faces in the crowd London Tourists

Congrats with this pow, David. Great photo. Makes me smile. The open mouths, the girl with the handbag, the boy and his father in their nicest clothes.

 

I am just curious how the picture without the small amount of blurring looked like. Maybe, the man with the moustache stands out a little less then.

BTW, I like your Kids' Corner photographs as well.

whoa hoh! Guillermo Labarca, you have showed us the utopian view ! What a difference a second would have made as those tourists appear completely frozen in their state of outta-towner hillbilly disblief.

To heck with blurring the guy with sideburns. You have PhotoShop. Off with his head! Seriously, sideburns or sans-sideburns, gorgeous shot.

Although I feel this photo could be relevant today ,It has a very dated look because it is from 1970,thats all It really does for me is look old!!

I can't agree with the idea that the background dude in this shot is as important as the dark glasses guy in Tony Dummett "spotshot" (link to shot found in Jim Vanson's comment above). In the Dummett image - the guy is making a direct confrontation with the viewer, as if to say, "yeah, I'm here and that's what I think. What are you going to do about it." His posture and expression support the other parties in the photograph, and the idea the photograph is presented to convey. In this shot, the guy is just scurrying along in the background, his activity in no way harmonizing with the attention and activity of the tourists. I wouldn't say he's a mistake, but I do think his presence is not optimal.

This is certainly a great catch. The expressions, to me, are timeless. It's conveyed very clearly that these people aren't in a familiar place. However, the gaussian blur is a bit too strong. Pull back that slider a little, and I'd like this a little more.

 

I'm noticing nobody's cropped this yet... what's wrong? =)

Great pose in all the characters!

 

Looks set up, in the manner of those studied '40s fashion shots (elegant Audrey Hepburn-thin model in dress, gloves and hat in crowded street/zoo/train station etc).

 

I know its not, but even if so then it would be a wonderfully subversive picture.

 

The ambience is reinforced by the classic square format. This introduces the only quibble - there is a bit much space at the top. A slightly lower angle would have been perfect, but this is a minor issue in a street photograph, where serendipity and reflexes can't always meet exactly.

 

I personally always like a non-cropped picture over a crop, so still prefer it to a rectangle. Also, as mentioned, the 'old' feel would be reduced.

The family is truly charming and looks so British. :)

 

Is it me, or does the girl resemble Elizabeth Taylor as a little girl?

 

You know what would be weird? If the people who were in the picture saw this photograph...fun things like this happen sometimes. :)

 

Great exposure. My only gripe is the background looks just a tad too blurred. (I tend to overblur myself)

 

Otherwise, great candid photograph!

I confess to being one of the people who feel sorry for these lost, unfashionable, untraveled souls. And, yes, I laugh at them also. Just a wonderful shot.

Darn nice shot.

Funny how if you have a good shot like this NO ONE MENTIONS THE BAD BOKEH!!!! (idiotic subject.. bokeh)

 

Good shot really good...

I'm just not impressed with this photo. I believe what Mr. Malcolmson says, and it may not have been posed, but to me it looks like it was, and I just can't get into it. It looks like they are in the middle of the city, and they had to get to this spot with their eyes closed in order to have such opened mouthed expressions while looking in different directions. Perhaps they were "beamed" to this locaction, and then began to spontaneously and simultaneously take on that "deer in the headlights" look. The technical aspects are OK, but because I can't bring myself to embrace it as a real "moment", and I just can't get excited about it. It just doesn't look natural to me. Except for the guy with the sideburns passing by. Leave him in, because his presence is the only natural looking part of this photo.

I really love this shot. It reminds me of the Mass Observation photos taken by Humphrey Spender in the 1930s.

I'd like to see the few who suggest this could be a staged shot try and draw

three such wonderful genuine expressions in the blink of a camera's eye.

There are magical moments we live for as photographers and those

harmonious captured expressions are one of them.

 

Like others I regret sideburn man. My first reaction was this was New York.

I'm not a British expert but he sure doesn't look very British to me. The city this

was captured in really doesn't matter; I don't think the historical context (date

of exposure) matters either. The only necessary context needed is the

background. Sideburn man sits in a sort of visual wasteland giving nothing to

the 3 subjects (even taking away a tad bit from the boy) nor adding to the

power of the background's framing context.

 

I'd love to see the non-photoshopped version. Maybe the blur helps, maybe it

doesn't. I'd like to see this image stand on its own for what its worth without

the intervention of digital manipulation. Why touch in time a timeless moment

if it doesn't really need it?

Congratulations David! I love the blurring...not only for how it pops the subject, but for the anxiety it conveys of being lost in a swirl of activity.

About the only thing I see that makes this photo work (for me) is the apparent Synchro-gawking unity going on between this alleged small town close-knit family who seemingly live a simple and sheltered life. Aside from that, I find the photo void of any key elements which give any reason for these presumably out-of-towners to be so captivated by the big city scene. Because of this, I also have to team up with Joseph Coalter when he states that unless these people were beamed up to that spot on the side walk, I cant see a valid reason why they should remain so wrapped up with the scenery for so long a time. What I think happened is that the photographer got lucky and took the shot when a coincidental unreal moment took place. Unreal meaning that: they werent really mesmerized by the sights, but were instead maybe in the middle of yawning (boy) or trying to prevent a good sneeze from escaping (girl). There is however one inescapable coincidence: they are all looking UP at something which has caught their undivided attention, and this something is apparently all around them, or at least it is rather long and tall and right in front of them. If we take the back building as a hint or a clue, that leads us to believe that they feel dwarfed by the tall buildings, and we can infer the idea that these buildings are all around them and is the reason for the astonishment. However I doubt that a family who can afford that kind of clothing (especially in the 70s) has never been to the big city (unless that happens to be a polyester suit [just kidding])?

 

Then again, they were photographed, so the photographer had to have seen something unusual about them in order to even consider taking their picture.

 

I also feel that the man in the back is totally relevant to the scene

(while being irrelevant to the group) and should not be taken out or diminished by any means such as cloning, blurring, etc. There is actually another guy immediately behind him wearing a plaid shirt which seems to be even more distracting IMO.

I still think these folks look like Christmas Carolers or else they belong to some charity organization and are in the midst of singing or asking for alms.

 

Aside from all this, if the photo is genuine, I think its an excellent photo albeit kind of unusual.

There is one thing that I think could explain the whole thing: it seems to me that they look like religious people; and if they are in front of the tall and colorful St. Pauls Cathedralthat could explain their expression and the direction they are looking.

"...if the photo is genuine..." And why would you suggest it's not? This is as real as it gets my friend.

 

Regards,

Joseph, Isidro

A few facts The photo was taken at Piccadilly Circus in London. I was approaching the Underground station when my attention was caught by these people. I assumed they were foreigners (Spanish?) and I thought they looked so old-fashioned even then. They were looking up at something with these expressions, and I couldnt resist taking the shot. I believe they were looking towards the statue of Eros at the time-St.Pauls is miles away. I saw an opportunity and seized it, and thats all there is to it.

I love this ! I live in a tourist filled area and its an inspiration to go out and shoot the little buggers. I mean with my camera of course (no cowboy jokes please).

Quirky as hell and I love it! I must add though, that I would love it even more without the PS blur. PS just doesn't substitute real lack of dof. Not that I'm against PS bgrd blur (on the contrary), just that it doesn't seem fitting with a documentary shot. Besides, the quirkiness would be enhanced even more if left as found, in the real world.

David, thanks for giving us that valuable piece of information, now I can understand their expression and believe that the shot is real since this place offers a full 360 degrees of beautiful limestone buildings to behold. This also explains why they arrived at a particular location and became awestruck for more than a few seconds. But at least I was right about them not being impressed by mere big city tall buildings alone, and my suggestion wasnt that far off as far as the uniqueness of the building (or buildings) is concerned. Great shot and intuitive quick reaction!

However, I dont feel that I made an idiot of myself I just couldnt fathom a family being so impressed by tall buildings! So, no sneezing or yawning oh well! You know something, crow doesnt really taste that bad (tastes like chicken); anyone got humble pie for dessert?

Congratulations David on your astonishing contributions to a non-squirrel genre. Although this particular shot ain't my favorite, I can never get over the technical quality of your images (even subtracting the PS editing, they make me sigh & ask: 'will I ever place, develop and print like you!'). So, I laughed hard when I realized that comment charging this image with lack of sharpness must have come from the squirrel genre representative. It's about time for POW "commontaters" and "gradetaters" at largee to start noticing that photography, like any other art, has more than just one school of shooting, (did you notice that many of Kertesz' shots are soooooo "out of focus" ... or do you know that Ansel Adams photographs are hopelessly colorless? ). How could any sensible person use a studio or commercial photography standards to judge a street photography? And how could any street photographer employ his/her genre standards to a macro photography? Considering these differences could be as well the only way to build a mutual respect.

A further comment. I can't BELIEVE the nit-picking that goes on in here! The "grammar" (implied set of rules) for a street photograph is ENTIRELY different from the "grammar" for a "creative photograph". Having spent several decades trying to take this type of photo, I know how DAMN HARD it is to bring home this much bacon.

 

One other point I've just noticed, the rather elegant, semi-Napoleonic hand gesture of the boy. There are so many visual elements here that really work!

 

Throw the "elves" a handful of peanuts and keep on shooting!

Well now Mr. Malcomson, you know how I feel about this type of photography. The strength of this image is in the random expressions, and in this case they are wonderful. I think the image would probably be just as strong to me without the selective blurring, but it is effective in promting subject isolation. Congatulations, you are deserving....J.

To those who think the expressions are posed, or staged: you obviously haven't tried hard or long enough yourselves. I don't mean to sound disparaging about this, but you really do need to put in the time. Many street photographers spend long hours out there to get such expressions in the can.

 

One of the aims of street photography could be said to be "making order out of chaos", that is, capturing a set of random elements in such a way that not only do they tell a story, but they tell the story in a visually pleasing, sometimes even an astonishing manner... astonishing, that is, until you see how much effort goes into making it look easy. I'm sure this is true of other genres - fashion, nature, landscape - as well as other creative fields - music, painting, literature, for example.

 

Street photography is not standing thirty metres away from your subject with a telephoto lens and taking pictures of people's backs, from behind a tree or a billboard. It's getting in there and being as much a part of the "street" as your subject is. This allows you to be a real part of the picture, admittedly unseen, but in there with your subject. If you can achieve this unobserved: that's good. If you can produce a good picture out of it: that's great.

 

Here, David has got close to his subjects and produced a very creditable result. The expressions are priceless, but I don't think they're posed. Yes, it's a little pity that Moustache Man is there, but David needed to be quick (the expressions look fleeting). The extra, artificial blurring is also a minor disappointment (I hadn't noticed it when I first looked at the photo, but after reading Marc's comment at the top, I see what he means... perhaps we could see the unblurred version, or have David tell us we're talking through our hats?).

 

This is an example of a very good street shot, perhaps one or two pegs down from "masterpiece" level, but highly entertaining nevertheless.

It would appear that there has developed a generation of photographers and lovers of photography who were raised on auto-focus, auto-exposure, and Photoshop,and for these folks the snapshot is a dead genre; there is no(perceived)defect of content, composition or exposure that they can't imagine "resolved". The sacredness of the individual negative, or at least of the contents as cropped, is foreign to them. On the other(my) side, I want to "find" something, and in the presentation SHOW WHAT I SAW. This doesn't preclude dodging, burning or cropping, but the idea of eliminating Mr. Muttonchop reminds me of Soviet-style photojournalism:you're on the podium in 1952 next to Stalin, then in 1953 first your body disappears, then your black and white image is deleted from the archives. I'm not in love with this picture: I think Joe Sideburns IS a defect, and I find the expressions over the top, but I respect that this is an actual event that David recorded, with a 5lb. camera whose shutter has to be recocked after every wind. I think John Jennings nailed it down very well.