'Liberty' in Farsi [Language of Iran]

This Iranian-American wears the word 'liberty' on his cheek, written in

Farsi, the language of Persia (Iran). 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 (photo in web resolution of 72 ppi for those interested)

This is not a young kid. He was around from the start. Had his revolution in the 80s which established an Islamic State. So what does he expect. Have you ever seen an Islamic State with liberty? I have not. And besides if he is so concerned with Iran and his people why is he living in America? Good photo. Could use a little more DOF but at the time no time to think about that.

This is a good portrait. I like the juxtaposition of colours and how his arms frame his face. Meir suggests more depth of field, but I would not want to see anything more than the protester's face in focus. And you have really nailed the focus on his left eye. You have also managed to avoid bad reflections from his glasses.

 

This portrait makes me wonder about the man's past. Was he old enough to have participated in the 1979 revolution? Are we seeing the passion of someone who once believed in that revolution, but has now changed his mind? Or is this a man who always opposed it? Is he perhaps a second-generation Iranian-American or Canadian (the details of your photo are currently vague as to which country he is in) who has never lived in Iran? Or perhaps not even an Iranian at all, but someone who strongly supports the cause of liberty and identifies with the protesting Iranians for that reason?

 

In response to Meir's point about the man's credibility as a protester for liberty in Iran, must we all remain in our country of origin or risk being accused of not caring about those who remain there? Does that mean that we must refrain from publicly supporting the cause of freedom in countries that we do not live in, or have never lived in? On both counts, I think not.

 

Thank you for this colourful and thought-provoking portrait.

 

I didn't interview this man about his now pre-revolutionary past, but might well have, and he certainly would have responded, I'm sure.. He is a professional, very articulate, and very forthright. Also it is an act of great courage to stand there painted with the colors of the Iranian flag with Liberty painted on your left face/cheek at a time of revolt (Revolution is when revolt wins and so far it has not)

 

He has written me, in the name not only of Iranians but of all religions, Christians, Bahai, Jews, and others, -- an entire ecumenical movement -- just as noted in another post by the poster above on another poster, and I tend to believe him.

 

He at times had a certain profound sadness on his face which I also captured, - perhaps the inevitability of knowledge that this revolt will not succeed, maybe not for now at least.

 

They have no arms and no money, and so where and how will they succeed; their leader is also a Ruling Council insider without charisma, though with some guts.

 

Photo taken after sundown and washed out; saturation restored by enhancing contrast and reducing brightness.

 

This is one very nice man I would be pleased to know in any circumstance, wherever. WIthout revealing where he was photographed - no use in giving people seeking retribution a 'head' start if they quell the revolt.

 

John (Crosley)

Second generation "Nothing". And if not Iranian what can he be? Certainly not Hispanic, Palestinian, Native American, Afgan or from the Caucus.. Not Hezbolla! If I met him on my block I'd say Arab. So, very Liberal non-palesitinian Arab or misguided Israeili? No; besides the language is not Semitic. What's left?? :-) I am open to ideas. John you have a way of posting photos that cause discussion and controversy. Bravo. That's why I read your column.

In case I was not clear, this man is Persian, an Iranian born in Iran and in his 40s, if I recall. He lives in the US, but seemed at times profoundly sad about events in his native country -- which apparently is the country of his birth and of his heart and soul.

 

He was a very nice, determined and kind man; I'd recommend him as a friend to anyone, based on our discussions. He (and others) did invite those from other religions to support them, though they are Muslims, because they were for 'peace' and not of the more bellicose branch of Islam that currently controls Iran.

 

The invitation to other religions to attend demonstrations with and for these demonstrators was also to show dedication to 'JUSTICE' which I felt was a laudable goal, particularly in view of the past few days with deliberate killings and wounding and organized terror.

 

Nothing I have said would suggest he is anything but a Persian, full blooded.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

my issue with DOF is not the background but rather the right eye and glasses on the right eye. It is a general rule to "nail" both eyes not just one.

I do not believe in rules.

 

I do and take what feels is 'right' and to hell with rules.

 

Rules are crutches for those who are slow of wit, or cannot capture all the nuances of their work in quick enough time. Why the Rule of Thirds? No reason at all except it looks good . . . . sometimes, but I also have posted several times 'the rule of fourths' and each one looks great. I have split the horizon of a landscape right down the horizontal middle, and it 'made' the photo and did not detract -- and in fact was not even noticed for several years that I had 'broken' a rule, and I was complimented for that.

 

When I practiced law, I used form books, as all lawyers do, but I did infinite variations on form book law and the codes and my own inventions of what I felt would be the best way of doing things. I never lost a case or got a smaller settlement for doing things my way.

 

I trust my instinct.

 

Rules are 'rules of thumb' and helpful if you're caught in a situation where you haven't the foggiest about what to do. I didn't have enough aperture available in dim light to capture both eyes, and frankly didn't want to have both 'in focus + both glasses. I could just bring out a digicam and even the background then would be 'in focus; because of the nature of a small sensor.

 

In one photo, the only thing in focus (one of my great photos, too -- worthy of an ART gallery, not just a photo gallery) is a photo of a murderer where just the tip of his lit cigarette is in focus and NOTHING ELSE, breaking every rule -- but it's an immensely successful photo, taken by a naive photographer (me) who wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Ansel spent years studying candlepower equivalents to learn precise exposure values, so when he saw Moonrise Over Hernandez and his exposure meter was not available, he could zero in on the Moon's exposure, and that is a rule that helped him, and he had many others, but he couldn't bracket and he had to move heavy tripods, and heavy field cameras, and in the process also had to turn film holders just to get a second film sheet loaded, if he wanted a 'do-over' which is quite different from shooting 35 mm digital or film.

 

I shoot 35mm digital now and have shot every kind known to man. I prefer 35 mm for most of it but can do it all.

 

If I were to endorse any 'rule' it would be the 'Sunny 16' rule that was printed on Kodak film boxes to help you get a correct exposure without a meter -- now there's a helpful 'rule'.

 

I hope I didn't step on anybody's toes, but rules are a little out of place in this forum, and those who espouse them are whistling past the graveyard if they think I won't object when someone scolds me for 'violating' a rule of any sort where I didn't make a 'mistake' that I myself felt was a mistake.

 

Best to you, Gerry. Keep on shooting and make your own rules -- learn others' rules, but develop your own and be a free thinker -- your work will look like no other because of it.

 

That's why my work looks different, and is distinguishable, even though I shoot different subjects every time, almost.

 

Thanks for enduring this diatribe.

 

Somebody had to say it, sometime.

 

John (Crosley)

To be clear, the comment about portrait depth of field rules was Meir's, not mine. I tend more towards John's mistrust of photographic rules (or, at least, I do not think we should follow rules unquestioningly). My name has somehow become the title to many posts here.

 

Meir, perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. If I understand the logic of your second post, it means that he is likely to be Iranian because of his facial features and the fact that he has 'liberty' in Farsi written on his face. In any case, we know from John's description of the photo that he is Iranian-American. However, my point was that he has every right to demonstrate in support of liberty in Iran and that his right to do so is not diminished by whatever the story of his life might be, nor by whatever his ethnic background might be. I also disagree that this protest is misguided, whatever the ethnicity or background of the protester.

 

I know Meir's portfolio well and have commented on several of his photos in the past. I'm not aware of any instance in which he has broken the portait "rule" he cited. But nor do I think that his photos are in any way inhibited by rule-following.

I had no doubt about who would read my comment and it only bore your name and was not chastising you.

 

I shoot in all sorts of poor light, often with telephoto zooms with large apertures and must often get the shallowest depth of field.

 

Aiming for too much 'in focus' would derogate such attempts. This man as moving and shouting and talking to me also. I could not have attained this shot if I aimed for a deeper depth of field. I am quite happy just to get one in five, sometimes, in focus, if one in five is 'good enough' because that's all it takes. I don't make movies or slide shows; I take single photos, and just one good one is all it takes and I stretch boundaries, rules and limits to get otherwise unattainable photos, which is maybe why people can identify my work even though generally no two photos are 'alike' in subject.

 

It's because so many 'stretch' the bounds, which I happily do.

 

I just want a photo, not to give up at, say 7:30, pronounce 'there's not enough light' and go home and rest my weary feet.

 

I'll stay even until the wee hours trying for that elusive photo, even one in a hundred and often times I get it.

 

Have no fear, Gerry, I do know who reads these things and I also know you are not rule bound,but felt I had to make myself firmly clear NOW on the subject.

 

You were the bystander.

 

;And a good one to be there, too, because you are not intimidated by such stuff.

 

John (Crosley)

The reason John addressed you on DOF even though you are the bystander is that he cannot address me because if you have not noticed yet, I do not exist. I am the nameless slow witted, without bona fides who just "does not get it" etc, etc I rated this as a 5 you Garry did also "good photograph" not excellent, not poor. My rating was in line with the other raters giving also 5s. There was only one 6/6 6/6. The difference with me is that I rated and explained my rating. No one else did that and John thanked you but not me and you are wonderful for saying "good photo" but I am slow witted. So; this is interesting which is why I am still here. As for "misguided" protester, I directed misguided towards Israels but do not see any of them out of my window so I guess there are not many. I/we do not like to see people hurt except terrorists, it hurts me too but whoever won the election I could care less because they both want to nuke my little apartment. In fact I am glad this guy was occupied with his demonstrating because it took his mind also off of nuking me. This other guy (cannot spell either name) also has a rogue track record. Yes, Vladimir called me out for one eye out of focus and after he made me aware it spoiled the photo in my mind. and not because it is a rule but because it looks bad. Perhaps next time I will write תמונה טוב אבל לא מצוין you garry can write in Farsi and we will not disagree :-) When John stops calling me names such as slow witted and those like you do not attack my critique then I will get bored and stop coming back. Well Sela (Israeli) won his match so I am this moment happy and proud.--- bye. :-)

Well, I didn't realize I was stepping into you guys' ongoing mutual admiration critique fest :) But I must say it has been fun. I had to resort to machine translation of your Hebrew, by the way, Meir, but I will reply in Hebrew, not Farsi: חירות עבור צלמים

 

 

John and I have fun (I think he does) and you are welcome. But from where the guy originated; DOF and ratings are not important beyond chat and I am trying to swear off, sort of like "go on the wagon" so I am taking down before I am scolded. I am impressed that you have Hebrew Font. But I do not understand. Something to to do with "pro choice"?. Is this what the demonstration is about? I'll work on it or wait for John's translation :-)

It was supposed to be "liberty for photographers!" But I guess I need to find a different online translation site. Or perhaps you can help?

I don't leave comments to Mr. Samel for two basic reasons besides his failure to acknowledge and apologize for past etiquette transgressions by saying essentially he would be less 'rude' or whatever was the exact word -- I no longer recall.

 

Here are the two major problems:

 

1. He made posts which my software detected were backdated (same with e-mails) then refused to acknowledge that. These things are not possible to do with modern day computers. He was unaware of my ability to detect such things, and tried to hide his transgressions in backdating posts after changing them -- putting him always in a better light since he had learned a way to write with 'forersight' -- simply by editing his posts as events or opinions changed;.

 

2. He tried to and often did succeed either in removing posts he made, thus orphaning responses I made in responsse, and that both broke the narrative nature of my comments and made my responses to his look somewhat idiotic.

 

That was foul nature which I could not take, and after warning and not getting a direct, straightforward apology (and he continues to remove his posts from time to time or parts of them) to respond to his posts here now is useless. So, if he and I have something to discuss, he has my e-mail address, and I can assure you, he does use it, (several times in the last several days in fact) and if this seems more withering in tone, I assure my e-mails replies are very polite -- even at times congratulatory, just as he is sometimes quite polite in his e-mails to me.

 

At present though, there have even been recent hints of his 'removing' posts or parts of them, and so long as that continues, there will be no direct responses and if there is a needful explanation of a point it will probably appear but in another context, even if addressed to my audience or another audience member so there is no risk of it becoming an 'orphaned response' I do care about the narrative nature of these critiques and one bad actor can ruin the whole narrative nature of it all.

 

I hope this is helpful to you Gerry.

 

You are always welcome here.

 

Meir is always welcome to e-mail directly where his behavior is decidedly now much more polite than formerly and we have a 'side' colloquy, which is somewhat personal -- here he behaves somewhat grumpily, but less so when he write me directly (and the same for me).

 

John (Crosley)

"Liberty for photographers" = חירות בשביל צלמים

the best translation I could come up with yours was the smichut: "liberty of pregnacy of photographers". So I thought 'pro choice" rally :-) ----it is true that John and I do pretty well on email but over there the discussion is more about personal things and not much about photography. In photography we are as far apart as two people can be but on basic feelings -what hurts; what touches, etc,we are not too much different.

Thanks for the translation, Meir. And for the explanation, John. You two certainly have a complex relationship and I look forward to sharing some threads with you in the future.

I'm glad you were not chased off.

 

You seem like a sort who can handle complexity, and also a man who can handle his own ideas.

 

You'll feel right at home here.

 

Welcome again,.

 

John (Crosley)

thanks for this very interesting photo,apart from all aspects,once upon a time people of iran screemed for freedom but all were wrong ,with religion interfering politics there will never be freedom .

compliments to all contibuters to this photo.

siamak

I know little of Iran except its leaders currently call the USA the GREAT SATAN but its people I have met have been most wonderful to me and those others I know, and my relationships with Iranian people go back to the time of the fall of the Shah when the first wave of emigres came to the US and I worked with them on their legal problems, helping integrate many into US society.

 

Now, things are similar there, but there is a vibrant US Iranian culture here, but things there seem not to have improved much with the nation suggesting very bad relations for the US and promises to explode Israel off the map.

 

I stand for peace, and no killing, especially over religious matters -- religion too often means 'my religion and to heck with you, and I'll kill you if you don't practice my religion - that's the general tenor throughout recorded history.

 

I disagree with that, and now my country also disagrees with that, after a brief flirtation with that again under Bush II. (talk of Crusade into Iraq).

 

Well, I am pleased to have met the peace lovers who wish to have friendly relations not only with the USA but also others with other religious backgrounds, as some have told me.

 

It heartens me greatly, and I am not so pessimistic as you, and remember well the stored raw power of youth who predominate in Persian society today, like water behind a dam.

 

Ready to burst.

 

See what I mean.

 

If not this time, who knows?

 

I do not support Mousavi, or anyone else in a foreign election, but only pursue the cause of peace and good will.

 

And I hope good photography.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

re; Siamak. The demonstrators do not know this. I expect that this man has not a clue.