Ray (et ux)

This is Ray, a camera shopper, in a very well known camera store, with

his wife, shopping for a camera. In legal Latin, often found on old

deeds, wives were known as 'ux' (meaning wife), and if a married man

bought a parcel of land, the deed carried his name plus the words 'et ux'

indicating 'and wife', but without his wife's name, a story I told to this

wonderful man and his wife -- both of whose names I have. They were

MOST cooperative, interesting and lots of fun. Ray is a member, he

says, of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association which sponsors the

Golden Globes - a pity since I don't photograph celebrities. 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 go shopping (or looking) for cameras, get stopped by shoppers and this what I come away with.

It's a wonderful life, if you have a camera and know how to use it.

;~)

John (Crosley)

Her name is Ileana, a very pretty name, and not common in the USA.

Both unusual and pretty, and a pretty soul to go with it (and no flattery either, it's just the truth - it's too hard to keep track of flattering lies, so I don't go there.)

John (Crosley)

Captivated by the POV of this photo and also, quite bothered by the lack of proper presentation SUCH photo certainly deserves.

It's life in there, dear John. A double-faced ( :-)) shot with great photographic nerve and potentials if, not that awful, dully gray, careless, final finishing of it. It's a shame to present such faces in such unfavorable style. After all - how many chances do we have to grasp the moment as you did, pal. That wide angle makes a real magic in there. That's the path the masters are walking upon. To hear them ( the people in the photos ) talking… To smell their breath…To share the space with them of such incredible intimacy, and yet…

You have published your very own photo like if you have no bloody idea what this photo does really represent.

Quite uncomfortable is to surf your collection John, where in the ocean of total mediocrity are hidden here and there - the real nice pieces of photography.

I took the liberty to present your photo with a bit more 'photographic' flavor than it is originally presented ( I hope you won't get offended again, mate ). Just remember: I'm dealing NOT with the original material, but with posted ( limited) version of it.

Also: I did it because (IMHO) the photo really deserves an attention.

It could very easily be: THE PHOTO.

I disagree with the grittiness as you've presented it; the guy is not a used car dealer; he's a respected journalist.

But I do get the point, and on rework would have worked it up with more contrast. I often do such things, even if I don't repost them.

I thank you for the good faith effort.

Of course there is an 'ocean of mediocrity (as viewed by you), and some of those things you view as 'mediocre' others may find 'genius' in, but in some I also find 'mediocre', as some were posted to 'document a day' or some such, or a 'journey' or in folders marked 'secondary', etc.,

I am not 'ratings or view driven' and genuinely seek good faith critiques, not of who I am, but of my photography.

(Remember, Cartier-Bresson prided himself on being a 'master of grays' and of never over-emphasizing style such as excessive contrast, over content.

His point was that a good photo with or without harsh treatment will stand out on its own, no matter what.

He chose 'grays' and 'content' over 'style' of photofinishing, which was an entirely personal choice.

I do have more gritty subjects I present more as you have illustrated: See photo of man with pin stuck through his lower lip, for instance, man in background with tattoo on arm.

As you can see, I am not nearly so thin skinned as you might have expected about good faith critiques of my photography, but only about what I see as inappropriate comments about me . . . . . so long as the critiques come from a well-meaning place (and appear, I hope, to be informed, whether right or wrong) that is part of the critique process.

If it gets 'personal', then that crosses the line, and I think now you see the difference.

Whether from a 72 dpi version reposted as 72 dpi as here, the chances you made will not be different from reworking a 12 megapixel version to 12 megapixels - mostly they will be the same assuming little oriinal manipulation on my part -- which is how his was barely)worked up.

I think you have posted a valid version - just a little too 'harsh' for my taste, given the nature of these people, but I will chew on it for a while.

I do not have a sour viewpoint about people who attempt to offer in good faith to share their photographic wisdom and certainly am not too 'high and mighty' to learn from anyone.

You have given me something to chew on.

Thank you.

John (Crosley)

I take cameras everywhere.

This is in a (famous) camera store, looking at lenses and cameras.

Just a few moments, and maybe a friendship (or two) made.

Today, I took two or three as good or even better photos, entirely different,in just 30 minutes only blocks from there, after a quick meal (even as I ate, actually, even while sitting with my Brazilian BBQ and some Jewish pensioner friends. (I'm not Jewish, some friends are Jewish, some Islamic, and I abhor how some Muslims speak about Jews and Israel, without having strong feelings for Israel, but defending their right to exist).

I spend so little time on post processing because I'm literally overwhelmed by good stuff almost daily when shoot (as much as I can) that I really need a staff of Photoshoppers to spend time while I shoot exclusively, but, alas, that would cost money!

When in Ukraine I shoot during daytime and spend most night just downloading (which takes hours - often half the night) then working up a select few . . . and missing many.

I think could sign up for another membership and do well just on the photos I don't post (including one world class photo I'm sitting on - an all time best, worthy of a book cover for Taschen or some such, but it won't appear here or anywhere else, for that matter, for a decade or longer, maybe posthumously.

Go figure.

Also this is not the only place I post.

(I'm prolific).

Not all is 'oceans of mediocrity', even by your very stringent standard.

I quit photo aspirations when I met a French guy ('Henry' I was introduced -- Henri Cartier-Bresson, a friend of a friend at AP who worked in China's fall..

I saw the French guy's work on display at an opening San Francisco's De Young Museum and at once gave up all hope of being 'great' at photography as once I had wished (even though I had a job as an AP photographer waiting for me.)

I turned to writing at their request, temporarily they said, and never tried to come back, though just a word from me and I would have been a 'staff photographer' again.

How was I to know the French guy Henry was one of the top ten artists of the 20th Century, and I was comparing my work to his?

I never had heard of him before!

But instantly I but recognized the genius in his work, and was at once elated (at his mastery) and discouraged (at my lack thereof) (see early b&w work posted here).

Oh, and a book of mine was published today (privately), and I took a copy to a friend at that camera store, and I have learned the 'famous' owner, came down or 'out'to 'look me over' without revealing who he was, with an eye toward selling that book. (He doesn't deal with the public, and I was unware he waa also browsing my photos on the Internet. How would I know? He's got five or six such stores to run and is a busy, busy guy, and who am I anyway, that he should leave his office to look at me and my book (and I am unaware of his presence?)

Life's strange.

I'm used to asking for appoinments to be evaluated or having work 'looked at'.

Quelle surprise!

Life really is strange.

I think now i know why music conuctors live long, healthy lives.

And so many GREAT photographers of 'street' and otherwise highly original died in quite old age in the last five years - many in their '90s. Levitt, Cartier-Bresson, Ronis, Newton (car accident), Avedon . . . . . they all were great artists who had life by the shorthairs.

Why let the grim reaper stop by while you're creating great stuff and have such great satisfaction?

That's my considerd view now that I'm shooting and creating.

John (Crosley)