black and white: then to now My Whimsy (in Ukraine)

This is my 'whimsy' from today. Caught in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine,

but it could have been anywhere in the world. Your critiques and

comments 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 would appreciate a proper translation from a native, educated,

Russian or Ukrainian speaker who can read the sign with ease)

Within less than one minute after posting (two minutes at outset), this photo had a 3/3 and 3/4 rating, undoubtedly from a ratings 'bot'.

 

Viewers, please consider that when rating -- those rates are apparently not 'human' generated (except for some malcontent who 'gets off' on trying to cause ratings chaos).

 

John (Crosley)

This guy saw me with camera pointed in his direction while he was squatting (Ukrainians squat rather than get their clothes dirty or pick up 'germs' as they are quite germ conscious. If you saw a Ukrainian restroom -- a term used advisedly -- toilet is a better phrase -- in general, you'd be concerned about dirt/germs too.)

 

He quickly arose and went through the door.

 

But not before I 'caught him in the act' (of leaving).

 

I hope you enjoy this whimsy.

 

John (Crosley)

Nobody does street shots like you do. This was caught with perfect timing. The ad points at your subject and gives the impression of making fun of him. Not knowing the meaning of the words makes it more interesting in my opinion. It stimulates our brains to make sense out of what we see. His "squatting" posture enhances this whimsical mood. He seems like a puppet pulled by invisible strings.

I like this kind of street shots and the man's expression just fits so well to the placard! :-) just wish it was not as blurry

I'm adding by attachment the prior photo, in which he saw my camera/lens aimed at him.

 

Not such a hot shot, hunh?

 

He made it so much better by turning and running.

 

You just gotta take lots of shots, and a few will turn out exceptional and make you look like a genius at timing, when in actuality you take tons and a few of them turn out for the best.

 

I guess the rule is: Bang away at that shutter, and don't think every photo you find 'possibly interesting' will be a winner and humble you -- look at each as an opportunity in which at the third or fourth frame, you may look like a 'timing genius'.

 

(Even Cartier-Bresson did not take such photos; look through his work and I don't think you'll find things such as this; Elliott Erwitt might have, however, as he shot lots and wasn't afraid to 'take chances'. I admire Erwitt a lot.)

 

See attached photo.

 

John (Crosley)

I agree about the blurriness, but a review of EXIF information reveals this was taken at 1/15th of a second at a film equivalent of 135 mm. (my 70~200 lens partially zoomed -- think 2/3 of 135 mm to get my exact focal length of DX photo -- I couldn't find it in EXIF information and am too lazy to do the math).

 

Also, blurriness indicates motion (look at any cartoon that tries to show motion, and you'll see extra outlines added around such figures to indicate 'blurriness' from motion.

 

Feets, do your stuff!

 

Glad you like it.

 

John (Crosley)

True and excellent advice. Thanks. It makes sense probability wise. The more shots one takes the better chance of getting that perfect shot.

I was criticized heavily on first meeting by a world famous photography printer, who has curated also some pretty important photography -- think Corbis's Bettmann Archives being scanned for most worthy photos to print in museum/collector quality.

 

On first reviewing my captures, he said 'you shoot way too much!!!', and he admonished me not to 'waste' frames.

 

I told him (in a later e-mail) how I look at each exercise of the shutter, (especially since pixels are 'free' in digital shooting) as a chance to get great photos, or if I'm not getting or going to get a 'great' photo from that opportunity, then I look at the use of the camera like 'batting practice' or a pitcher 'warming up' so, I'm in tune with my equipment so when the 'perfect opportunity' that I can actually foresee arises, I don't blow it because I can't from lack of practice, truly manipulate my camera's many controls, get the focus right, zoom fast enough, and keep from getting shut out as the subject moves and breaks up the 'street' scene.

 

You often have less than a second to find, frame, and shoot certain subjects.

 

'Street' is not landscape.

 

They're antithetical.

 

There are no do-overs in 'street' generally.

 

In a way, shooting 'street' is kind of like being a comedian. Comedians often become actors because they can do characters, as making characters very often is part and parcel of being a comedian, and a comedian must create characters within a few seconds or a minute or two, and do so convincingly.

 

When comedians do become actors (think Phil Hartman, Robin Williams, and numerous others from 'Saturday Night Live' and look at how they've developed as actors.

 

However few actors can successfully portray a comedian.

 

It's generally a one-way street.

 

Similarly, most 'street' shooters are fully capable of shooting landscapes, portraits, etc., but it's just too boring or tedious.

 

Like the comedian, if you take away the comedy (street shooting) most 'street' shooters could easily switch to landscapes, portraits, commercial work, weddings, etc., just as comedians can often successfully become very good actors.

 

Think of a famous comedian in 'Driving Miss Daisy' -- an acting tour de force, from a comic genius.

 

And think of a famous movie starring another famous comic genius who portrayed an aging American actor doing commercials alone in Tokyo and his (dramatic) relationship with a young woman whose husband also was in Japan, but not with her, all at a luxury Tokyo hotel.

 

I think most able 'street' shooters easily could switch to other forms of photography if they absolutely 'had to'.

 

Many times comedy is 'speed acting' with humor as a goal.

 

'Street shooting' often is 'speed shooting' with catching 'the moment' often the goal.

 

John (Crosley)

I think it's the element of elusiveness that makes street photography so compelling. Life is played out in the street and you never know when that perfect moment is going to materialize. That is what makes it exciting.

 

I'm afraid most of my "street" photography is confined to juxtapositions in buildings and architectural details. It takes a special eye to be prolific at street photography. Thanks for that comment about my picture with the dogs. I belive the "trinity" of the composition is what attracted you to it ;)

Without looking at the 'dog photo' I mentioned as interesting to me, I don't recall that it was a 'trinity'.

 

I was thinking of the interesting way the the feet were going in different directions. There was a certain mysterious 'artistry' to that happenstance.

 

It's a sort of synchronicity; that happens on the 'street' sometime, but you don't find such things unless you take a lot of photos. Sometimes you'll just find such things in captures where you don't expect them.

 

You do that in your non living juxtapositions -- you are now seeking, I think, to apply it to humans and other living beings. That's going to require taking lots and lots of photos.

 

That's part of what 'street' is all about -0- the 'happenstance' of getting things in some sort of synchronicity.

 

Sometimes it happens by chance - and in fact, many times it does.

 

I can go to a concert or political rally and take 2,000 photos and only be able to 'curate' from my numerous captures six or seven photos that truly stand out, and I'll chose and Photoshop those, leaving the rest for my hard drives to remind me that I'm very, very mortal -- I don't walk on water like I think some portrait artists, landscapers and others do.

 

I take an awful lot of crap to get some good stuff, and a lot of it is just good photo editing.

(That once was my job for a year, but I was chosen to do so because I was literate in photography -- and I took up photography because I had an appreciation of it. I just instinctively bought a camera and began taking some pretty good stuff . . . and now know where it came from (read on).

 

There are a lot of shots in which I thought of the possibility of juxtaposition, and would place myself in a position where maybe a passerby might be captured in front of something or other that would make an intriguing juxtaposition, but I am not sure exactly how it will be framed because I'm firing on 'C' (continuous, formerly 'motor drive') and the person passing is passing by too quickly to be able actually to 'frame' something maybe without kneeling, sticking a camera in their face, or otherwise making such a personal spectacle that the person will change his/her attitude and/or aspect.

 

I took photos of an old guy passing a billboard of two young women laughing and gigglng (like those two girls on the jitney bus tonight were laughing and giggling at me when I called out my stop tonight in Russian -- very bad and evidently 'funny, giggly to young girls -- Russian).

 

So, the old guy is walking by this billboard and I got three or four frames (one JPEG and one NEF - raw - capture for each -- a total of eight downloads, two identical ones for each of four frames.

 

The last frame is the one that captured my eye, so I am 'curating' that one out (a fancy word for 'choosing' and 'keeping' that particular frame).

 

Someone else might choose the 'penultimate' (next to last) frame. It's a matter of choice, and I am not perfect.

 

The point is that I could not exactly 'visualize' the exact photo I was looking for, and I was in a sense 'shooting blindly' but with the odds stacked in my favor.

 

I had chosen a subject (a grizzled guy with beard) passsing in front of a huge storefront poster of two giggling young women obviously making fun of something and highly amused) (that poster is shown in my B&W portfolio juxtaposed with an old woman, so old hereabouts she's not known as a babushka but a 'starinka' which is a special word for a truly ancient woman).

 

So, having chosen the subject (the man) and the background (the giggling girls making fun) I just pointed and shot after choosing the camera with the wide angle lens, adjusting the focus points (a speed exercise), checking shutter speed for auto exposure by pointing the camera at the wall (all in a fraction of a second), then speed walking forward so I'd be ahead of the guy as he passed by just at that special spot. I also had in mind that everything had to fit into the frame, so the guy's head had to be in one corner, so there was room for the poster.

 

The results were rewarding, I think and they'll be posted someday -- I'll bet you'll recognize it now that I've explained it.

 

Some things you have time to previsualize and/or visualize.

 

Visualization at the scene is best or at least easiest, of course, as one can make adjustments.

 

But 'previsualization' is helpful.

 

You know the subjects, background, etc., and your camera settings and know about how you can capture a subject in a photo, and set about obtaining that photo.

 

(Many thanks to Pogue Mahoney -- Andy Eulass -- for adding the word 'previsualization' to my photo vocabulary -- he's a former member who has pretty much disappeared from the net, but a really skilled 'street' artist.

 

(He had some wonderful shots that were most worthy, but I didn't see enough of them to know if he produced such wonderful shots on a regular basis. You can Google.com his name and see what he's up to, as he is a true 'street artist' --who was based in Chicago, but I understand he was transferred or moved away to another part of Illinois -- death for 'street' -- not being in a city -- for someone used to shooting that city.)

 

So, there's 'visualization' and 'previsualization'.

 

In the first, you look around and find in that something to capture.

 

In 'previsualization' you survey your surroundings and do what lawyers are famous for -- you say 'what if' (this person moved here, or I moved there, or I zoomed here, or whatever.)

 

Lawyering is 'what iffing' for a living in many cases.

 

In 'street', previsualizing is applying 'what if' to what you see, to determine where and when to stand, what equipment or settings to use and doing it quickly, etc.

 

In each you may have a fraction of a second to make decisions, maybe even several minutes or even longer.

 

Imagine a passerby, as above, and you only get one chance ('C' drive is helpful unless you know exactly the point and things such as 'the stride' will be captured, which is very hard.)

 

There, you have an extremely short period in which to shoot -- maybe less than a fraction of a second.

 

In other shots, even previsualized shots, imagine a vendor on the street, or a poster or something static and someone else who's static or stationary in front of that and all you have to do is maybe zoom in and out and take your time to make the shot. Imagine a 'street' parking attendant near a great poster or other background. He's there all day, and you can 'hang around' as he does his work, looking for just the right juxtaposition. (but watch out, that juxtaposition may happen in a split second).

 

Some of my poster shots are done with great premeditation and I have taken my time with them.

 

But consider the bent over (crying) old woman in front of the very tall (up high) poster model, with her hand hanging down, appearing to touch the old lady.

 

That was done as follows: First I went in the street to capture the two together.

 

The old woman bent over and started to cry (not because of me I hope) and when she bent over, that revealed the fingertips of the poster model's hand, which appeared to touch and caress the old woman.

 

Every situation has such potential -- or rather, many or at least some have such potential, and you may not recognize that until you press the shutter or even when you review your captures.

 

The point is, you have to take chances and take those photos and review the results at your leisure. Then you study them intensely and try to learn from each one.

 

I do video, but I don't review it, so I am sure I am repeating the same mistakes until I get the time to review all that video (a hundred or two hundred hours of editing).

 

After that, I'll then be a better videographer.

 

But with my photographer, I dwell on it; examining it and participating heavily in critic discussion, so I can learn more quickly, and every commenter gets a reply, because nearly each comment contains some important info for me, even if it's just to say 'I like it' -- some viewers likes and dislikes are known and respected by me, so when I see a certain name and a rating or a comment that is pithy, I can learn very much from that.

 

It's all about learning.

 

With digital, and boldness, there's a steep learning curve.

 

But when I first got a camera I shot like I do now, only without any confidence.

 

I was scared of what I was doing -- that it wouldn't 'measure up' and still produced then some of my best work.

 

I learned the craft, I have decided, from reading photo magazines such as Life, Look, Colliers and everything else I could get my hands on as a youth and, of course, National Geographic.

 

Those are my teachers (as well as several years of photo mags I read when I got shot and was laid up in a hospital. I read each issue cover to cover until they started repeating themselves -- (every two years everythign that was written before was written again at that time and probably still -- except for new equipment articles.)

 

My best to you, Adan W.

 

This benefits me maybe more than you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

©, John Crosley, all rights reserved, 2007, First Publication, 2007

Very funny.... You have the eye for such situation, even if it is luck or training the eye, it doesnot realy matter to me, well done John,

 

kind regards Els

I always appreciate your visits to my portfolio, and you're surely one of the better photographers on Photo.net, so your opinion means extra to me.

 

I think this is luck, plus training. I did have the foresight (or reflex) to push the shutter button when he was moving away -- something I think others might not do because they want everything 'clean' and visualized, and I'm willing to take chances.

 

Taking chances results in much originality, as here.

 

Thanks for stopping by (and also for rating).

 

John (Crosley)

Hello John, I also always apreciate to visit your portfolio, I like you because you have skill and emotion.....

 

and I asked my lover/partner/my everythingk about the text on the poster, he is polish, and he translated it like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

HAPPY HOUR

WUNDERFULL

ONLY 1 HOUR OF

CRAZY PRICES

If that is the case, (I read the first word a little differently), then the poster probably was up for an hour.

 

That means for me it was then or never; what a wonderful thing.

 

Thank you (and your lover). (Polish is very close to Russian though the alphabet does not look alike.)

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks John for your 'rule breaking hints' - I was doing Super8 film when I was young, and went to the electronic way when it was available, and suddenly I produced just digital trash - finally I could not find the beef in the tons of material, which finally ended my filming.

This I did not want to repeat on the photo side - I'm still shooting 'single shot' and not with the winder. - - - BUT your example here does tell me a difference which is worth to be thought through - for me!

HCB's moments have been done 100% the same way you did - I'm sure - we do not see the film strips of him up to now - but when they will be lifted, I'm sure this will come out. And again, this 'foreseeing the moment' maybe is much more the real life experience which I like while shooting.

 

(Hope my English can be understood)

 

Regards Axel

Rules are things that people make up to help them accomplish certain tasks without doing mistakes.

 

But rules generally are made for certain situations, yet life is complex, so a 'rule' made for one circumstance almost certainly will not fit all circumstances.

 

I am not sure I always like 'C' drive, (continuous servo) with its frame after frame shooting, and this is a single shot photo.

('C' drive is much like 'motor drive' from older film still cameras - it taeks frame after frame in sequence and with some speed.)

 

There are times when it's appropriate and some when it's not.

 

I frame each photo as though it were a still photo, but my cameras all have a hair trigger and are set for 'C' drive.

 

If I'm shooting in very low light (which is frequent), sometimes camera shake, even with antivibration lenses) will spoil one or five shots out of a sequence, say of six photos, but one will work out and be 'shake-free')

 

That's why I use 'C' drive much of the time.

 

But I can take most of my photos as single shot photos, too, I just get extras and extra special photos by framing and shooting a sequence, including (since I shoot in very rough conditions) extra usable shots.

 

Rules are made to allow people to avoid thinking and to help them learn from experience of others as well as allow those with 'control' to ensure that their 'orders' are being followed.

 

Good rules can be a good thing and bad rules can be horrid, but not all rules govern all situations.

 

I like to think that I think for myself.

 

I follow some rules some of the time and a rule (actually suggestion) like the 'rule of thirds' is something I will respect in one circumstance and avoid in another.

 

For me a rule (outside of a law which is a rule from the government) is a 'suggestion' of how others think I should do something, and if it's a good rule for the circumstance, I will try to follow it, but other times I think I know better and adapt to the circumstances with a flexibility that 'rules' often never foresaw.

 

For life is complex and anybody who thinks they can make rules that encompass every situation probably have too large a view of their own wisdom and ability to foresee every situation.

 

Rules are neither good nor bad -- at least the idea behind making 'rules'. They serve their purposes most times.

 

My shooting is my own and for myself (and sharing with others) so I 'make my own rules' which is to shoot that which appeals to me in the viewfinder without reference to 'guidelines' other than as those guidelines allow me to foresee how to make a better photo.

 

And that's the ultimate test.

 

Anything that helps improve the photograph is helpful to me -- rule or not.

 

In the end, that's the golden rule of photography -- make better photos.

 

All else is drivel for me, though it may be good for the masses who need direction in their lives.

 

Not all people are able to think for themselves, and those people need rules very much.

 

I used to think for other people as an attorney and give them direction; that worked out very well for me and almost always for them . . . . lawyers have special skills when they finish law school and pass a rigorous bar examination, and such critical thinking skills as are learned and practiced by attorneys often serve them well in other pursuits and endeavors as well.

 

But I had those skills before I even went to law school, which is probably why I excelled there and at practice generally.

 

I learned in law school to 'master the fundamentals' and it didn't matter what the practice books contained as guidelines -- if a subject conformed to the law (and not always how someone taught me to practice it) that was sufficient, no matter how differently it looked at first.

 

In that case, the ultimate aim was to 'win a case' for a client or prevent a bad loss . . . and in that respect sometimes thousands and even hundreds of thousands of decisions must be made by the attorney, based on education, experience and skill.

 

It's similar in photography, but with the palette of 'light writing' (photography literally means writing with light) as one's tool, and the aesthetics or other messages of photographs as the ultimate goal.

 

That's the level at which I work.

 

I think others, if they knew how to articulate it, would say much the same thing, though not so easily as I can articulate it nor as rapidly.

 

Thanks for the comment, Axel.

 

John (Crosley)

 

We never will see his film 'waste' from shots before World War II.

 

When the war came, in order to save his treasures -- his best shots from before the war, he trimmed all the film from the edges that was not image, leaving bare negatives and no celluloid frame, then placed all those images in a cookie tin -- his legacy should he be killed.

 

He was captured by Germans at least two times and I think he escaped three times, the final escape allowed him to follow the Allies as they swept the Nazis from this earth -- even to liberation of concentration camps.

 

We are the richer for his experiences; one supposes he made photographs just to have an excuse to be in the thick of things as well as do something he was fabulously good at.

 

When he gave up photography, he literally gave it up, for nearly 30 years to his death. He professed little interest in it, though those who visited him noticed that's what he said but when the subject came up seriously he seemed very interested -- he just knew, I think, that he set the standard by which all the rest would be measured.

 

I hope someday I fit somewhere on that standard.

 

John (Crosley)

John, HCB still creates threads worth to talk about - - -

 

>one supposes he made photographs just to have an excuse

 

Against his FatherImperium he was an artist from his beginning and he was at the right place at the right time - 'all' were meeting in Paris and he was in contact with the spirit of the time and the art of the time which is always ahead to the 'time understanders' - - - Painting was always 'his' but photo was the winner - later he went the same way as you mentioned in you POW comment - just do it - dont worry about GoldenCrowns - and he did his paintings, which are not that well known. I think they relate to him and may be some day they will also be seen in a different light then today.

So, now back to what I wanted to say while pressing the comment button:

As I understood there is a certain date when the still existing 'trash' will be opened for the public, but I can not remember the date. That came from the curator of an HCB exhibition here in Vienna.

I think the comeout will be that also HCB was just cooking with water ;-) AND he was prepared to foresee what's next - and thats 100% ok as for me thats even more the better way to see life for my self.

 

If I only had more time for all that talking about what I like - I wounder how you find that, as you properly think through what your answers are to all that flood of comments - and aside that still having time to do some shooting.

 

All the best - Regards Axel

 

I know.

 

I actually took the two less than an hour apart along essentially the same street (this is on a mall that is an extension of the street).

 

And I posted this first, thinking this was the 'great one'.

 

Little did I know, as the other was chosen Photo of the Week.

 

But I, like you, like this one very much.

 

However, a Russian reading of the sign doesn't help it for Russian readers since it advertises a sale, not some guy running away . . . .

 

Best to you,

 

John (Crosley)

The time capsule will be empty, as I noted above, for all Cartier-Bresson's 'trash' before World War II, if his book note are to be believed. He simply trimmed all negative celluloid from each 'keeper' photo, discarded the rest and printers purportedly everafter had a hell of a time printing such photos without any leftover celluloid (one imagines they had to sandwich them between clear glass or plastic, which would have tended to create 'halo' or 'ring' effects.

 

It may be right that the trash will be opended in some future date, but if one trolled the Magnum.com web site, H C-B's 4000 top works were on display until some time after his death when his estate took over, and they revealed (as I noted elsewhere) numerous photos that were hardly worth looking at, even though they revealed his sense.

 

Of particular note to me were his series when he spent what seems to have been a winter in Moscow, and his attempts to incorporate their high rise apartment buidings into winterscapes with the muddy and sometimes asphaltic roads together with the snow and sludge. They really weren't very interesting.

 

And maybe that was part of the 'trash' that may be opened some day. And who's to say he kept all his 'trash' -- that could have been a formidable job as he worked his way around America, then southern and S.E. Asia, through the fall of the Kuomintag and so on, with the told riots, the assassination of Gandhi, (which he just missed by an hour or so), and so forth. Imagine keeping all your negatives with yuo during those cirdumstances -- that is, the ones that didn't really matter and did not show sales or curator potential.

 

So, we just have to leave it at that until one of his hears more -- when you do, I'd love to go see H C-B's remaining 'trash' though I expect I have tons more than he (I shoot digitally now, and one can 'try more things' and not run up any expenses other than hard drive storage.

 

(which for me is a huge expense in and of itself).

 

I type at up to 70 words per minute and as an ex-journalist, I type and think at the same time, so when I commence typing a sentence, I do not know beyond the next four or five words what I will type, but I think clearly and just type my thoughts as they arrive. It is a practiced that developed during times working with Associated Press, and polished as an attorney during times when I could not type things, but had to dictate clear thoughts into a dictaphone machine without backing up for all the 'ahhs' and 'ummms' and keep backing up to redo thoughts. I learned to think so clearly and straightforwardly I, a guy who twisted words and thoughs up -- began to think in a linear fashion (though sometimes I could think with the depth of a three dimensional chess player as well, but to do that, you have to have organized thoughts, and mine are very well organized.

 

That is how I keep up. No real secret, plus its fun to have so many persons who look to me for answers or who make observations about my work -- it's a photographer's dream come true, really, I think, so how could I ignore it?

 

And the photographing does not go on every day, although I do take one or two cameras EVERYWHERE I GO, which really is the secret. I get around not so much, but when I do, it's interesting places and I seldom photograph for long at a time -- an hour or two -- and then I've used up all the photo opportunities.

 

Plus I tend to photograph at the end of the day to catch the 'sweet light' but winter's coming in the Northern Hemipsher and that 'sweet light' is diminishing in the time it is present. I do like 'flat lighting' for my photos, especially the color ones, though I can deal with any circumstances.

 

I also have to lead a life, and I try to do that as well, and it's coming time to 'pay the piper' -- start selling my work, or just move on from photography which I would have like crazy.

 

Best to you Axel.

 

John (Crosley)

Hi, my wife is Ukrainian.

The poster says:

 

"HAPPY HOUR

Every day!

Only one hour!

Of crazy prices!"

 

I totally get the crouching down bit, especially when they are smoking outside offices and factories.

:-)

 

Your wife's translation makes perfect sense and comports with my idea of what it should say. Is it in Ukrainian (as opposed to Russian)?

 

I am still a beginner and besides the three general letters that Cryllic is said to add, there are about 20 more letters that don't exist or have a counterpart in the Latin alphabet. They are the less used ones. Just go to the Microsoft character/symbol chart and look at the 'Cryllic' letters and see how many there are.

 

And yes, squatting is a Russian/Ukrainian thing. I can see a photo of people relaxing and even know about what country they come from . . . .

 

My thanks and best to you (and your wife . . . I hope you have a happy marriage -- most of them I've found such marriages work, though all foreign marriages are 'difficult' because there are cross-cultural differences.

 

I was married to a Russian woman and did not know much about her culture, though I lived in Russia on and off for parts of three years before we married; I am only now learning many important things, but now I understand them well, and it goes to chances of possible success for those who marry cross culturally.

 

Not many American men know that Russian/Ukrainian women are expected to be married by 20 or 21 and immediately producing babies or they are seen as illegitimate. That would have struck me as strange 6 or 7 years ago, but now I understand it thoroughly. There are other cultural differences, including close friendships that develop in such countries as Ukraine and Russia.

 

Thanks for helping fill in the gaps.

 

John (Crosley)