faces in the crowd London Tourists

I think it is an endearing photograph. Especially the Father. He becomes so charming and innocent. It leaves me more with a feeling of lonliness than laughter, but it's just because I'm so moved by the Father. Excellent work. -df

Note that pork-chop-sideburn man is actually two people in one. There is

someone behind him. We just got two for the price of one! The girl's

expression reminds me of a photo of Cartier-Bresson's, taken during Franco's regime in Spain as I recall, showing a blind kid with same head kicked back and same blank, almost idiotic stare. Father and junior are priceless as well. Excellent POW.

Is "Pork Chops" really two people? My first impression was that the checkered material was a jacket slung over his left shoulder. There were some wild clothes in fashion back then. Since he is in shortsleeves, while the "Lookers" are clothed for cool weather, I'm betting that "Pork Chops" is there alone. However, the timing of this photo is impressive, and if "Pork Chops" really is two people who just happened to line up so closely at shutter release, it just adds to the ambiance of this capture.

 

As for the difficulty involved in taking this photo, I understand the chance opportunity this photo represents. A person could stand at this spot for years and never have another opportunity to make such a photo. And I don't doubt that this photo is real and not posed. But while my brain knows its real, my heart thinks it looks like its posed. Perhaps this photo is too good for its own good.

Comments about the blurring in this photo have me looking to see what people are talking about. If there is blurring near the boys right arm, I don't notice it. I think most people would expect a photo taken under such circumstances to have a little blur here and there.

 

One thing I wonder about is the blurring or lack of focus of the building behind the lookers. This doesn't look natural to me. The out of focus appearance seems consistent for the whole building, and I would expect the farther away parts of the building to be out of focus to a different degree. Was this building separated in its own layer, and blurred in photoshop? I think the stark contract between the blurred building and the sharp focus of the Lookers faces may add the the unnaturalness I am experiencing.

 

And those of you who don't like Pork Chops should back off. His presence gives the photo great credibility.

We will soon know if Mr. Sideburns has someone behind. I contacted Scotland Yard. They are going to check their archives to see if they recorded the scene on camera from a different angle. They are positive they must have something on record because they tell me there were street cameras everywhere back then. Well, I just slipped out a secret (shhh). In fact, it is my theory that the cool trio are trying to find out if the lens is a Sony or JVC. About the photo: the fact that there may be two people aligned adds to the allure, IMO.

Dave, dont take this the wrong way, Im just trying to have a little fun. I dont mean anything devious by my silly choice of words or comments.

 

You can tell there is a second person behind Chops because his head is barely visible just above the toupee. You can see the head as well as part of both shoulders. Chops can still be carrying a jacket as it seems that he has a dark piece of clothing propped on his shoulder.

By the way, the dad looks a lot like Lurch from the Adams family. He also looks like he could be 6 5any fear or apprehension in taking the shot? Also, what events transpired after the shot, did the father ask you why you took their photograph; did they even noticejust curious! The reason why Im asking this is because of the camera you used; you had to be within five feet away from them when taking the shot. I had this same wondering question with Mike Dixons POW one 2 AM too many, I guess Im just not the kind of person who can point a camera at someone so close and run the risk of getting in a heated argument with a stranger in the middle of a public arena, especially because I would be the bad guy, or maybe I just dont care to visualize my camera hurling to the floor. Im more like the guy described by Tony Dummet, I would be behind a tree aiming my long telephoto lens at the backs of people.

BTW, under the new light of knowing that this isnt a staged shot I can truly admire your POW and I give you two sevens. For some reason I cant find much technical details to discuss or argue about. I guess that means Im OK with the way it is.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe they are not in awe, but are just "mouth-breathers" and as a family, have a genetic disposition to that catching-flies look? Wonderful photo, but the photoshopping is a little overdone and sloppy.

But while my brain knows its real, my heart thinks it looks like its posed. Perhaps this photo is too good for its own good...Joseph Coalter.

Right, so now we're criticising a picture because it's too good, so good in fact it looks like it's posed, which will of course make it look bad 'cause it's so posed, which it isn't of course...but gee, it sure looks posed...

I mean, it's obvious that the man is David's brother, Edward "Cross Eyes" Malcolmson, the boy is Eddie's son, Stephen "Gawk Face" Malcolmson and next to them is a younger Liz Taylor, auditioning for the Heavenly Choir scene in Miracle Of Fatima - paid stooges all of them. Amazing how they were all in the same place at the same time...

But seriously folks: everyday we (street photographers) see hundreds of shots like this, but don't have a camera or can't react quickly enough if we do... that's the trick, Joseph: being prepared, as David was. He shows us it's quite easy (when you know how) and when you stop blathering about how impossible a shot is.

The trick is just get on and do it. Be there or be square!

I am somehow a bit tired of reading that there are on one hand people who grew up in a studio with Photoshop at hand and on the other side of a huge wall the real "true" photographers who walk down the streets catching slices of life. I also can't agree IN GENERAL with the statement that so-called "imperfections" are in fact perfect because they HELP US to BELIEVE that what we are looking at is REAL.

I can certainly see the valid points of such statements, but let me rephrase them a little...

1) There is no huge wall between street photography and studio photography. There are nevertheless many differences, but that is not say that a street photographer has no understanding about studio, nor the other way around. Did it occur to somebody that there are plenty of photographers in this world who do shoot in studio and who ALSO shoot street photography ? So, if someone dares to say that maybe the man in the middle was not necessary or that the picture may have been even better without him, what exactly does it mean ? That this critique must necessarily come from someone who has no idea what street photography is all about ? Come on, don't assume such things...

Do I find that the man (actually 2 men) behind HELP ME to BELIEVE IN THIS SCENE ? No. Because I need no such help. This scene is unbelievable alltogether, but absolutely credible, and obviously real. That's where reality can sometimes beat fiction. Now does the man behind detracts from the 3 heroes ? Of course it does ! Is that serious ? Does it detract my attention A LOT. No. Very little actually. So is this man a problem ? Not really. YET it would be better imo without him. And here I can already hear the crowd screeming "Studio Photographer! Studio Photographer!", so let me quickly add : I doubt it was possible at all to have the same shot without this man in the background... Why ? Because I am not stupid enough to ignore the fact that this was a fraction of a second...

2) So would I clone off the man at the back if it were mine ? No. I have never suggested to clone him off, nor to blur him. I wouldn't even think of blurring the background in PS if this shot were mine. Maybe if this would have been accidentally shot at f16 with a very sharp background, I would consider blurring the backround, yes... But my guess is that it was altready fairly blur at 2.8...

3) But then again, don't photoshopers photoshop just about EVERYTHING ? Nooooo ! At least not me.

4) So, what's the point of saying that the picture might have been a bit better aesthetically without the man behind, if there was no choice anyway - since he WAS there...? Well that's maybe the most interesting bit... A "street photography" masterpiece - I mean here a picture that actually outlasts the man who took it and that becomes world-famous - is often a very good compromise between aesthetics AND originality, between perfection and story-impact.

I think the PSing was indeed probably not necessary here at all, and might even have been slightly detrimental - difficult to be sure till we see the original. But the minor lack of sharpness and the man behind are 2 very small things that matter. I rated this shot O7/A6, and I stand by that rating, but if David would just have been lucky enough to have the guys at the back running away before the click, then this shot would have a serious chance to outlast our time and become a world-acclaimed masterpiece...

This POW (without any PS) is an excellent shot. The History of photography has nevertheless shown that unless the action presented in a picture is absolutely outstanding and totally novel, then aesthetics will still matter to attain masterpiece status. Basically the shot of the fall of the Berlin wall that won the Fuji World Press award or this picture of a student shot in the head did not need to be sharp and great aesthetically, but aesthetics still matter in an expression shot - to SOME degree. And one does not necessarily need to be an idiot or a studio photographer to know that...

Very well put, Marc. Many of the elements of studio photography overlap with street photography. The decisve moment is as alive within a windowless, artificially lit, controlled environment as it is out on the street with the elements and the vagaries of human expression to capture. As alive, but in different ways.

If this was shot in a studio (or more accurately with paid models... no doubt from the "Ugly Agency") we would not tolerate at all Moustache Mick in the background. We would also criticise any distraction from a too-sharp background. We can still criticise these in David's picture, but we make allowances for the circumstances.

But in making these allowances we step back from use of the word "masterpiece". Because a masterpiece would have no Moustache Mick and would have an on-film blurred background.

What I like about this shot is the almost-greatness it exhibits. David is showing us what might have been if only...but even with the "if onlys" it gives us something to work towards. It reminds us that the masterpiece really is out there if we keep our wits about us as we click our f-stop ring and select our angle of attack to eliminate foreign objects like M.M. (not always easy to do, in fact, bloody hard).

The expressions are priceless n'est ce pas? Now for the rest of the shot...

I'd love to see the original neg - as originally shot, warts and all. I, for one, don't think it would necessarily be a step backwards (but please do not construe this as "a demand". David's creative decision is to be respected, and if he doesn't want to change it then that's fine by me too).

If we never get to see the original, then we have here what it might have been, and what the next shot will be, if the God's Of Photography, who torture us so, have any mercy and benevolence left in their cruel veins.

The next attempt at this shot is do-able. Everyone who has seen a crowd clear, a face assume an expression, a distracting element move miraculously out of the way in the viewfinder and then heard the click of the shutter thunder - somewhere off on a distant planet - and has said, "Yes" triumphantly (but under their breath) to themselves will know what I mean.

Ahh, love that duffle coat, and his sister looks like a poorly dressed shop dummy, they're obviously from UP North...

 

'..take your coat Harold, and tuck yer shirt in, London's awful cold this time of year (watch the cat on yer way out).

 

What a good'en.

It's got ration booooks and post war written all over it.

 

The poster family for the National Health Service

 

'Have you bought War Bonds Mrs.Tiddlesworth?'

'No, Doctor'.

 

Bit of Photoshop, thin negs, Mamaya C3, cold out, watch it, don't trip over your scarf.

 

That kid in the middle has got made in England stamped through his legs like Blackpool rock.

Who cares about the head, and who cares about blur...you can blur out backgrounds by printing with an open lens, no complaints then eh?

 

Oooh wide you say, f2.8 yer say, well done, clever lad.

 

Photoshop..? Photo wot? Don't go talkin' to strangers

Stick with what you know lad, remember the war and pass me an orange.

 

Basically living in England is what this picture is like, cockeyed and slightly out of focus, everyone looking in different directions and crowded.

 

Well done, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Nice, I agree about losing the modern "tash man" and if I look closely down the edge of the girls right arm, I think you have missed some blurring against the car.

 

Other than that, great

Please forgive me if I haven't addressed contributors' topics as often as I would like, but matters elsewhere have been demanding so much of my attention. I intend to discuss points that have been raised very soon. So far this has been for me a very stimulating and educational debate.My heartfelt gratitude to all who have contributed......

I'm not a "street" photographer. Nor am I a studio photographer. I'm in that lowley, unrespected classification of wedding photography. However, the type of wedding shooting I do is "capture the moment, emotion and expression". Very little is staged. Most of the work is fast. Sometimes people get in the shot or the "moment" is not in the optimum location for a perfect background etc. etc... It's the nature of the beast. You can't ask someone to move - or wait for someone to move or change your position or you will lose the "specialness". As Tony says, there are those (rare) times when everything lines up and when you get it you know it immediately and say "yes!". I think Tony's "Speaker's Corner" is a great example of such a shot.

David caught a wonderful "moment" full of emotion and expression. I can just see him saying.. Dang - wish that guy wasn't there...it would have been sooo perfect. But, he was there and I still think it is a memorable and poignant shot. A moment later and someone might have turned around or closed their eyes or whatever. So - it is still - to me - a great shot.. Not perfect but I know I'd be pretty happy if I caught this slice of life.

A very interesting point, Mary. Wedding photographers require particular skills shared by street photographers patience, good judgment and the ability to seize the moment. They have a lot else to contend with too, the vagaries of the weather wind and rain especially. Much too stressful for me give me the streets any time!

Excellent moment! I really like the shot, especially the framing and tone variation, but I think the photoshopping applied to the background (gaussian blur) is either unnecessary or overdone. The lasso flaw adjacent to the girl's right arm (our left) where the background remains in focus detracts from the attempted depth-of-field impact. It saddens me to see such excellent photography suffer on the digital playground.

Pace yourself david, you're over the hump, don't let the no-hopers drag you down...

;\/

This is an excellent photograph, but I do not see why the photographer insists the background blur is due to full aperture. It is clearly visible in the camera left arm of the girl some area left unblurred.

Seeing the original will be a treat if it happens. I will probably like it much better that what we have here. As to my views being considered "critical", well, my issues are with the image shown here, and not on the technique or honesty of the photographer.

 

In the real world, images must stand on their own. There is usually no available trasncript to explain if a photo represents "reality" or is a "created environment". People just take a look and develop an opinion. I think most people who would view this photo without knowing the facts of its capture would suppose the Lookers to be models, because their facial expressions are so coordinated and so exaggerated. Is this a weakness? I say yes. This photo appears to be almost "cartoonish" in nature, and probably brings a smile to all who see it. If some want to call my comments criticism, that's OK. Some viewers see Pork Chops and his "shadow man" to be a weakness, but I don't. Are their comments criticism? I don't take them that way. All opinions are valid if they represent one's true feelings.

 

Suggestions that someone should "try it" are sad arguments. Taking photos on the run isn't rocket science, especially with todays auto everything equipment. Any parent who takes a camera to their kid's sporting event has essentially given such photography a try. The fact that this image was taken without the benefit of auto equipment is a big plus in its favor. But it is still the final image we are talking about. Facts are nice to know, but the image's appeal is the bottom line. And if a photo looks staged, regardless of the facts, it still looks staged.

This photograph immediately grabbed my attention. For some reason I thought it was taken in New York, but read London. The angle is wonderful, the expressions classic, and just the ambience of black and white only adds to the wonderment of this photograph. Excellent!

Didn't it occur to one of you that this great shot is so great not

ALTHOUGH but BECAUSE there is this distracting guy in the

background?! Yes, he disturbs balance, composition - whatever,

I don't care. Without the guy this shot would probably look better,

but it would feel worse. As you look at this scene, you become

part of the invisible crowd, embodied by this man. Without him

you stand outside, sitting in an audience looking onto a stage.

Well done. One suggestion I have though is that the guy behind everyone could have been mildly blurred. That would add a little separation and I think the apparent very shallow DOF would allow for that to remain believable. That said, it's still a great photo as is.

Joseph,

You missed my point. You think the photo looks "staged". My point in reply was that you think it looks staged only because, maybe, you haven't caught such a moment yourself. They're out there just waiting for a photographer to come along. To restate Arthur C. Clark's famous dictum:

"Any sufficiently advanced photographic technique is indistinguishable from magic".

The photograph's timing shouldn't be held against it. At first, David's capture of the expressions is so good that it makes you wonder whether it isn't posed. When you realise it isn't, the picture just gets better. The picture has flaws, but being too precisely timed isn't one of them.

"Precise timing" is almost a definition of photography. Add "supreme courage" and you have defined wedding photography.

Dear Tony, a little puzzled over your "supreme courage" defining wedding photography ....oh, I read you, you mean a bloody courage to actually get bloody married.

There you have it! This man recently divorced, and it's his weekend with the kids. They're all spellbound because they're not inside the shopping mall/department store with mom, who would normally be spending left and right,driving up dad's credit card bill. They can't believe they're in the real world! Burnside there, he's the new Mr. Right for the mom, and is off to meet her, that's right, in the store.

 

go mom!