Speaker's Corner, London

Ron rightly points out the problems I had with the sky area. Essentially the foreground of this picture is underexposed, while the background tends to be overexposed.

Because the foreground was in deep shade it was necessary to open up the lens somewhat to get any light from the scene in this area. This meant that the sky was always going to be overexposed, and in this case it actually caused some flare (you can see it plainly along the top border of the image where light has crept up under the focal plane mask in the camera). From other pictures taken on this occasion, I know that it was a clear summer's day, meaning no cute, puffy clouds to help me.

The two walking men in the background (watchers, watching the watchers) presented the main problem here (the trees were well out of focus, so there was nothing I could do about them anyway, except, perhaps to emphasise their "charm"). I had to pay especial attention to getting their faces down in tone a bit to bring them "into the picture". When I first printed this I did so in a darkroom. I was reasonably successful at burning-in their faces, but found that I was using a paper grade one lower than appropriate for the foreground and that the picture looked too flat.

Later (when Photoshop came along) I was able to attack this area of the picture with more precision, using feathered selections. Of course, when you have flare you also get a grainier look due to the extreme over-exposure. If I had brought the flared area down to the same contrast level as the clearer foreground this grain would have become markedly obnoxious and distracting. The trick was to go with the flare, to use it rather than fight it. The ultimate aim was to deliver enough detail in the background faces while using the flare to keep them semi-ghostlike, sort of "haunting" in nature. This also developed the concept of these people "accusing" the foreground protagonists from afar. In general, the effect I was after in the print was of a sunny, optimistic world trying to cast light on a darker netherworld.

I think the contrast in the foreground is about right, but ultimately that is just my opinion. Ron's is a view that I admit crossed my mind many times when deciding how to present this image. It is a difficult negative to print but that's no excuse, of course. On the whole, I'm happy with it, but I readily concede that not all may share this opinion.

The devil in photographic printing is in presentation and deciding upon a strategy. As the photographer you have to make decisions all along the way, from initial exposure to emotional content of the final public image. The best way to do this can often be surprising, even to the photographer. I have found many times, for instance, that darkening a print can help it, when before I actually tried it, I'd have sworn the image needed lightening. You have to try all options, understand the medium you're working in (and its limitations) and then, having gathered all the skills you think you need, get out a machete and hack at your preconceptions. If you go too far then that will be obvious, but at the margins there is always room for enlightened discussion.

Well said, Tony. I couldn't agree more.

A friend of mine, a scholar and a student of the English Renaissance, insisted he preferred studying the work of artists long dead. They were unable (and therefore not required) to defend or muck up their work with their own "interpretations" (which, in most cases, end up furthest from the mark) or presentations of their intentions (which have little to nothing to do with the work of art itself, anyway).

 

I was always inclined to agree with him. Once the poet frees his work for view, it is open to interpretation in public where it should be. It doesn't matter what the circumstances were--those are trivial facts for the biographer. The participants' faces in this photograph are what they were, and their juxtaposition does reveal an emotion, what Charles Olson after Alfred North Whitehead might call a "complex of occasions."

 

It also must be said, however, that attaching histories or stories beyond what one is presented with by a work of art is to do it a sort of violence. Characters in plays and novels, for instance, have no lives beyond what is stated. They have no mothers, fathers, pasts or futures that are not explicit in the artwork itself. Thus, the characters--though built with the raw materials provided by the actual faces and bodies of actual people--presented in this wonderful photograph have no intentions, and no lives outside of the moment presented.

 

I don't know if anyone has seen the movie The Fishing Trip, but giving your subjects enough rope...is a fair move. How many times have you heard people say of photographs or tapes of themselves, "That doesn't look/sound like me at all"? The fact is that we all live through a lot of continuous fractions of a second the entire complexity of which we are unaware, but which it is the job of the artist to reveal.

 

All elements of this image create its dreamlike uneasiness, and make the moment seem all the more fragile.

...with Scott when he says this...: "The participants' faces in this photograph are what they were"... That's not so sure in fact...

See below. We have been betrayed by this POW all the way. The truth is, that there was a sirloin steak hidden inside this newspaper, and that we all completely miss-interpreted the expression on one person's face... Truth shall now be revealed, together with the real identity of one of the actors of this scene...

Keep looking Simon. I believe you will find it try not to view it based on your own Taste in Photography. Look at the photograph and let it tell you the story.

 

Its a great story,

 

Take Care,

Linda

"Thus, the characters--though built with the raw materials provided by the actual faces and bodies of actual people--presented in this wonderful photograph have no intentions, and no lives outside of the moment presented."

 

Then does any photograph of people in any situation have any meaning beyond the idiosyncratic thoughts and emotions sparked at the instant of viewing it?

 

What I'm not apprehending is the utility of the concept of postulating no past and no future.

"Then does any photograph of people in any situation have any meaning beyond the idiosyncratic thoughts and emotions sparked at the instant of viewing it?"

No.

Just in case some do not know why the man is carrying a crumbled newspaper, he is not going to read it; the newspaper will be stuffed under his coat for extra insulation when it gets cold. This makes the contrast between his shabby coat and the luxury of the fur even more poignant.

 

I have no problems with the quality of the print, the white sky, the veiling flare over the faces of on lookers. This is the gritty look of B&W journalism. It could hardly be improved.

I've been away working....and return to see this. What a pleasure. Its interesting to note how universally popular Tony's work is. It proves, controversially, that real class will out. With this further recognition, I can only say - Well done Mr.Dummett.

 

Your work is inspirational to many. I am working on a future theme; called Portraits-Done-As-A-Landscape. Thanks Tony. Told you. Inspired.

After looking at and thinking about this photograph for the last four days I have to agree that it is one of the best examples of street photography that I have ever seen. At first I was hesitant to join the lovefest. I thought the background needed burning and I wanted to see more of the face of the kid staring up at him. But today I've looked at it again and I think it is perfect. I wouldn't change a thing. Congratulations Tony.

I like the idea of Scott's "fragile moment".

 

That phrase puts me in mind of a kind of "filing cabinet" crammed full of photographs of a scene, arranged in chronological order. You pick just one of them and try to work out what the photos before and after it would look like. You may achieve some success with the close neighbours, but as you get further away from your point of origin, your assumptions color your deductions and pretty soon you have an alternative story, one that may be more or less interesting, more or less factually "correct". A fascinating parlour game.

 

Photography has trouble escaping its roots as the medium of accurate rendition. We still expect it to deliver us the truth, on the table for us to peruse. That we believe this is possible, flys in the face of the true nature of things. Between each of our "filing cabinet" images, taken at, say, 1/125th of a second, there remains an infinite continum of points in time, gone forever... and we haven't even considered the infinite points of view - behind, in front, to the side, closer, further away. We'd need a lot of filing cabinets to come even close to recording our moment in time, to cover all the angles: an absurd and impossible task.

 

So we employ technicians and artists to try to distill the "essence" of the moment.

 

First you need to work out what the basic elements are. There is room enough for argument here to fill, with philosophers, a very large hall indeed. Then the arrangement of the protagonists spatially. Lastly you need to capture just the right slice of time and the right form of presentation to make all the other elements make sense when put together. All of these boil down to three basic stages: idea, execution and perception. If each of the three meshes or dovetails well with the others, you have a winner. If you are missing any one of them, keep trying.

 

I have gone into the technicalities of this photo and some of the story to try to prove that there is no magic to it; to encourage the many budding talents here to look at photographs they like and, instead of giving up (as some have facetiously said), to try to break those photographs down into their elements, consider the techniques used, and thus to understand that the only barriers to good photography are hesitant photographers and ignorant critics.

I find this discussion fascinating. This scene was obviously not

choreographed but is it a slice of reality? Hardly. Every aspect of

the presentation from the selection of film type to the final

printing represents subjective interpretation of an instant in time

far removed from place and context.

 

With a scene, such as this one, that evokes an emotional

response, it is natural to need to try and understand. But

understand what, the circumstances, the emotions of others,

their morality? No, to me the gift of art is having a window to my

soul opened by another.

 

Case in point. When I first viewed this photo my emotions ran

from anger, then gratitude, followed by sadness and finally hope.

 

Anger A hangover of memory flooded me as I remembered the

hate and humiliation I have experienced in similar situations as

our main character here. Though rationalization and

self-justification kept me from suicide at that time, there was one

truth I could not accept nor avoid. I was in a hopeless state of

mind and body.

 

Gratitude The selfless love of that others have given me over

twenty years of sobriety and a life second to none.

 

Sadness That so few understand or believe that alcoholism

and drug addition are a disease.

 

Hope That almost 30 years later there is a better chance for a

poor sot like this.

 

Thanks for the journey Tony and for sharing your know-how.

 

BTW The post that stated the paper was probably use for

insulation is probably correct. How many people noticed the

main character has on three coats? Good shadow detail!

Great Shot, Tony, and it's about time you were recognized. Hey, if you could make love as slowly as this page loads then you would be the total love machine and women would want you for that, rather than for your excellent photos. A word to the wise....

Jim, sadly, London's homeless issue is a stronger one now than at the time this image was captured. But with the needy covering most of the length of 'the Strand' (in London's theatre district), opportunities for distinct images abound. Many images of the indigent cover the walls of London's charities; IMO few reach this technical standard. For me, the compostion and timing are spot on.

There is no utility in not postulating a past and or future. I just mean there IS no past or future in the moment presented, and extrapolating does little to illuminate the viewing of any image at hand.

What really happened?

 

I haven't read through everyone's comments, but I've seen enough to suggest that most people think they know what's going on here, and that they think it represents Man's Inhumanity to Man. How do you know?

 

Look at the fellow in the right of the frame, who's smiling not at the bedraggled man, but at the fur-wearing companion to his immediate left. When I first saw this shot (and don't get me wrong, it is a good one)I thought maybe the down-and-out, bearded buy had just snatched the newspapers from the hand of the fur-bearer, maybe in response to something said beforehand. The smiles on the faces seem, to me, a reaction shot: something happened moments before the shutter was clicked.

 

People, we have all seen bums before. I don't know if this guy is a "bum", or homeless, or drunk, or whatever. We don't really know, we just assume based on his general dress and bearing. But in all the places I've been where there are such people, from New York to Mexico City to Hong Kong to Bangkok, they are never, ever laughed at. Never. They are ignored. People walk around them. People avert their gaze or stare straight ahead or cross the street. But stand around in a circle and laugh? No way. This is not an indication of the cruelty of the upper classes. Everyone is involved in a tableau predicated on an action that we didn't see, something that at least briefly brought the players into some kind of interaction. I would love to know what happened.

 

Also, no disrespect to the photographer, but it strikes me as unseemly to be pointing cameras at human distress (if that's what this is, in fact), for the sake of catching that prime shot. Am I really the only one who feels this way? Holding a camera up to your eye doesn't give you permission to violate someone's space, their privacy or their dignity. It can be an arrogant presumption as cruel and aloof as the emotions captured in the photo.

 

This is a general observation, of course, and I don't pretend to judge the individual motive or character of the person who took what is otherwise a fine and telling shot.

"But stand around in a circle and laugh? No way. This is not an indication of the cruelty of the upper classes." -- Chris Williams

I would even go as far as to say that the two laughing men show their humanity -- they do not ignorantly turn their heads away; they actually do pay attention to human condition through interaction; they may even sacrifice their social standing in doing so! Their faces show no contempt of the protagonist, but rather a friendly to him smile, openly and without restraint.

"Holding a camera up to your eye doesn't give you permission to violate someone's space, their privacy or their dignity." -- Chris Williams

Then what does? Holding up a police ID?

I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid to the

composition of this image, specifically what it is that grabs you

and holds you long enough to even begin to think about all the

other moment in time issues that have dominated the

discussion. The elves describe the "network of images captured

in a single frame" , yet while they provide the content of the

image, they are each too small to serve as an element that

attracts the eye.

 

I asked my daughter - sixteen and a taking her first year of high

school photography classes - to look at the screen and tell me

what she saw. Without hesitation she said, "a fur coat and a

homeless man". (meaning, "this is what I saw and this is what

it's about"). Do not underestimate the importance of the coat if

you are interested in getting people to actually stop and look at

your images. Then we can talk about life, time, and truth. But

you've got to get their attention first.

Certainly not in this case. We are, I think, entitled to assume with 100% certainty that someone holding forth in Hyde Park is looking for attention. However, no one seeking it gets to dictate the tone of that attention however much Hollywood types and their image wranglers may try.

 

I agree about the down & outs being ignored as the default. To get more than the attention needed to step over them without tripping they have to be doing something besides surviving to engage an audience.

"Holding a camera up to your eye doesn't give you permission to violate someone's space"

 

What, then, is street photography?

"I am moved by fancies that are curled

Around these images, and cling:

The notion of some infinitely gentle

infinitely suffering thing.

 

Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;"

 

So good to see Tony & Eliot on the POW page.

Thanks for mentioning the coat, Carl. I think we'd all forgotten that there are more visual elements to "street" photography than just peoples' faces.

I realised the fur coat was a bit obvious as a prop, although highly useful to The Story. In fact, I had to mute it a bit in the print to avoid clipping its very light grays to white. In a straight print (without dodging or burning) the coat dominates the scene and turns it into a kitsch extravaganza.

William reiterates my own point that "all bets are off" in the privacy stakes, when your photographing in a public place like Speakers' Corner. On a more general note about privacy, if I may speak on behalf of the "profession" for a moment, I don't actually enjoy upsetting people or alarming them, so I try to be discreet. I can't think of any street photographer who would disagree with me. Besides, discretion allows you to capture the scene without becoming part of it (albeit, off-camera). In the case of this scene, there wasn't much of a problem anyhow, because no-one there paid the slightest attention to my presence.

There is a lot of leeway between paparazzi-like intrusion and total abstinence when you photograph strangers. You have to make your own rules of engagement and try to stick by them, and not allow another's inhibitions or excesses to affect your judgement.

I find it interesting that France, arguably the cradle of "street" photography, has virtually banned it just recently. This may have a lot to do with the circumstances of Lady Diana's death and, generally, the influence of the international glitterati on French legislators, than any desire on the part of the French to be polite, au naturel. I can't guess why they have made such an astonishing decision. There's the whiff of a committee there, somewhere. Speaking of national cultures, some of the most polite and considerate people I've ever met have been Americans, yet their news media have turned privacy invasion and the discussion of other peoples' business (international and domestic) into an artform reminiscent of public autopsy. Australians just smile, thrilled that you're taking their picture, but puzzled as to why you'd want to.

I've only taken one picture I haven't been too proud of (in the privacy area) and have been suitably hauled over the coals for it by some (although my guilt has been assauged by yet others). As Balaji implied above, if we thought too much about the feelings of the human subjects of our photography we'd only take pictures of inanimate objects, dumb animals and politicians (who deserve all they get). There sometimes seems to be an almost primitive belief (in the minds of some photographers) that you really can steal someone's soul by taking their picture. Speaking personally, I prefer to see photography not as theft of another's soul, but a revelation and development of my own. You might say that this is a convenient rationalisation, but without it (applied to many other activities, besides photography) we probably wouldn't get out of bed in the morning for all the mental anguish it would take just forgiving ourselves for being alive.

Tony D said : "I prefer to see photography not as theft of another's soul, but a revelation and development of my own".

 

HCB said, of "content" in a street shot: "I believe that, through the act of living, the discovery of oneself is made concurrently with the discovery of the world around us which can mold us, but which can also be affected by us. A balance must be established between these two worlds -- the one inside us and the one outside us. As the result of a constant reciprocal process, both these worlds come to form a single one. And this is the world that we must communicate."

Dammit! Can't I say anything original?

I've always been troubled by the word "must" in Cartier-Bresson's writings. I would use "choose"... maybe it was just the translation? (No, I haven't read any of his words in the original French).

Another of many, many, many differences between HCB and me: he always wanted to be a painter (and became an obscure one). I'm happy being a photographer.

Thank you, Tony, for all the inspirations, teachings and ramblings :-). If only we could get you to ramble a little more often. Actually if I get my math right, you still have 5 more POWs to go, you being a cat and all.

 

With my previous comment I only wanted to say that the similarity is in the soul. And, that, despite your insistence on the differences. But then, why are you trying to distance yourself from HCB? Is it a matter of having your own identity/style?