'The Girl In The Window' (Compare and Contrast)

'The Girl in the Window' was taken in an instant in an effort to 'compare

and contrast' her upraised arms with those of the person holding the

newspaper, also upraised, as well as many other attributes of these two

subjects. How many points of agreement and disagreement (contrasts)

between these two subjects, can you identify, in this study in 'mirroring'

and 'contrasts'? 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 photographic knowledge

to help improve my photography. (Girl is left intentionally obscured; no

effort was made to 'clarify' her image - photographer's choice) Thanks!

Enjoy! John

This is a remarkably complex photo - just how complex may be revealed when (and if) there are comments.

For me, this is one of the best of my last year or so; subtle, but very complex,and dependant NOT on the clarity of the girl in the window, but on her obscurness, if that makes sense.

I invite analysis - maybe I'm right or maybe not. I'd like to read your view.

Sometimes I'm dead wrong, and need to be told that.

John (Crosley)

Hello John,

This is an interesting and complex shot that needs to be examined on more than one level.

1. Looking at the window seems to suggest many worlds - worlds behind the glass and some reflected in the glass. I am often not a fan of reflections in windows, but in this, for the most part, I really like it.

2. The girl herself is both a plus and a minus for me. The girl's posture and expression are excellent. She really has a big part to play in this picture and does it very well. However, I just wish the light didn't slice into her eye and nose. However, there isn't really much you can do about that. You take the reflection or you the leave the shot!

3. I really like the mystery of the person behind the newspaper. Were you perhaps a little inspired by Robert Frank's picture of the musician holding the tuba (from the Americans)? After recently buying that book, I've been on the lookout for as many Frank-inspired scenes as I can find!

4. The rest of the composition does seem to suggest a greater world than what we see in the picture and that is definitely a plus.

5. Lastly, maybe I would like to see the shot darkened slightly and the contrast upped a little. This, however, might just be difference in monitor calibration.

Overall, I think that this is one of the best shots of yours that I have seen. This is proper street photography; it suggests more than you see in the image.

To my mind, it is definitely worth more than the ratings in this case. It is, however, an interesting phenomenon on PN that the shots of mine that I think are my most interesting always score less than the ones that I think are more mundane!

All the best,

Rob

Yours is the first critique of this photo I've received - maybe those who were critical were put off by my comment, above, this was about as good as it gets for me or it's the 'height of my shooting' to be more precise.

This is indeed a complex shot, and I am faced with analyzing it myself and with you or waiting for others to offer their opinions, however, this works for me on so many levels I can hardly imagine anyone 'covering the waterfront' on this one.

No, I don't think I have seen Frank's 'tuba player' but might have; I have had exposure to so many photos in my lifetime and am a sponge for soaking up styles and scenes, and seldom forget a photo,so if I had seen it and could see it this moment I probably could tell you. I am not a big follower of Frank - a greater fan of Cartier-Bresson, for whatever reason -- perhaps because of Cartier-Bresson's great use of style and design (composition or as he termed it, geometry) in his photos, as well as their intellectual nature.

Now, not all my photos are so 'in my head' as some of Cartier-Bresson's but a few are.

This is one of them.

You correctly note the contrast and brightness. The problem with contrast on the girls' face is that it tends to bring out reflection and unevenness in the glass (did you know glass is liquid over decades or centuries and flows slightly downward, bulging at the bottom after a century or so?) It has no crystalline structure an this glass here was installed in the '40s. Any attempt at doing anything to the girl's face results in awfulness to the face because of some property of the glass (or her face pushed up against the glass.

Oh, and I also have a nearly identical shot with a guy walking, right background, two arms both outstretched in front! I thought of posting that, but not 'simple' enough for my 'design' taste', but certainly thought-provoking as it's a three-way repetition with arms.

I was talking with an older Jewish pensioner with whose group I sometimes kibitz at this place (not kibbutz, bit kibitz), and he was with a woman, who is behind the newspaper avoiding being photographed by upraising the newspaper.

But I had spied the girl peering down from standing atop a chair or table on the other side of the wall/window and when the newspaper woman's arms went up and I spied the girl's arms go up and cross at the top, I about jumped out of my skin in an attempt to frame and fire rapidly. Moments like that are rare enough that to miss one like this would be tragic.

Consider this: The woman s obscured behind a newspaper which has quite clear and contrasty type.

The girl is not obscured (well we can see her face at least, her arms are upraised but the window has weird reflections and there is mottling.

Both females are obscured in their own way.

Further, newspaper woman has her arms slanted so if one extends those lines upward, a triangle is formed with the newspaper bottom being a triangle line.

The girl's arms also are slanted and do join to form a triangle, and the window frame can be seen as a triangle 'base'.

Further, look at the window and how the slanted (right) arm of the girl cuts it nearly in two. A rectangle nearly bisected by a straight line becomes two triangle. A triangle to my way of thinking is the most dynamic of all geometric figures (though the most stable structurally).

Now, consider the white line beneath the window and up from the doorway - it also defines the 'corner' of a triangle, as does the newspaper woman''s arms and arm line extensions, and the 'point' of the window/white line triangle nearly touches the top of the triangle formed by the woman';s two arms (and her newspaper) - which are all one entity for this photo.

Consider contrasts:

Old woman, young girl.

White woman, black girl.

Woman, obscured face, no expression, girl with some obscureness but clear expression and curious, wistful look - we see more of what the girl is 'about' than the woman reading the newspaper.

The woman is serious, being an adult; the child is curious and playful, being a child.

and so on.

This is so far much more than any simple analysis can address, and then it's not just one thing, it's all there within the four frame lines. I could go on, but why?

I do consider this one of the most artful photos I've taken in a while, precisely because it engages and if one closely observes, it is rich in detail AND design with numerous wonderful design and compositional elements and a 'story' to boot.

How much better can life be.,

(and I had to hold that all in while I waited for the first critique!!!)

If I could take 100 such photos (perhaps I have scattered throughout my now more than 1,300, I'd be a happy man.

Well, see me smile!

Thanks so much for an insightful analysis and the good spirit in which it is offered (now, Rob, I can see if you left a rate and who else might have).

john

John (Crosley)

ftn. Oh,and the fluorescent ceiling lamp reflections are parallel lines, like bars, only horizontal and serve to 'contain' the girl's image behind the glass!!!

;~))

Hi John.

I didn't leave a rating actually. I rarely do these days as, to be honest, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to do it fairly. I recognise that it is unrealistic to offer a numerical comparison between let's say your picture here and one of the big landscapes of Ian Cameron or Michael Anderson. This is a picture that you need to 'read' and contemplate, rather than being instantly striking like a big landscape would be.

I have also become rather disillusioned with ratings after seeing pictures that I would have thrown in the bin receive high marks because the poster gives everyone else high marks. I don't do that, and nor will I.

These days, I almost always just leave a comment. I also try very hard to make the comment a proper critique or analysis of the picture.

All the best,

Rob

that regardless of what you write I seldom if ever look at ratings before I read and respond fully to a member's critique or missive posted here . . . which keeps me from being 'bought off' consciously or subconsciously. Also, from the start when I heard tales of 'mate-rating' which were rife when the ratings system was not semi-anonymous, I vowed NEVER to be caught in a mate-rating scheme.

I do not 'solicit' ratings, just let you know that if you left one, I seldom see a rating before I reply to a comment - keeps my writing honest.

I long have invited one and all to rate (in good faith) including one member reviled by many for his 'cold splashes of water' as one member wrote about his much lower rates - but for me instead of bristling as other members did to receive his often very low rates,since the wee consistent and honest, I welcomed his ratings as 'honest' and 'informed' even if one man's opinion.

And, in the process of inviting ratings, for the most part I disabled my own tendency to want to rate - by reserving that ability just for those photos I wanted in my 'highest-rated' folder.

So I have probably a history of less than one thousand total ratings given - - assuredly far,far less in my five and a fraction years here. No one can truly say I 'mate rate' if they know the facts, as I seldom rate at all.

But there are times when I want a photo shown as a reflection of a photographer's high skill -- something that's got great composition and maybe colors or even a story, in a genre that I like, and then I will rate it just to get it in my most-viewed folder as a reflection of one part of my tastes (which are varied, as you may suspect).

I agree with you on your critique of the ratings system but if often works in the aggregate better than whatever's in second place.

If I get a photo that gets huge views, it probably is a 'viewer magnet' which some of my photos are.

Other photos, often more complex, as not 'viewer magnets', but often also get ., and (1) either few rates or '(2 lower rates, or (3) both. If all those flag and there are almost no comments, that photo is probably a 'loser' for viewer appeal no matter how much I may like it.

There is valuable information to learn if only a few people click on a photo, or none at all. It is the signpost of viewer interest (within the Photo.net cohort,of course).

An analysis of the many photos posted for critique over time and their ratings shows a strong correlation between higher ratings and 'view-worthiness' as judged by actual 'attendance' (clicks now).

Seldom does a photo get high 'clicks' and not also high rates, though there are some great exceptions.

(My highest rated photo, a color version of 'Peek-a-Boob' showing a man looking down a bikini-clad woman's very large and mostly exposed bosom, is perhaps the 'humor' and 'sexual' exception to that general rule.

There are others, too, but they are seldom,and it can be a treat to spot a photo that got lower rates but browsers continually click on, or that get 'click-throughs' if some-one posts them elsewhere on the web of posts a link to the photo in a blog or elsewhere.

So, for me ratings do fulfill a purpose-- the same as that of the 'test market' or the audience that rates a 'test' speech given by a politician or other person or even a product pitch or commercial (reclamen), so I try not to complain about the process.

So, I revel in ratings - but much as I like high ratings, (1) the number of rates gives me information about the ability of a photo to motivate the viewers (here) to express themselves with a rating and might be called an indicator of 'strong feelings mostly expressed as 'pro' rather than 'con'. (2) the sheer average (or median) of the ratings also gives me important information in a correlative way.

But in the end, it's 'viewers' who will click' on a photo and ultimately the size and tenor of the comment thread that I value the most right now, as a good comment is golden, and that is to say yours are golden.

Often a good or great comment will teach me about photography and even the worthiness of what I've done or the value of a particular technique or skill.

That is what yours have done.

My best to you,

Remember, good critiques (as yours) are golden and treasured here, both 'pro' of course and also 'con' as I take most all of the 'con' critiques to heart and analyze them for worthiness too, and if they are on target I sometimes learn a great deal about even my own photography's power (or lack).

You are quite welcome to comment anytime you feel so moved.

And to browse here to your heart' s content. (Plus giving helpful critiques is a great way to meet friends who are 'on your wavelength' as you trade comments)

My best to you.

John (Crosley)

The woman's arms (with lines extending her arms combined with the bottom of the newspaper) appear to form a triangle.

In this case the arms that form the triangle are OUTSIDE the rectangle of the newspaper.

In the case of the girl, her arms also appear to form a triangle in a similar fashion, but in this case HER ARMS ARE WITHIN THE RECTANGLE of the window frame.

Whereas the older, obscured woman's hands are breaking the frame of the newspaper rectangle, the girl's hands are entirely contained within her rectangle (window).

Moreover, the points of the two rectangles come together - nearly point to point - see above.

I hope this helps 'flesh out' why I think this is a more complex than average photograph and why Rob and I both think this is a photo that must be 'read' for ultimate fulfillment.

John (Crosley)

the photo is in moma.. and for sure John, you know it.

I newer saw it before now. (Good photo though, of course)

John (Crosley)