'Funny, I feel like having the fish for once . . . I don't know why . . . '

Very original surrealistic image!!!!!

A woman appears to search a menu, decides to have 'fish for once' and

although fish are all over the wallpaper behind her can't seem to

understand why she is making that choice. 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

I think it's not only surrealistic, but totally funny . . . . she has no idea, in my projection of 'why' she is about to order 'fish for lunch'.

 

Of course, I made up the story, and maybe it has no bearing on reality and it is I who is surreal????

 

Of course this another of my several homages to cartoonist Gary Larson, known for his surreal or absurd humour. Here she is ordering fish for 'unknown reasons while the wall behind her is papered with tuna. Perhaps she'll order the tuna salad sandwich? I think Larson would love that or at least appreciate the humour.

 

Thanks for the remark. Believe it or not, this was on an old chip from a couple of years ago to which I applied rescue software to 'save' and 'rescue' the image -- a 'true' delight from a jammed image that 'came out of nowhere' from a faulty chip.

 

I never throw away a chip that fails -- I just save the very few and apply rescue software when time allows and sometimes get rewarded.

 

John (Crosley)

I am new to digital. Chips that fail? They did not tell me this. This is not good.

John, I cannot quite remember whether there is a "Humour" section in this site...the photo would have made it straight there instead of "Street". But forget the technical aspects...you are way too ahead for me to comment on such matters....but I enjoy this photo for how you have chosen to present it.

 

I note that you have asked for reasons in case someone decides to give this a rather harsh rating. The problem is that apart from those who "open" this photo from the critique forum, you'll never know who rates the photos. Ratings can also be done anon via "Rate Photos". I've long been a moaner about this and have pointed out in the past that an explanation for ratings 4/4 and less should be mandatory, else the rating should not count. After all, this is a forum for all to learn from.

 

Regards.

A very original and very good composed image,as you use to do!Best regards from Rome..

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Yes, as I present this it qualifies for the humour category, but by itself it is not inherently humorous -- only because of the caption I've attached to it, which is whimsical and of my invention -- otherwise it is a little surreal and absurd, so I kept it in the 'street' category.

 

As to your suggestion that those who give very low (below 4/4) ratings have to explain themselves, I've already been given 10,416 ratings as of this moment, and believe me, those most ill-equipped to explain themselves are those who give those 3/3 ratings generally (not always, but generally) and often it's because of some reason like 'I don't like fish' or 'I don't like photos of people' or 'I prefer photos of flowers or abstracts or some such.' I find those things out because I've made a few complaints to abuse@photo.net but Jeremy there does not strike those as he finds such reasons for low rates adequate, but I've really made very few complaints over the years, and now only if it appears there's a 'bot (robot) rating.

 

Otherwise, anyone of any ilk can make a rating.

 

I know what my photos are worth generally, but this is a popularity contest and I'm interested in their popularity which this forum provides me. I might think a photo is great but if nobody wants to comment or rate, I might come to the conclusion the photo has little real appeal and that even if it is 'great' it is uninteresting to the general PN populace.

 

That's the PN critique value to me and for that it serves an able purpose.'

 

I also get some outstanding critiques, but I watch who is giving the critiques; my time-worn request for critique actually does work which is why I keep repeating it.

 

People often think before they make critiques about my photos after reading my request for critique -- I think it sobers them up a little, and some critiques have been outstanding -- even superlative.

 

I know I've learned a great deal from this forum in any case, and it has helped shape my understanding of my photography by pointing out things I did not see or should have seen about my photography or points which I have missed and are helpful.

 

Of course, some critiques are routinely dismissed because of their source, but that's all part of understanding the process. I don't need accolades to survive; a healthy critique that understands the photo and the process is highly valued, especially one that helps me improve my photography - just as I request.

 

Thanks Samrat, but don't worry about the low raters -- they're part of the process and often are either highly articulate and showing good taste in the face of poor photography, or personal predilections, or come from very poor photographic knowledge or prejudice and often from raters who couldn't explain their way out of a paper bag. Also, some raters don't write or speak English/this is a world-wide site.

 

In any case, it's a popularity contest.

 

Overall, in any case, the ratings do work. My highest rated photo is my best ever. (and my first posting).

 

Others photos rated are problematic and rates are all over the board indicating that the photos are hard for the PN populace to rate by their standards.

 

The PN populace faced with most gallery work exhibited would probably give much of that work 3/3 and 4/4 rates because they don't understand it..

 

And that's the name of that tune.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Well, with your caption it's reall funny, without ... now I don't know any more, I can't tell ... when I look at the woman on the left I think that she's thinking: 'Funny, I feel like having the fish for once ... I don't know why ... ' .

Thanks for the feedback.

 

A long time ago, I wrote captions for a living -- they were cut and dried and didn't allow for humour.

 

But this one to me is inspired.

 

Now that you've read it, you really can't put it out of your head, can you now, or so your post seems to indicate.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

John;

 

Your scenario sounds fishy to me -- a tall tail at the very least.

 

:-)

Ahhhh,

 

I admit, I used some literary license in captioning.

 

But I say when I do such things . . . . I am always clear when I take license, as I am when I engage in any alteration such as Photoshopping as well.

 

I dislike Photoshop alterations far more than I like the addition of suggestion through a caption that may cause a chuckle, because there I can explain myself away, and the photo stays the same.

 

Really, this is just two women sitting at a table in Munich Flughafen -- airport staff members both -- and all the rest is my fertile imagination.

 

Influenced, of course, with due respect and acknowledgement given to the wonderful and surreal cartoonist Gary Larson, whose influence grabs hold of me every once in a while and just won't let me go.

 

You caught me fair and square -- I admit it. Worse, I have no shame at all, for what some may think were 'transgressions' here.

 

I am very pleased with the musings of my fertile mind in captioning this photo. (Thanks Mr. Larson for sharing your puckishness and surrealness, so that I also can express similar ideas through my photo captions from time to time.)

 

john

 

John (Crosley)