the dipper. Later we could vary how many times the rat pushed the pedal to get the drop of water (or simply never give the water). The cage was known as a Skinner cage after a famed psychologist.

 

First class students were asked to describe the movements of the lab rat, and many students made descriptions such as the following: 'The rat approached the dipper with trepidation, but the dipper did not come up, and thinking better of it, the rat went back, and the rat reflected on that fact . . . and as he did so the rat tripped the pedal and the dipper came up with water. The rat was overjoyed and ran around with joy, then ran to the dipper to get that drop of water, and still was so overjoyed that he continued to run around, and ran around some more, then thought better of it, and later his tail must have been bothering him because he began to bite it.' (Synthesized summary from memory)

 

Of course that was all falderol. (nonsense) No one yet has been able to understand a rat's emotions. Rats' 'thinking' processes were not 'known' to student who wrote such prose, and rats were not known to be able to 'reflect'. Rats were not known to be 'overjoyed' and just because a rat ran around did not mean the rat was 'overjoyed' at anything, and there are many explanations for a rat biting its tail than the tail's bothering him (think frustration at being manipulated over a simple dropper of water).

 

The lesson the others were to learn from that (I didn't since I just wrote that the rat approached the dipper, got a drop of water and described his movements around the cage, mechanically, without hint of 'human' emotions or thought) was that one cannot ascribe human thought processes to a rat, or over analyze things . . . which is a common problem with those who are steeped in the humanities.

 

It is nice to have a very active imagination . . . but I am not so blessed. I have a friend, -- in fact a Lucie Award winner in photography, who now sends me short stories; they are on the borderline of fact and fancy, and I enjoy them immensely -- they promise to become a bestseller when published if there are enough of them when he finishes, if he finishes.

 

But let's take my analysis of this photo -- it's really rather simple and somewhat geometric and does not involve the poles being speakers or loudspeakers for the man -- let's leave that for L. Ron Hubbard and the Scientologists,can we?

 

My analysis is simply one of form and light (and its opposite, darkness).

 

The two poles are tall and thin. They are rooted in the pavement and they are strong and tall. Atop them are glass bulbs which are round in shape.

 

The shape, therefore is very long, topped with a globe, basically in whitish -- not exactly white, since the globes are transparent, but you get the idea.

 

Now, the man is the other main figure in this little set piece. He is tall, rather thin, he has a mobile phone to his ear (which I find insignificant except to ad interest, but you do not) and atop his shoulders is a head, which wonderfully enough, in the Ukrainian fashion of these days, is mostly shaven and rather globular and even partly whitish.

 

In short, he is a human analogue for the two light poles -- an effective visual 'mirror' or something close to it.

 

He is doing something, so he presents some 'interest' - but the entire photo and the 'similarities revolve around the fact that the lamp posts are black with whitish globes atop and he is tall, thin, dressed in black (as are the lamp posts) and has a whitish, globular head.

 

Simple enough.

 

One can speculate that he's broadcasing through speakers atop the poles and even talking to space aliens, but that goes far beyond anything we know and becomes fiction.

 

I try to stay away from things that are not apparent to what anyone can follow who can analyze my photos who pays attention to the analysis and the photo..

 

This is not to denigrate your analysis -- it just is overly complex - you will make (or perhaps already are) a fine writer, but this is an exercise in simple description. What is similar, and there are two or three points of similarity is 'long and tall with globular, whitish top'.

 

One can try to integrate the background into the analysis, but that may just be a stretch; the background just is complex enough it keeps the photo from failing, in my opinion.by adding interest and competing lines, though muted in my rendition which purposefully kept the background lines less prominent so the central theme is apparent and not overpowered.

 

In a way it's a simple little photo; a sort of jest, as the French say. A simple little visual joke.

 

And no more.

 

In my view.

 

Of course,there is the matter of spacing -- the composition's layout which is very exact, but that is part of almost every photo I post and not necessary for this analysis of 'similarities'.

 

To make more of this photo's 'similarities', is to make too much of it, I think.

 

Sometimes simplicity is good just for the sake of simplicity.

 

(but you may have the workings of a great novel in your mind, and some day I may be reading that great novel from you, so do not let me discourage you in any way.)

 

My best to you.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(rate how you will -- there are no guidelines - and as you will, high or low as you feel.)

 

(of course, I picked on only one part of your rather scholarly discourse, and did not discuss the rest, because it was quite well stated . . . so forgive me.) jc..

 

The placement at the base is two poles at the left and the man at the right.

 

One can regard the man as 'one' for a 'trio' or two because he has 'two feet'.

 

This is important because of the repetition one sees of 'trios' or 'fours' (it is unclear as well) at the top of the light poles -- it appears there are four lights atop each pole but one only sees three.

 

Another instance of 'mirroring, but one I did not see until just now.

 

See how your able question has spurred me to better analysis of my own photo?

 

John (Crosley)

 

;~))

 

 

rather globular :-)))))) John you made my day!!!! thanks

 

(btw a nice form study for a lot of talk) ;-)

I see two poles with highlights and a man on a cell phone who is dumb enough to smoke and a guy at his desk perhaps on also on the phone and some interesting background pattern. I guess there is more but that is what I see. -edited out_ and Sumit is far over my head.

I know, a lot of talk.

 

But a point well made?

 

Glad you enjoyed.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

My observation seems more basic. The lightness of the bottom of the photo with the dark lamp poles and the gentleman. The darkness of the windows of the building and the lightness of the lamp globes makes it symmetrical. The repeating diagonal, parallel and horizontal lines and then throw in a curved line an the base which is also very eye catching. The gentleman also adds a little personality to the photo which you make yours. Great composition.

I was wondering if you gave any consideration to the request I asked of you about my photography class and the black and white presentation. Thanks. Mark

Last things first.

 

Please repeat your request about B&W class. My e-mail was thrown out of whack when my membership suddenly terminated so for a day or so until the renewal goes through I cannot get e-mails through Photo.net.

 

Try me at jcrosley (insert the 'you know what sign' - not stated here to discourage spammers) ymail.com, and insert a message line that identifies you and my message so I don't throw it into the spam folder or if it ends up there by mistake it doesn't stay there, as I do look through my 'spam' folder looking for those pieces of mail I can identify.

 

My life has been a little topsy turvy lately, and I do apologize for not getting back to you -- and I want to review your request in its entirety before I consider it . . . so please copy it in its entirety. My apologies.

 

About your analysis - it is spot on . . . which is Brit-speak, but being wholly accurate and it is something that I would incorporate into an analysis of this photo.

 

It is funny (unusual) that the more I study this photo, the more I like it -- I've been looking at it since last fall when I took it, and somehow it has 'grown on me', and now I think I more fully understand why . . . . thanks to you and others like you who have prodded me a little with excellent feedback.

 

Sometimes it takes a while for me to 'get it' even about my own photos.

 

Other times, I think a photo I post may be 'great' when others rate it as 'hardly worth while. Some of those indeed may be 'great' . . . but not easily ratable, while others are hardly worth having been posted, and I needed a good splash of cold water to let me know they were simpy unappealing.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughtful analysis, and do write me promptly, as my life suddenly at any time could become more complex again.

 

I will endeavour to respond fully and accurately.

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks John, I sent you an email. I know what you mean about a busy life. I work 12 hour night shifts and get nothing done on my work days and then cram everything in on my days off.