johncrosley

It's such a simple photo, it's easy to overlook, yet it embodies what may be a universal truth, and also some compositional truths as well including the use of 'almost' negative space -- not quite completely negative because of the texture, I think. Thanks for stopping by; don't be a stranger. john John (Crosley)

How wonderful to hear from you again, and on an almost forgotten gem -- one almost unrecognized except for you. Thanks, my friend. john John (Crosley)

Thanks for the comment. john John (Crosley)

See this photo in color in my ImageBrief.com folder, currently on page 1. http://www.imagebrief.com/photographers/john-271#/portfolio Its position will change as photos are rearranged with time. It is one of 1,300 photos in the portfolio among about 13,000 Crosley photos available on that site for licensing, most in color. john John (Crosley)

That's an impressive amount of smoke or whatever being emitted through the mouth and nose of a man that one might call 'Mr. Dragon'. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

Everyone deserves to have their name spelled correctly, and I fault myself for not having double checked the spelling of yours; I do need glasses for close up work and a double 's' does give me trouble so please excuse my error in spelling your name wrongly. I'll try not to repeat that error. Your name is the YOU that you present to the world, and I regret having erred with the accuracy of its spelling until this late moment and the apparent disrespect that apparently represented. I strive for accuracy in all I do, and deeply regret my error. Please accept my apologies. john John (Crosley)

Frankly, I'm more than astonished by the number of views this photo has achieved.   I disagree that the man, left, is post worthy on his own, but do agree that he is extremely important to the photo as a whole; without him this is a photo of an expression and nothing more, but with him, it's a 'story' or 'narrative' to use a more popular term.   In any case, I've taken photos as skillful or even much more so, but without the great expression on the woman's face, and they excelled in rates at times, but in views fell somewhat average or even didn't do well.   As I've said from the outset of my membership, the ratings have some serious defects, but overall they work pretty well, and same with 'views' and number of rates.  This is a pretty good proving ground for 'popularity' of a photo if one is looking to determine whether a particular photo will appeal to photo aficionados, and I use it as that when preparing books (I've done one and have five finished and a sixth almost ready, but high cost is preventing their being published.   They're available in PDF format, but need page numbering, copyright notices,  and text, but the photos are first rate and the layouts are pretty darn good -- both color and black and white.  It's a hobby of mine to make them, but the software I use limits to 76 pages each -- a total of 76 photos at one per page.   I'm loathe to publish electronically for fear they'll end up on file sharing services, and frankly I'd like to see them consolidated into one great volume or two -- maybe one in color and one in black and white.   It took great skill and great depth of material to create juxtapositions across each two-page spread, whether in theme, composition, or whetever, and one has to hunt for what is the source of that juxtaposition when one views the two page spreads in these books.   In any case, it costs nearly $200 to publish just one copy on photo paper, and although I can download PDFs and even recreate them via Blurb or some other service the do it yourself web services of Adoramapix.com are simply great for creating books compared to other software I've used.   If I had a greater budget, the books would be published; they're essentially done, four of them at least with a fifth in final stages.   john   John (Crosley)   Oh, and I'm finally starting that book on 'street shooting, with is a distillation of advice given on this service from the nearly 19,000 comments contained here and the 200 plus pages of comments under my portfolio in which I've written about the 'art' of street shooting'.   jc

It's often easy to make a suggestion 'crop this' or 'crop that', and one thing or another may detract somewhat or a bit more, but unless something is really wrong with a capture, my feeling is it's best to avoid crops whenever possible UNLESS the crop is to save the photo because of problems of aiming, problems in capturing the essence because a lens frame or zoom range is just inadequate to put a frame around the essentials, something very, very distracting is occurring at the side of a frame that absolutely needs to be eliminated because it pulls the eye out of the frame, or similar things. Those are instances in which cropping I feel may be quite justified, but there is something that those who casually suggesting cropping often overlook, or at least they never (in my memory) have mentioned. That is each photo has an aspect ratio, and to crop a side of a photo not only moves the 'center' of the photo to one side or another, but the aspecr ratio (ratio of side to length) is essential to the composition. So, if one is to crop a 2:3 aspect ratio photo, that may end up with the photo aspect ratio being cockeyed and throwing off composition. It may be that in such a crop the aspect ratio can be made to match another format such as 3:4 or 4:5 in which case a crop may not detract so much from a photo, and when I crop, I try to match one of the common aspect ratios. If one has a necessary or desirable crop, my feeling is it's desirable to crop by moving the corner in while the aspect ratio is fixed to see if that does the trick, and preserves the aspect ratio. That can easily be done in Adobe Camera Raw, first setting the aspect ratio before a crop by setting the fixed ratio at 2:3, then 4:5 or 3:4 and doing a crop from a corner. If this doesn't result in the bottom or top of the frame being cut off too much, and a crop really is desirable, this may in my mind be the best way of handling a crop, because the end result very well may look just as it were framed in a camera, and the result is more likely to be a pleasing composition. I know of one famed photographer who shot all his works for books, exhibitions, galleries and advertising and ALWAYS shot to crop later, but he shot with a Hasselblad (square format camera) and there is not much one can always do with a square format -- it's just harder to work into a composition, though not impossible. Also he shot woman and fashion, and shot 'large' knowing he'd crop. I shoot with a 2:3 format, and if necessary, I will crop, but i dislike doing so, unless for a very good compositional reason, and when I do so, I first try the method described above . . . it just looks better. It isn't always so, but it's my first preference. If one is hip shooting or shooting a scene suddenly and has no chance to frame, then cropping may absolutely be necessary. But this is my NINTH frame of these two women in two seconds, taken with a 24 megapixel but pretty inexpensive camera . . . . and a kit lens with V.R. My feeling now, after years of using all sorts of expensive and exotic equipment is use what is in your hands and 'get the shot!' Of course, frame it if you can, as I did here. Avoid 'hip shooting' unless giving away shooting may jeopardize your safety, or there's just no time to move the camera to eye level. I had a choice to include or exclude the passive gent at left and chose to leave him in -- from the start of the 9 frames and in all of them, he's in the frames, because he helped 'tell the story'. I was awake and alert enough to understand that, luckily, because I happened to be looking that way, hearing the commotion even as these women boarded the train and thus I was able to start framing and firing. This is NOT a one off. This is frame no. 9, but frankly the only really good one of the bunch. (Others were post-worthy, but none were 'memorable' as this one seems to be). You just gotta keep pushing that shutter release until you get 'the PHOTO!'. Don't be afraid to 'work the subject' if you're not successful at the first shot or even later. john John (Crosley)

Yes, there may be 'clutter' or better yet, 'detail'. This photo's strong message seems able to overcome any such minor things, and in fact they give verisimilitude to the scene, I think. Thanks for the able and kind comment. john John (Crosley)

In the words of a friend then who was a Lucie Award winner, People use Photoshop because they can, not because it's necessarily the best thing. He was lamenting it's too often overused. He was preaching to the choir, as I use it minimally, and 'darkening' an area is something I might do to 'save' a bad capture, but for this one, no such way! I very much appreciate your compliments. I remember Elliott Erwitt (three times head of Magnum Agency)'s famous quote about how he got so many great photos, explaining it to a woman at a cocktail party: 'Madam, f8 and be there,' I just happened to be there (as I have a habit of doing) Luck favors the well prepared, and my camera always is preset for the exposure conditions and possible zoom range . . . . making my choices far fewer and my reactions far quicker. So, I guess you might say, I'm just well prepared, and while others are taking off their lens caps, I've got the photo and am looking around for the next one! Best to you, and thanks. john John (Crosley)

Yes, I am quick on the shutter. Indeed I had three or four frames BEFORE this capture as they recognized each other and vocalized their excitement, causing me to start firing away. My first instinct when I hear noise in a crowd in to aim my camera and if I see anything at all, to press the shutter and hope. Here the hope was fully realized several frames later. ;~)) I even had time to compose all of my captures! Others are view worthy, but just not up to this standard, one with arms flying as the embrace is about to take place. It's nice to get your feedback; thanks so much for the compliments. john John (Crosley)

Supriyo, Your comment is outstanding and so far above the regular course of usual comments that I am going to let it stand as is and direct others to read it in hopes they will be able to see as much as your discerning eye can see. It's another way of saying 'I can't say it better myself, so why say it at all and leave it to someone better able to say it.' Congratulations (again), and thanks. john John (Crosley) By the way, Ukrainians are notoriously reserved, and to see a scene such as this makes me enormously privileged, let alone capturing it as it has occurred right in front of me. jc

Thank you for such a very high compliment; this one seems to connect with so many it's overwhelming for a guy who takes so many simple photos lusting to catch 'the moment' and in fact does catch 'that moment' but in so many more subtle ways. As to a right crop, this indeed has a slight right crop, to cut off the face of the woman, right, whose face was directed out of the frame, pulling attention away from the center, but that's about as far as I'll go; I'm quite leery of cropping, especially a photo so intense as this. In this case, more seems to be better so long as nothing pulls viewers' attention away from the action. Thanks for a very helpful and welcome critique. john John (Crosley)

I'm pretty quick at my timing, and if you read above, you can see this one was 'telegraphed' by prior commotion. In any case, stories of back stories are of little point if there is no good photo to accompany, and in this case, the woman's delighted face carries the day, and frankly, it's a wonder anyone commented at all; the photo is so self-explanatory. On the other hand, look at the guy, left. I had a chance to zoom to capture just the women by moving forward and instead made a conscious decision to keep the disinterested man in the frame for artistic reasons. It just felt better that way. Thanks for your comment and letting me know your thoughts. john John (Crosley)

Yes, indeed, this is a photo that hardly needs explanation; the wonder is capturing such an elusive moment without stationing oneself at what used to be an easy place -- the aircraft arrival gate -- now a place where the arriving passengers are screened from the greeters by airport security. Back then, such captures were easy to anticipate, but this, well, this was completely unexpected, but was 'telegraphed' by their introductory sounds and emotive movement of arms before the big embrace. Luckily for me, I had three or four frames of outstretched arms before this frame; I'm quick, and often sound and/or commotion is a great giveaway of 'something happening' that helps make a good alert. Thanks for a kind comment. Best wishes. john John (Crosley)

A woman gets on the subway/metro, unexpectedly runs into a dear friend, and this is her reaction. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

Marble walls with stones set precisely in straight lines above a tile floor mean little, I think, to this couple in tight embrace, for they seem intent on something more personal and hopefully much softer and warmer than cold stone. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or just wish to make a remark, please submit a constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

It's been a number of years since articles were written in sociology journals about the savage behavior on-line of Photo.net participants, especially in the Leica forum. A good case could be made for similar articles (and perhaps they were written) about the bane of Photo.net -- mate rating, where groups of photographers would form bands of friends and rate their own photos and downrate those they perceived as 'nonfriendly'. I didn't want to get involved in any of those shenanigans, and when a group came along that was devoted to resurrecting downrated but worthy photos by having an otherwise anonymous 'gang' of high-minded and ethical photographers who really knew little about each other and did nothing more than 'nominate a photo for attention' singled out a photo by this group of less than 10 of the best writers on Photo.net, if any of us felt the photo worthy, we wrote a critique (and rated where we felt appropriate). This often was enough to rescue good photos the mate raters often had sunk. We didn't communicate otherwise. Raters and their rates then were known, so if someone was 'on-line' and you knew they often gave '2's or '3's, you didn't post your photo when they were on-line, but strangely because I didn't participate and didn't complain even those perpetually low-raters seldom rated my photos low (for them) and often gave me low but among their highest ratings (in other words, honest ratings). They may often have been protesting the system, but I was not part of it. That's a major reason -- being accused of mate-rating -- that I just don't rate. Also, it's very hard to rate apples, kumquats and balls of yarn with new cars and knitting needles. At that time there were almost no 'street' photos on Photo.net and those that did got mostly terrible ratings, but not mine, because no one ganged up on my photos, I posted 'interesting photos' and moreover, my responses were 'interesting' and instead of the murky or one-word acknowledgements most members rated gave that might acknowlege a rate or comment, I wrote and wrote -- usually intelligently and often wittily. My comments on street shooting may be legendary, and excerpted would easily make a book with addition of simple rewriting, and for that matter many comments are specially copyrighted besides the site's copyright. I will write that book; it's on my near-term horizon. Just read the nearly 19,000 comments under my photos then the 200 pages of comments under my portfolio with my replies and you'll see I have a lot to say about 'how' to shoot street. People and members often viewed my photos just for the chance to read what I wrote, and gratefully, my talent withstood the test of time and hopefully improved -- though my highest rated photo of the last two years or so was taken in 2005 with a D70 at night at ISO 1500! It had a fault of shakiness, but new Photoshop features allowed me to minimize that so it could now be posted, and it has shot to the top of my rating list for the last several years. Ratings have trended sharply downward, but who cares? Kumquats, knitting yarn and balls of socks do not very well get rated together just as landscapes and 'street' photos do not rate together very well. I'm glad to have viewers, and so many, many comments and aficionados like yourselves (G) and (V), who like my work and take time to tell me so. It's for guys like you I shoot for and maybe soon contests, grants and galleries . . . . I 'm thinking big time. It may never happen, if only for the lack of funds to pay entry fees. But I shoot as though there are crowds milling around inspecting my work and thinking 'Is his work good; does it belong here, in this gallery; should we buy a copy? Would this be considered good in 100 years.' And often the answer is 'yes' so I keep on shooting, buoyed on by such wonderful comments as yours. My very best thanks and wonderful wishes to you both. john John (Crosley)

Your is a very thoughtful and original analysis that is truly deserving. I'll leave it without comment and show my approval in so doing. Best wishes, and thanks. john John (Crosley)

Notice I didn't say 'whose' home. Fact is she was working at a 'home' but was also to meet a 'boss' that day, hence the dressup. Don't read anything into any knowledge of her; other than I happened to be at the same place she was, but it did make a good photo, right? No sleuthing really needed; I have no woman in my life presently. john John (Crosley)

When I first came to Photo.net, there was almost no 'street' photography at all, and I vowed, almost singlehandedly to change that. I think in the interim I accomplished that goal, even if it is now disapearing. I used to call it Photoshop net and it's returning to its roots. I do minimal Photoshopping, and then mostly to sharpen or adjust contrast, etc. What 'passed for' street photography was (in my opinion) almost anything but. I've given my best to Photo.net, and do my best to uphold standards; my focus is on higher standards than on Photo.net. For instance Graciela Iturbide, Salvador Salgado, and some other famous photographers got their starts by winning the W. Eugene Smith prize given to one 'humanistic' photographer annually with a deadline tomorrow night (the 31st in case your calendar is different than mine), and the prize this year is $30,000 with some extra money available besides. I'm entering, and to do so, I just chose photos posted on Photo.net for the main part with a topic relating to the dignity of Ukraine's oppressed people and how they're trying to move foward and still keep their dignity despite war, poverty, corruption and world record inflation eating at fixed incomes. I've got plenty of photos to prove my talent and easy proof of an ongoing project, which I'll narrow somewhat to the poorer citizens and/or basic necessities. I've got the 40 photos already chosen and labeled and the CV just about writes itself. It hardly matters to me whether or not Photo.net is promoting or deriding 'street' or documentary/humanistic photograhy. I note rates for this went from a 5.00 to a 4.5 in one rate, but that's just life on the new Photo.net; I know the worth of my photos, and it's not measured in Photo.net rates, especially under the new rating regime. Whether it's measured in a single $30,000 grant is another thing, but last year there were only 200 entrants -- two years ago an American/Ukrainian won with photos almost identical to mine at Ukraine's Maidan (which is why there was no sense in my entering last year -- two years of Ukraine winners in a row would just not be acceptable, I'm sure. Two in three years will be a hard sell). But I'm dogged, I'm stubborn, and I'm determined to find a viewer market for my 'humanistic' photos of Ukraine beyond the Photo.net fishbowl, which I've always insisted was a 'testing ground' just to measure the relative worth of this or that photo, but not to be relied on. As a result, I've got a YUUUUGE body of work, just about to be submitted but within the 40 photo max limit -- only the best, and that's excluding all color which could fill a whole application limit of 40 photos, and all my other work from other nations. The 40 B&W photos'll form the basis of my proposed project. The submitted photos are to show my worth as a photographer with some from my 11-year project. Twitter, Linked In, Facebook and the other Social Networks have their place and value, and I don't ignore them, but seldom use them unless I have another commercial use that is not photo related. Or just to say 'hello' to very old friends who wonder 'what's John up to?' on Facebook. Otherwise, I value your posts and others like you far more than you ever might guess. Your posts keep me honest and hard-working; I strive to please the few good critics who really matter to me whose opinions have true value, as yours does. I'll keep it up, too, winning that huge grant or not. Best to you my friend. Wish me luck. john John (Crosley)

The best, most wonderful part of this photo is it's entirely candid. I saw this scene, went and grabbed a camera, stood as the subject remained in concentration, took a couple of photos, and life went on, unperturbed. A moment (of beauty to me) caught and enshrined. Thanks for your fine compliment; I treasure that. john John (Crosley)