Bus-Stop, Mt. Eden Road

There's a great impression from this photo that they have an audience watching them. The expressions on their faces are only classic! Well done, well shot. Hope the ladies didn't mind too much :o)

For me,the best folder in the entire site...

I like your style. I think your "imitations" aren't as poor as you say. maybe it's just because I really like french photographers as Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau, but I find your work really astounding. Congratulations!

Great shot, Tony!

Firstly, to deal with the specific picture... I had been loitering at the bus-stop waiting for the bus with these two old girls. They had been next door in a church arranging flowers, or perhaps attending Novena (it was the middle of the day). There were some kids running about, playing tag, but I was more interested in photographing the ladies. So I took a picture or two of the kids. This got me in a turned-around position, facing into the bus shelter. Shooting off one or two (inconsequential) frames of the kids got the girls used to this creature with the camera. It was a simple matter to just swing the camera round a few degrees, focus and expose this one frame. The lady on the left looks much more surprised than I remember her actually being. Having said that, I have a picture of myself taken at roughly the same time and I looked pretty horrific: bushy hair, big Zapata moustache, large eye-glasses and freckles all over my face. So maybe she was reacting to my appearance, especially when you take into account the Cyclopean eye right in the middle of my face. But I really think the expressions (alhough striking) were just good luck, and were an unintentional bonus that happened to make the picture. I didn't have enough cheek to stay and ride the bus with them though. I gave them a Big Grin and walked off saying, "Thanks girls!" and left it at that (this is a case of the "smarmy exit" strategy, discussed below).

 

[To my wife... There you go, my "Little Chicken"! This all happened 27 years ago. Would you now kindly withdraw your accusation that I suffer from Alzheimer's Disease?]

 

As to the "etiquette" part of your comment/question: I don't think it's necessarily "professional etiquette" to ask before taking a stranger's photo (I prefer to shoot and then melt away). I almost never ask for permission; and I can't think of one time I have asked where the picture has been worth anything. The name of the game is "candid" (I hate that word "street"). How can you make a candid picture of someone who is overly conscious of the camera? The two concepts are mutually inconsistent to my mind. Now this might mean that you miss out on lots of pictures of "interesting" looking people, but at least the ones you do get are fresh and real. Even in a portrait-taking situration, I prefer to just keep clicking and whirring away until the subject loses interest.

 

None of the above is to claim that I have never been caught taking pictures. I have, plenty of times. So what? At least I tried. It's usually too late for the subject to do anything about it anyhow, as I've yet to meet anyone whose reaction time is faster than a camera shutter operating at 1/125th of a second. What's on film is a "photographic" situation. What comes after is a "social" situation (to plagiarise myself from elsewhere on this site).

 

I don't think one has to be rude to take candid pictures. You quoted The Great Man (HCB himself) saying he felt like a pickpocket looking for a "mark" in the crowd. Good analogy, up to a point, but if you do it right, theft needn't come into it. Now pickpockets don't usually offend their victims (until after the event of course when they discover their wallet is missing). The "professional" aim of the pickpocket (and I suggest, the candid photographer) is to steal in and out quickly and most of all, quietly, with the minimum of fuss. Doesn't always work this way, of course, especially when you're using a 50mm lens, but that's The Plan. If you get caught usually just a cheery smile and a smarmy wink will suffice to get you out of trouble. But not always.

 

I've had my share of being chased down the street a bit and, more often, shouted at by subjects who did not share my artistic vision. Only a couple of subjects (that I can remember) pursued the chase for even a few metres. Some unimpressed subjects make do with a totally blank look, as if to say, "So you think you're a great photographer, eh?". It's an occupational hazard if you want interesting pictures.

 

And there's another point: what's an interesting picture? Is there a difference between an interesting candid portrait and an interesting candid picture of a scene, or (more to the point) scenario? Or can they be the same thing? The world is full of fascinating faces, but is the trick not to just present the fascinating face, but to present it in context? Having asked the question, I don't have a definite answer. I tend to take my "good" pictures from wherever they come from. This picture (the one to whom this comment is attached) I think just qualifies as an "interesting scenario". I say "just" because the "point" it makes is trivial: two old ladies in a bus-stop, hats, gloves and handbags, looking surprised. A better "statement" is this picture, in my opinion: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=147681, taken at almost the same time. A bit of a discussion raged about this picture after I admitted that I felt ashamed to take it, because I hassled the guy and that was a palpably wrong thing to do. But some of the comments I received about it justified it in my mind and helped assuage my conscience. Which brings me back to the subject of "etiquette".

 

No etiquette at all was applied to the picture of the Auckland drunk. I was being an obnoxious little so-and-so when I used my camera like a weapon on him (there were several shots taken). A little etiquette was applied to the picture of the old girls here. But I was totally invisible to this man, http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=147795 and to this man, http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=147790 and feel better for it. It boils down to how much cheek you have, how arrogant you are and how caring you are about the feelings of those whom you photograph. In the case of "invisibility" the question doesn't need an answer: they never knew I was there. What I DO know is that I believe it's better to try and be invisible (failing sometimes) than to ask permission and ruin the photograph, or invade someone's privacy and ruin your own self-respect.

 

The only person we sleep with EVERY night of our lives is ourselves. If we can do that most of the time then we've lived a successful life. It's even better if we can contribute to others' lives by helping THEM to sleep nights. In the candid photography area (as in almost any field of self-expression) you strive to make the very best photographs you can, but to do so without invasion and malfeasence towards your subject. It's possible to avoid offending people and take quite ordinary pictures. It's infinitely more satisfying to achieve this social goal, and to take the good pictures as well: cleverly, technically and aesthetically. HCB's pictures have a fantastic lightness to them that I try to achieve and usually fail comprehensively to do so. That's why this portfolio is called, "Poor Imitations..."

 

I said above that the "pickpocket" analogy was good, but only up to a point. Pickpocketing is about theft, not self-expression. The fact is that it is difficult to steal someone's soul by merely taking their photo. Difficult, but not impossible. But if you go about your work with finesse and delicacy then soul-stealing (or any other kind of theft) needn't come into it. It takes nerve and some skill and you'll fail to record anything worthwhile 99% of the time. But that remaining 1% is pure bliss, and might even help you learn something about yourself. That we should learn from our mistakes and failings is the only "definite" thing I know.

Best potraites of people I've ever seen.

The expressions are priceless.

TOny, this is one more splendid b/w of yours. I can hardly understand what Cartier Bresson has to do with this series - you have your own and very distinct style - one could have mentioned another name, that of Diana Arbus, yet again, not as smbd who has influenced your directly, but rather as an artist with a similar view

Tony, I read with great interest your comment about "Etiquette in Candid Photography". I myself find it very difficult or even impossible to take a good photo without the cooperation of the subject. So I always do ask for their permission, but simply to get a good picture. But you and the great masters have certainly proved the opposite is also true.

 

Etiquette aside, do you have any concern/problem with 'model release' when a publisher wants to use your photos?