'Why Is News Always Bad?' (B&W ed.)

Republicans and fundamentalist religionists often ask 'why can't the

newspapers only publish 'good news?' This man seems to be reacting

to 'bad news' at a vending machine on 'The Chronicle', a long-time San

Francisco newspaper. 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

Great work, John.

I haven't been on the site much lately, but I'm glad you have.

--Lannie

I was off this summer, for terrible sickness, not life threatning mostly but bedridden (stuck kidney stone putting me in bed mostly for 3-4 months) and am only now back on my feet.

This one is actually 'old' and resurrected into B&W, but it was always a 'goodie' taken, I think from my SF one day and night folder.

I always meant it should be in my B&W folder, as it was so strong, and waited until today to do so.

I really miss you, Lannie.

You are always welcome with me (and here or anywhere I am).

john

John (Crosley)

Not to detract from the merit of the photo John but I am sure that you do not know what R and R-F people "often ask" -in fact it is silly to say so; sure that your comment is not about what is really on this man's mind (but you did say "seems" -good for you); sure that the commentary, rather is intended to spice up the photo; sure it (not the photo) reflects which side of "middle" the photographer resides. We have not been in touch on the forum lately but now, here I am again to look at your fine photography and entertain you with my comments as you entertain me with yours. :-) A pretty good range of zones but the shirt washed out around the collar area. I have these very same problems especially with digital. It is a nightmare for me. I don't have "superior ...,knowlege" to share or submit. Glad you enjoyed Lenswork. Landrum, I intend to visit your site and read what you have written and have seen your latest post.

It has been suggested in a comment above, (which may be removed) that somehow I just don't know what I write about.

The fact is I do.

I wrote for Associated Press in my early '20s, then a prominent business magazine as writer/editor at four times the salary, then turned down an editorship of Business Week to attend law school.

The truth, knowing, recognizing and exposing oneself to 'facts', and recognizing what was 'fact' and what was internalized opinion, was very important in all of that work, however long ago.

It has been suggested, I haven't much of a clue what 'Republicans' and Religious Fundamentalists wish.

The fact is that I am an incessant reader, and I speak and communicate in life with all types and kinds of people from all nations, on a regular basis and have even from youth, where my home was a sort of United Nations, with Africans, Indians (from Asia), American Indians, South Americans, Europeans (some) and people from countries all over the world entering to do academic business with one of my parents with me observing and sometimes participating.

My very first job was typing a graduate dissertation (at age 12).

In my work as a journalist if I invented, fabricated or slanted, I would immediately have been fired, and I knew that, but it proved no problem for me. I rose to the top of the Associated Press, then the world's largest news organization and the general manager said he would promote me to become eventual general manager (but he was so cheap I quit instead).

So when I write what Republicans and Religious Fundamentalists 'see', 'wish for' or 'hope for', I am not writing certainly for all of them, but some of the more extreme of them, who decry the 'negativeness they see that pervades 'news'.

There is a movement afoot, which I have read much about in the past 20-30 years and hence my base knowledge, to create 'happy news' to counter what is seen as 'negative news' from the 'mass media' especially newspapers but more particularly television, especially since the advent of the 24-hour news cycle.

And although I think news is 'news' because it is unusual and many 'happy events' at least in my home USA are the order of the day, I also decry the unhappiness portrayed by accidentally leaving on a 24-hour news channel or leaving a TV on all night to hear incessant newscasts and 'news interruptions' portraying fires in Southern California, hurricanes in the South, tornadoes in the Midwest or a kidnapping anywhere.

God save us from Nancy Grace, the self-styled 'inquisitor' armed with a television camera, a microphone and an audience of curious teary-eyed TV viewers who takes her former prosecutorial skills onto television and publicly (before anything has really been determined) begins to dissect possible scandalous and horrific crimes, destroying lives along the way, as she purportedly 'seeks the truth'.

God help us from anyone like her entering our lives, as she is just a meddlesome bitch who is out for headlines, ratings and self-aggrandizement, in my opinion and in my opinion the apotheosis of all that is wrong with television today in America. She's the National Enquirer of modern day TV.

She may be genuinely caring, too, which makes it all the more sad.

She is like a Howard Beale from 'Broadcast News', whom playwright/cinematographer Paddy Cheyevsky warned us about and who created the famous phrase 'I'm Mad As Hell and I''m Not Going to Take it Anymore' cried from every window.

She is the embodiment in modern times of what Cheyevsky predicted would be the unhappy result of over commercialization of our news media.

And if she were male, I'd call her a bastard of some other non-sexist term, but it is not her 'sex' that is being blasted here, but her (to me) lack of journalistic (or other) ethics or even just 'common decency'. In fact I ask her' do you have any decency, Madame?'

Speculation and the incessant, 24-hour news cycle with the same interview with distraught parents running over and over again, each new 'revelation' or clue being chewed over in detail in the search for a missing kid gets blown out of proportion, while Iran goes about running its nuclear centrifuges, preparing to blow my critic's nation to smithereens.

In reality, which is 'more important?

It is said 'all news just like all politics is local'. If so, then the kidnapping of course and to hell with the existence of the tiny nation of Israel -- and some, many fell that way. I don't, though I am not a proponent of Israel either. I do defend its right to exist, and know if they had not been attacked and bombed incessantly, they would have continued good relations with their Arab neighbors and no walls.

That's 'bad news' for my critic, and many Republicans who only want 'happy news' and especially certain Religious Fundamentalist (Christians) (I cannot speak for other groups of fundamentalists and perhaps should have noted that, and do note that now). (I do note that the head of my critic's nation was assassinated by a 'religious fundamentalist of his own religion,if I understand his religion correctly).

'Happy talk' is what they such people I write of want, and they are not entirely 'wrong' just misguided. But when they seek to launch 'happy news' broadcasts or newspapers, they promptly fail. 'Happy news' does not sell or sell advertising.

News in a prosperous country naturally will deal with the 'wrong' or unhappy things and the out-of-the-ordinary, especially crimes and other sensational things, especially on television - because such things easily are depicted - a primary fault of television and one reason I seldom watch it and get most of my 'news'; from reading and also from certain highly-regarded radio sources.

Plus you can do other things such as working on photographs while listening to radio, but not while watching television . . . . unless it's a game show where there are bells going off like slot machine jackpots to alert you when something 'important' is happening on television.

The trouble is to get you attention, television news too often sends false signals of (1) what is 'important; and (2) how often it is important, confusing events with importance.

A child missing is tear-jerking and awful and to be bemoaned.

It is high drama and full of human interest.

It also is an everyday occurrence.

Regrettably. (no one defends such things, only the extreme attention such things get, and I used to write such stories too).

It threatens a household, even a neighborhood or a city.

It is good drama.

It does not threaten an entire nation as my critic's neighbors seem to be doing with their nuclear material centrifuges secretly installed at Qom, Iran under a possibly nuclear strike proof mountain as they seem to be headed to making nuclear bombs which their government head has said are to blow Israel off the face of the earth.

They'd kill my critic.

He thinks I don't know what Republicans think or religious fundamentalists, and for ''other religions' than Christianity with regard to 'happy news' I agree.

In fact, the fundamentalists I speak to in the Arab/Muslim world talk incessantly and vitriolically about annihilating him and his country - in either order to them would be just fine.

Not all of them speak suchly, but a rather large number, especially outside the US, but also (if they speak freely) inside the US too.

I encourage people to speak their minds around me, so I can know the 'truth' rather than false appearances.

I am astounded by anti-Jewish - anti-Semitic hatred directed to my critic's people and now homeland (him as a representative of the people he is affiliated with).

And heartsick, for I have walked the grounds of Dachau, out Dachauerstrasse, in Munch, near the Toem super center, (formerly a drive-in movie theater) a konzentration kamp (concentration camp) where hundreds of thousands or more of his relatives and forebears were murdered -- slaughtered' -- in the great Holocaust that Ahmadinezhad and others deny or would say is enhanced in the retelling.

B.S.

I've been there.

I've seen.

General Eisenhower in World War II when he found about the concentration camps ordered all Press and Congress (as many as could) to view the camps and their inmates as they were being released and repatriated before the camps were closed forever, just so forestall the 'Holocaust' deniers he accurately predicted would emerge (and emerge they have.)

It's a crime in much of Europe to deny the Holocaust but a cause for celebration in much of the Arab world where Jews are hated with extreme vitriol, notwithstanding that Jews lived continuously in the 'Holy Land' (alongside Arabs (later Muslims) and Christians, since the time of Christ.

My critic does not know just how much I do accomplish my homework before I write anything and how much knowledge I do have.

Yes, Arab Fundamentalists do not wish for 'happy news' like Christian Fundamentalists of the far right, because they want to kill my critic and annihilate his country - to blow it to 'kingdom come'.

For them that would be 'happy news'.

I submit that I DO know what those two groups do know (I was a long-time registered Republican (I am not saying a 'believer though ;~)))) ),and have known, reported on,read bout and spoken with an extraordinary number of Christian religious fundamentalists.

I submit I DO know of what I write.

In addition, I did NOT have the foggiest notion what the man in front of the news rack is thinking or even if he knows there is a news rack there.

That's why I wrote the word 'seems'.

No other word would be appropriate to describe the juxtaposition the photo appears to create, I felt.

(for the record - I am sensitive when 'challenged' over my knowledge of 'facts' I write, and will generally respond. If I am 'wrong' I will try to admit, but if not, beware when challenging.).

I do accept the compliments otherwise offered above, and with grace not (WITH NANCY GRACE, however, as she is unwelcome even on any TV set I happen to be near and available to me).

I am aware of things being 'washed out' and this photo was 'worked up' before the 'shadow/highlight' filter with 'advanced' settings' was available in Photoshop CS4 or earlier edition (PS Elements has the same filter but without Advanced Settings, which makes if much less suitable).

Moreover, the original file or a 'saved file' in 'original' is not available to work on now, so I worked up a secondary file and may replace this workup later . . . .so this rendition may have technical issues that will 'go away' when I have time to replace it with something that's worked up better.

As my famous mentor taught me, however, it's not fuzziness, out-of-focus, subject movement or even photographer fame which makes a good or great photo, it's THE PHOTO.

Silly.

It either IS or IS NOT a good photo, though those various things are elements that go into making some photos 'great' whereas other photos hardly suffer for having numerous things that some call 'defects'.

Since he was/is a 'master printer' to the photographic elite, if he printed such a photo, it would have been printed perfectly, which is why so many luminaries took/take their work to him in the first place.

But he also was a 'curator' who knew 'art' and 'photography' first to the doctoral level at the Sorbonne, and later among famous artists as a master and often a 'buddy' too.

He's very, very influential and well-known, I am finding - full of charm and humanity (in every way).

Special thanks to him.

(Write me if you are interested in his identity, as I don't want Google.com picking up every reference to by me of him and spoiling his Google.com references with referrals to my 'comments' pages . . . as I get quite a few hits . . . and my pages can appear prominently on his own Google.com listings --(which are pretty large . . . much larger than mine.

John (Crosley)

This was taken a while ago, and also posted a while ago. I don't recall ever requesting critiques; it was for one of my folders - a day and evening in San Francisco (or some such).

Not having the original file nearby but wanting for a long time to desaturate it, I took the 'large' version from Photo.net and desaturated it using the only image editor I had, Photoshop Elements 7 (I have tonight just re-installed Photoshop CS4 and Elements 8),and Elements is very poor both from raw and from JPEG for desaturating.

If you are intent on desaturating and doing a professional job,I cannot recommend Photoshop Elements at all, though it will do a reasonable job if you are unaware of how to do it and want the job 'automated' - in which case it does a better than adequate job. But it lacks a 'manual' approach which in semi-skilled hands can turn an 'ordinary' color photo into an extraordinary black and white photo, especially through the use of various color channels in the desaturation (or raw editing) process, both of which Elements lacks.

In addition, Elements 7 (at least) lacks 'Advanced settings on 'Shadow/Highlight' filter, which are (in my opinion) worth their weight in gold, in part because they are entirely replicable, as opposed to 'curves' which are intuitive and entirely difficult to replicate (if you can figure out how to do that at all).

Moreover, if you discard all the color data (as Photoshop does when you take and desaturate in RAW a color capture), then the 'color correction' command in 'Advanced section' of 'Shadow'/Highlight filter' changes into a mid-tone contrast slider - a huge advantage which is lacking when one adjusts color captures - it's only for B&W captures and only if you have changed mode from RGB to grayscale and discarded color information, which you do in the process of changing modes.

Now, this photo, taken and desaturated from a 72 dpi rendering, lacks some finesse of the original 6 megapixel JPEG, but 'IT's THE PHOTO, STUPID' as I recall thinking after being mentored.

Now my mentor was more stickler than my 'critic from Israel here' for reproduction values' as a master printer, but he was first and foremost an artist/art critic/curator and he saw the value of 'THE PHOTO' first and reproduction was something to enhance a worthy photo, not to 'create' something out of nothing of something lesser.

I continue to post photos I think are intellectually superior and even have some great reproduction values, but this one has a 'great story' and it is universal, which is the hallmark of some of my more popular captures, and I will be happy to be known for those, and if I post some of those, I feel freedom to post whatever else I take and want to show, even if they get 10 to 50 'views' in a week, and 1 or 2 critiques. Notice I almost never take anything down except where it's deficient and I didn't know it, or there is a site error, say the site is down during critique, and I might withdraw then and repost later.

I don't like to lose the remarks of my wonderful critiques who have helped guide me to becoming if not a 'better photographer' in creating my absolute best work, as I can only equal but probably not exceed what I did in my 20s, but I can get capture after capture after capture on a Compact Flash card, and the good ones are coming more and more and more frequently. So, instead of one per 100 or 200 for acceptable ones, they're coming every 20 to 50 and sometimes more frequently. Wow!

I was ashamed when my curator/critique suggested 'I shoot too much'; and to scale it back, (he was not a 'street shooter and didn't understand the ethos and manner of 'street' shooting, which was alien to him), but if he looked at my captures now, I think he'd be surprised at how often acceptable to good to even very good captures now are coming. I'm taking also more time with the good stuff and less time shooting just to 'flex my equipment and practice' as I once did which resulted in photos that were largely of historical value but essentially worthless as art.

Now, everything I shoot is intended to be an attempt at something acceptable, and not 'flexing my equipment' or 'for practice', as I'm getting at one with my equipment.

In fact, giong up an elevator tonight I was to get off at the fifth floor. At the fourth floor in passing the man and his wife next to me asked what I shot and how.

I said "I'll show you.' The elevator door opened at the fifth floor, I didn't get out and it closed as I set my camera settings, began to frame and shot five frames (all different) of the man and his wife on our way two floors up, and showed them to them as they exited (They were very good!)

Then I pushed the button and rode down.

They were convinced about how, but unconvinced when I told them I was an 'amateur'.

It's that simple.

I am an amateur, because to date I have not been selling or trying to sell.

I hope I'm getting good, but I can spend time not whoring trying to make a buck and using 'setups' for sure shots, and sure fire winners that look a lot alike but are 'pleasers for customers' and instead can take a lot of shots in search of just one or two really great ones.

And that's what I do.

One photographer (a pro and a very good one) looked at my work and said 'You may be the only photographer of your talent who appears totally untouched by commercialism in your shooting; it's clear you are shooting for yourself and honestly rather than trying to please anybody (and from him that was great flattery - honest too, I judge, and maybe a little envious.)

I don't know how long I can keep this up without trying to sell, but it's the only way for now.

It's my way.

Or the highway.

In my shooting.

I wouldn't know how to act if an 'art director' were looking over my shoulder saying 'shoot this this way and that that way and 'my client' wants this look and that to look 'that way'.

Shudder!

I just shoot what I see, whenever, wherever.

And get some wonderful shots amid the drek, and sometimes what I think is 'drek' turns to have great artistic value, I have learned, and so I throw nothing away (but my nature shots, and some of those were stolen and their backups too - my bird photos.)

Alas!

From the 'king of backups'.

Just not that 'personal stuff' which I never posted. And I was going to try to give Hung Ton a run for his money, too, with two, count 'em two, 200-400 f 4 zooms a 70-400 VR zoom, some super teles, etc., (and they were stolen).

I'm replacing what I can slowly, a year too late (I got screwed, but I won't write of it here).

Best to you Aivar.

Pleasing you is an important part of my life, whether you knew that or not (and those like you - and capable critics like Ruud Albers, who not only is one of the most viewed photographers here, but also one of the most able critics in ability to 'spot' a good one (as you).

Thanks.

John (Crosley)