faces in the crowd London Tourists

The idea that the sideburned guy is somehow an enhancement to this photograph is pure bunk. He is definitely a mistake. 10 to 1, no, 100 to one: If David saw this guy in the viewfinder he would have hesitated. If any of us saw him in the viewfinder, we would have hesitated. The fact that David made this shot on the run, quickly, on the last frame, says to me he was focused solely on the awestruck trio. Mustachio makes no sense. He doesn't help. He distracts. Oh, sure, he's real. He's as real as anything else, or anyone else that could have been in the shot, but he's no help. If every street photo needs to have 100 points to be a winner, then this one falls short of that mark. It's a lot closer than others, I think we all would agree to that, but it's not hitting 100 out of 100, thanks to bushy burns.

That's ridiculous. Why not include a couple of lightstands on Marc Gouguenheim's Wayang? They're real, and part of the truth in photography. Why not include a drunk stashed in the corner of Phil Morris' 6 steps, or his thumb over the lens. That would be real, and part of the truth of photography. Or shoot Darrin James' Ubein Bridge when everyone was all on one side, or everyone going the same direction? Or patch over the bullet holes in John Orr's yellow wall paint it grey, and then make the photograph. That would be real. In each case, we'd get a real picture, but also in each case they would be different, and in my opinion, worse. It's all about composition here, and in this case, cropping won't help. Real is not a goal in photography except in copy work and biology. Real is not always Ideal, even though they share some of the same letters. Street photography is not about capturing the moment, or telling the story. It's about one perspective (the photographer's) of the story, or the moment. What you're after is essence, clarity, maybe truth, quite possibly beauty, etc. Bushy-burns is real, he's truthfully there, but he is not contributing to the essence of this photo, nor is he aiding in its clarity. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about him.

But hey, we're all different. Burnside provides no aesthetic benefit for me, in fact quite the opposite, but photography is also not all science, correct? Ness pah? Comprennie Vu? So we can't with complete and unabated authority say his presence is wrong. His scientific presence on the negative is indisputable. His artistic value is not.

 

We can criticize his sideburns, though. E-gad!

My kids don't look this spellbound when it's "my weekend" with them... especially when I pull out my camera!

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.

No Maria - I'm pretty sure what Tony meant was "wedding photography" takes "supreme courage". I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. I guess to some it seems very stressful work and to others it is shclock work. To me it is a combo of "street" photography and portrait and family photography and glamour photography and journalism and art PLUS you have to be wound like a clock and ready to capture the essence and the "moments" - but unlike the street - you have a limited time frame in which to perform. Courage? Maybe initially but I guess for an adrenaline junkie it's great stuff.

What you said, Mary.

To me, Pople on this picture look kind of "mentaly sick" ........don't get me wrong, i it like anyway!

Geez...this is a great shot, excellent reaction time to the moment!

...may be you consider my opinion of the guy having to be in that

picture "bunk" - but did you see the posting where he was

removed? The picture DID NOT BECOME BETTER. Period.

I'll concede the word "pure" from my pompous statement is over the top, but I surely think the manless version is better, yes. It's about 300 times less distracting and I am convinced that Daid Malcolmson was photographing the trio of English hillbillies, and would have hesitated if he had seen the guy, waiting for him to exit the frame. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. To say it another way, I don't think David waited for him to be just right there before releasing the shutter, either. Does anyone else.

 

I suppose someone will say whether he was intentionally placed there, or not doesn't matter, that it's the final negative that matters, by hook or by crook, design or accident. That may be true--I really don't know all the nooks and crannies of Street Photography philosophy. But I know what it's like to be so focused on one element of a scene that you are unaware of others, and I don't believe--in this case--that bushyburns was put there on purpose.

 

And now a few smiley faces around to illustrate the friendly nature of my disagreement: : ) :0) :o) :oD :ol

Come on Birgit, Are you saying that if you ran across this group posed the way they were minus the guy(s)in back that you would have WAITED for someone else to appear? That seems a little far fetched to me.

 

But hey what do I know about your aesthetic, right? And not that it matters much but I think even you might have to admit that you're in the minority with respect this?

 

 

Regards,

and his sister looks like a poorly dressed shop dummy

 

paid models... no doubt from the Ugly Agency

 

"...mentally sick"

 

...trio of English hillbilly's

 

You guys are a tough crowd. I shudder to think what you think of the photos of my kids!

 

For what its worth I actually find them charming, and even, dare I say itattractive. And regardless of what your idea of physical beauty is its endearing how the father is holding the sons hand.

 

Regards,

I don't find them unattractive, either. My term hillbilly is to illustrate their awestruck attitude regarding the big city.

Bushyburns in or out? Opinion seems neatly divided on this. A contributor to this forum kindly sent me a version of the POW in which the fourth man had been airbrushed out, and there was a feeling that the image had been diminished by the removal. A couple of correspondents were of the same opinion. I am going to stay on the fence for the time being on this. Perhaps I havent said the last word, figuratively speaking, about the final look of this picture I leave myself that option. This photo has been problematic for me and I have tended to put it on the back burner. We cant choose our POW but I would have been more relaxed with my Hell-fire Preacher or Young Man hpc each has enough scope for controversy to satisfy the aim of these forums.

The protagonists in the photo here have always struck me as being Spanish rather than English. I share Dave Fosters view that they have a look of innocence, and I think they seem to belong to another age. I could imagine them in a 15th Century religious painting gazing up with that look at a heavenly scene.

Good old times when people were so easy to amaze. In today s time those kids would have possibly passed by with a short look and less attention. great record of a different time.

RE: How stupid these people look. Have you every checked out the expressions of people nearby during a particularly emotional movie?

 

During the right movie, you would get similiar expressions from a platoon of Rhodes scholars.

John: not stupid, they are amazed and their expression is sincere and something that is more rare today - authentic -. watching grimace s in a movie is a different experience.

They may not be stupid. They may be simply demonstrating the famous Malcolmson Technique for venting the eustacean tubes at sea level.

ok, tony - since it seems that you know more than the rest of us you should confess!!!..... that the guy in the middle ... its been you!

i think they're singing. i love it.

How did you guess, Tony, I have had a lifetime of trouble with these Eustachean tubes? The very mention of them make my head spin.

I think that boy and his dad are looking at the dead sea gull. And the daughter is really a blond but colored her hair to avoid blond jokes -- well, it did not help much since she looks the other way.

I was just looking at the ratings. Before February 24, the ratings were typically around 6 with some 5s and a couple of 7s. After the photo won PoW, the 6s and 7s abound. I guess that this is true for all photos, but I never noticed it before. Nothing succeeds like success, etc.

 

I do honestly like the photo, David, and nothing I have said is intended to imply that I think that I could have done better. My only virtue as a photographer is that I do know my very severe limitations. Your work is splendid.

I'm taking the prism off my TLR, or carrying a second one with the waist level finder. We have lost the waist lever prespective that was once so common. It represents what a childs view looking up at the world and the people in it.

Success doesn't always breed success, Lannie. Some POWs go down in the ratings after the collective blowtorch is applied to the belly. If this one has gone up a bit, then that's a tribute to the photographer and the elves.

David, I too have trouble with the eustaceans. I have found your technique* works well. Open the mouth, stare upwards with crossed eyes**, and go, "Honk, honk". Works every time.

* Better enjoyed with friends or family mambers.

** Be careful of nearby photographers