Belgian Kids in Kensington Gardens (these kids weren't posing, so much as poseur-ing. I took several images, but they weren't aware of my presence...(too taken up with themselves, I think).

correction: their stillness is right, it's the rest of the frame that should not be still.

I Find it very hard to beleive these Posers were not Posed, Even if it was spontanious the very fact it looks to Posed spoils it for me. It Looks like a scene from an Advert for Jeans or something. It does not do much for me, I would not rate it Highly as most people seem to?

Of course I didn't mean to imply Tony copied the Winogrand photo. If Tony took it that way then I apologize as it was not my intention to suggest that. What I did mean by posting that book cover was to show by example that even nine years earlier than this picture, HCB's style was being reworked and explicitly rejected. Good, bad, indifferent, I don't really care, but the fact is many photographers thought the HCB way of seeing had dead-ended by the late 1960's. The art world did as well: you cannot treat MOMA's championing of Winogrand, Arbus, Friedlander or Eggleston in the early 70's as anything but a rejection of street photography as it had been practiced from about the 1940's to then. HCB himself stopped shooting by the early 70's; Magnum (who later aallowed Martin Parr to join) pushed the work of Webb, Koudelka, DeKeayzer, Gruyaert, Richards, etc, none of whom shot at all like HCB.

Kent, you use "conceit" incorrectly. The oblique angle is too easy. My pointing out that I took an oblique angle shot myself, and then went looking for a better one, is not conceit. If Winogrand had come further around to the front, cut out the confusing background, included a few of the arms, legs, and torso he chopped off he probably would have had a better shot. Interesting faces and expressions are easy to find. Putting them in a balanced pictorial context is the difficult bit. That's why, to me, if I had taken the oblique shot, it would have been a reject. Matter of fact, I DID take the shot, and DID reject it.

As a rule, I try to avoid oblique angles because they're cliches in outdoor photography. They're cliches because, usually, the photographer didn't have the moxy, the time or the opportunity to get in closer or squarer. Even if this isn't the case, it still looks that way. It's just an unsatisfactory angle to me, in most cases.

CLICK HERE and you'll see the similar shot I rejected (top left).

I think this scene in particular required a concentration on the foreground "neatness", with little else to distract it. Receding parallax lines would have ruined the basic "tableau" setting. Tableaus are meant to be looked at from the front. A rectangular film frame further reinforces this. That's why the background is square - up and down lines, with everything neatly placed - broken up by the kids themselves, who have all kinds of angles to them.

On the long title: at the time (I think this was just about the first photo I posted to photo.net) I put a sentence as the title because I didn't think I could post a comment on my own picture (PN newby). Anticipating the comment that the shot was posed (as two-out-of-three do say, see Tim's comment below yours) I put it right up front that it wasn't. Still didn't do me any good, did it? This is all a long time in the past, nearly five years. Sorry it affects your appreciation of the pic.

Tim, I'm flattered in one way that you find it "very hard to believe" it's not posed. It wasn't. It's the scene as I found it. The Levis Jeans ads are the "poor imitations" (>>>>>>> before the Thought Police raid this comment, I'm just being cheeky <<<<<<<).

"...you cannot treat MOMA's championing of Winogrand, Arbus, Friedlander or Eggleston in the early 70's as anything but a rejection of street photography as it had been practiced from about the 1940's to then. - Andy.

I find that assertion very easy to resist.

"Rejection" is too strong, too dramatic a word. An "alternative view", perhaps? The MOMA didn't "reject" HCB just because they exhibited the works of other photographers. Why would they? HCB must have been one of their biggest money-spinners. Crass and commercial, but I bet it's true, and MOMA has to pay the bills, after all.

No human endeavour stands still. There's always change, but you don't have to "reject" the past to make way for the present. You add another cloister to an already broad church, not knock it down. Building is the MOMA's job, not rejection.

LOL at the jeans ad suggestion ... jeans ads became trendy in much later years than this pic! So Tony was ahead of his time ...

I am really chuckling to myself over all these comments which contain contemptuousness, analytical philosophising and artsy critique ... not that I am beyond participating, just that they are so irrelevant in this instance. Art TRIES TO CREATE SOMETHING whereas street photography RECORDS SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS, albeit varying in style and standards of that recording.

This is a record of a time, place, people representing the era, and showing that innocent ego teenager pastime of posing - a human element that yes is timeless, as Lannie says. People of this age always have preened and posed (to attract the opposite sex) and always will. It's practically a nature shot!!! Nostalgia and fashion are relevant if you are into nostalgia and fashion, this picture contains an element of that and you can enjoy it if you so wish, otherwise forget the style v substance. Take it as it is, a record of something timeless, but something which has been portrayed in a most artistic way. Not fashionable art, not contemporary art, not even classic art, but in the art of the true street photographer. Be invisible to your target, compose it right, expose it right, but let the subjects do their thing without intervention.

Hat's off to you Tony. Philosophy and arid artsy discussion pales to insignificance when viewing as observatory witness to a naturally evolved moment. I don't even know why I am commenting. This is one of those pictures where discussion is not required. It stands alone way and above the vast majority of pictures. As somebody above posts "it just is".

ps I must defend FLASH!! So what if a website uses it? If you don't have the software to view it then just don't bother. Having tested every available software for displaying pics, slideshows and webgraphics, I have wasted much time and money on various programs for display purposes. The quality of all of them sank without trace. Flash wins with me, and I hasten to add it wouldn't have survived otherwise!! What's the difference between having to have flash software to view, to needing browser to view? It's all the same ...

 

... Off topic, I look forward to your message Mary :)

For those of you that prefer oblique angles or a bit of motion blur, try this one.

Makes me happy.

hello Tony, happy to see you made it a third time to the POW hall of honour. What interests me is why there's such a big difference between your later work and the "HCB"-inspired portfolio. It has nothing to do with quality, it's not a critic, just wondering. Did you get bored by trying to reach/copy (meant as a compliment, really...) the HCB-level of street photography by growing up and getting your own style/colour inserted in your work? Or did you turn away slowly from the b/w HCB-style? Just wondering, please don't shoot me!

Cheers, and again, congratulations.

Tony - thanks for this photo and your discussion. It's made me think. I am grateful to Andy for bringing up that whole discussion. I needed to think on that as well.

You may not want to but if you mouse on this photo in your folder, select Options, then select Edit Image Info you can change the title or any other information. You can even upload a new version of the photo without the red stain on the central figure's jacket.

Congratulations on your accomplishment. It's clear that you are one of the most successful photographers on this site.

Samsara means the eternal cycle of life, it signifies the theory of reincarnation, being included in Hinduism. Am I trying to be philosophical or even religious? No, by no means, we've had enough of that this week. I'm saying this with the greatest "lightness" (as Tony said above about HCB's work). The term "samsara" came to mind when I realized this coincidence:

Some 30 years before the above photo was taken, Cartier-Bresson escaped the POW camp of the Nazis. That was his third attempt and he succeeded. 30 years after Tony triggered the shutter and captured the above scene, this pic made it to POW on this site. This is the third time for Tony, a record on PN.

What does this mean? Nothing. Just an interesting coincidence and it probably has nothing to do with samsara. I've chosen this "decisive moment" to mention it as the discussions seem to be closed and tomorrow we'll move to another POW. I have to make it clear, I definitely don't consider being caught by POW on PN a torture. I agree with Eugene that "the level of criticism itself is the best compliment to the photographer" albeit the criticism may veer from constructive to ludicrous. Personally I think it'd be unwise if the photographer assumes a defensive position. ("lightness"!)

Timelessness, fashion etc might sound irrelevant to some viewers but this photo for me would inevitably trigger this sort of discussion. I assume the intention of the Elves was just to show us something "refreshing" and in a way it is indeed compared to what we often see these days. Timeless, fashionable or not it all lies with the eyes of the beholders [but in the fashion industry we do see a cycle at times :)]. BTW, I have the TCM (Turner Classic Movies) channel at home and I enjoy it a lot. And BTW, I've just noticed a very active candid photography forum on this site.

I've enjoyed reading the above discussions and I thank Tony for the inspiration.

In case some people missed it earlier, and hoping to stress how true and how important I think this paragraph was, I'd like to copy and paste here something truly great (imo), that Tony wrote this week:

 

"Real street photographers are able to take motion and make it look like it's a tableau, when it's not really. (...) The immediate aim is to extract a sort of "truth" from an otherwise random scene. The ultimate aim is to educate oneself in why people do what they do. The theory goes like this: if you can capture the essence - the "truth" - of a scene, then you understand it a little better than you otherwise might have. It's a practical way of attempting to learn about life, but only one of many such ways. Part of the understanding is learning how to anticipate what your subjects will be doing before they do it. The concept of "the decisive moment" is not entirely about rapid reflexes. It is about understanding what you are seeing. (...) Photographers, unable to draw, run, or be courageous enough to stand up in front of an audience (all true of me, at least), make a photographic record of their understanding of others and the world we all live in. The more technical constraints you put on yourself - printing full frame, for example, or never posing your subjects (although they may pose themselves) - the more you test yourself and your perceptions."

 

I don't think there can hardly be a more simple and true definition of what street photography is, was, and will always be. Human beings have always tried to understand the world, and the world was always made of a hundred themes or so, to be understood better, again and again, in various ways, over time. All the rest is indeed about fashion and trends, and sounds really pale to me, in comparison to such a noble and typically artistic endeavour: understanding the world is what art is really about, no matter when, no matter how. Thanks for this beautiful post, Tony.

Here's the problem I have after reading some instructive insight above, a few very well expressed specific points of commendation, suggestions for improvement as well as putting up with the barrage of philosophical... um... thoughts.

 

I can see why the photographer that took this image above would take issue with a few others presumptuously articulating here, on his image, what the photographer himself was trying to do, whom he was attempting to emulate, what is inside his head, so on and so on when he did shoot this. Who wouldn't take issue? That said, at the same time it also seems somewhat reasonable to see why some might indeed make those points of view known, since Tony has clearly demonstrated his own appreciation for and influence from Cartier-Bresson and even gone as far as naming perhaps his best folder of work as "Poor imitations of Cartier-Bresson". Right there Tony, in my opinion, you have presented on the table, in front of all on this site to see, the proverbial and mostly unwelcomed and dreaded "can of worms". How can you expect others not to formulate those assumptions in mind then, if not also in print above? Nothing good, that I can think of, could ever come out of such a comparison made by the photographer himself. You are certain to raise the eyebrows of some of those looking on, and of course to add even more accolades for the name whose work yours (as you say) are a poor imitation of. Perhaps that IS the purpose of naming that particular body of work, to give credit to Henri Cartier Bressen, and help others not so experienced to perhaps delve further into this photographic icon's body of work and life. Actually, only after his recent passing last year did I come to know so much more about his accomplishments and influence on the photgraphic world. If this getting his name known is not your purpose though in that folder title, then any good that can come out of your doing so is lost (so I think), and I'd suggest naming it something different. Just a thought for the sake of peace...

 

He has very clearly articulated his much simpler approach to the making of this shot. Why not just believe him then?It is difficult enough to try to understand what we might have been thinking and whose influences are actually having an effect on us, when we go out shooting, much less trying to put into words what someone else is actually doing and thinking.

 

The other question or thought I have, has to do with the general feel one might get when looking at Tony Dummet's participation/posting and interaction on this site. I personally get the impression that you are retired practically and anything done photographically speaking now, is done almost as a secondary hobby. If your work 30 years ago can can garner such appreciation from so many people on this site today, and if you are clearly all that much the wiser and smarter now than you were then, then please share why you wouldn't be looking forward to the absolute best years of your photographic life? Your best work should be something many in the photographic world would be keenly anticipating. In other words, the journey should just really have begun. HCB died at the age of 96 you are just 51. That means you're just barely half way there...

 

Fire them twin diesels up Tony!

Nice post, Vincent.

 

I called it "Poor Imitations..." because to call it "Equally Good OR Better Imitations..." would have been both wrong and conceited (ah... that word again). I wanted to include HC-B's name in the title of the portfolio, but did not want to suggest that I in any way sought glorification by association with that name. Hence, I specifically used the word "poor". And I meant it. I have been very rarely, if ever, able to approach his lightness of touch. Lightness ain't me. Being a very untidy person, I over-compensate when taking photos by using too heavy a hand, trying to keep things neat and orderly.

 

I had met The Man just once, a few months before I took this pic. We shook hands upon introduction and next time I saw him he was walking away up a Paris lane, alone. I was a bit miffed personally, just standing there feeling foolish, but knew he was regarded as stand-offish, so I forgot about it (as I am sure he already had). My main problem was when I was going to eat next, not photographic style.

 

I also had a chance, a few days after the meeting, to go through his prints in the Bibliotheque Nationale (via a friend of a friend who was a staff member there). I had an hour with them, lifting them out of a used Kodak Polycontrast 20x24 paper box and, with gloved hand, going over them with a fine-toothed eye. I saw all the scratches and touch-ups old negatives needed to have done to them, smelt the fixer on them and generally, in that dungeon below Paris, drank in the experience. I was also careful not to make too many false moves, as there was an armed guard standing right behind me. It was a pretty special moment: my own private viewing.

 

Yet, seeing all the marks of darkroom work on the unmounted prints (nothing faked, just repair work) much of the adolescent awe I had felt for the old man's work dropped away from me there and then. Seeing that Cartier-Bresson had the same problems with neg scratches, dodging and burning, sharp focus and incorrect exposure as I did ( and he didn't even do his own prints!) snapped me out of it and convinced me that there was hope for me as a photographer yet. Being ignored by him immediately upon our earlier meeting added a little bit to my determination to make the best of his very simple philosophy - point, see and shoot, and don't edit, except in the viewfinder - and to give up the "hero worship" part. If he could do it, so could I. Whether I succeeded, or even came near, is for others to judge. Some are too kind. Others too harsh. A few get it just right (but I'm not going to say what I think that is).

 

As it's hardly likely that another POW will ever come my way, I'd like to say thanks to all the commenters - all of them - for taking the time to come along and throw in their two-bob's worth. The POW was sprung on me absolutely by surprise (nothing could have shocked me more) and I didn't have time to make any of the changes in the title, or the "red" tone that I should have. What's done is done and can't be undone, only forgiven.

 

I had "other plans" for my photographic career, but living a life got in the way. It's a long story, and a mundane one. I've often regretted that I didn't have the committment to continue. If I had, perhaps I'd have thousands of passably good shots now, instead of a few tens. But I didn't and I haven't. And that's life.

 

So, my message to other wannabee street photographers is to first find your hero. Then get stuck into his or her work, pore over it until you get an idea of what they're on about and how they did what they did. Learn all you can about their technique and their philosophy. Remove the magic spell by performing photographic autopsies on them. Then go out and develop your own style: it's all you can do anyway, if your're honest with yourself. If you're any good, you'll find out about it soon enough, not by the praise of your fans, but by the self-knowledge you acquire, the confidence you achieve in assessing situations and the goodwill you bring to others on the way. You're telling their stories, after all.

 

 

 

The thing I find interesting about the photo, and perhaps this is a sign of the (old) times, is that all the boys look like the same boy. Not only do they have the same hairdo, they look like they have the same face. Weird.

maybe if mr bresson would us a computer he could fix the scratches and marks.

It's clearly a well-taken photograph but, if you don't mind a bit of friendly contentiousness, I don't think that these people make a very interesting subject for a photograph. In my view they look affected and superficially fashionable, which means that any reportage would also lack depth unless it is an obvious critique of that affected superficiality! I think that the photos by Hugh Hill on this site provide a much more moving and relevant reflection on the lives of real people in London.

"... unless it is an obvious critique of that affected superficiality".

As a viewer, I would say it obviously was, but that would be up to the photographer to confirm. Even the title refers to 'poseur-ing', so the concept has certainly been acknowleged, even without the title's reference! This is a photographic record of the oh-so-common teenager trying 'to be somebody' when they have not yet experienced much of adult life. The superficiality of poseur-ing is what makes this capture so familiar, with an element of charm (or fondness) and humour. Not that we are laughing at them, but we recognise this natural phenonemon from when we as adolescents also poseur-ed ...

Even if we weren't so brazen as to pose unashamedly so superficially, we surely still see this as part and parcel of humans developing their personalities and identities?

Hi G, I acknowledge your point of view but just because it's part of teenagers' development doesn't necessarily make it interesting for me...each to their own..

I think that the most resonant images of people capture the reality of despair, elation or just everyday life; artifice doesn't come very high on the list!

Cheers, Hugo

Congratulations on the POW. Wow, what a great discussion. Just a bit about my reaction to the photo without reading: It screamed '60's' to me. So very typical of that time in fashion and behavior. Actually, looking around today, there is still much the same fashion and behavior. The hats have changed a bit. Then a bit later in the discussion, someone mentioned a bit more contrast, might be nice. I agree, a bit, might.

 

I was away when you were awarded this POW. I looked for the winners of POW from the time I was away, in the "Gallery" "Photograph of the Week" "all" "search". This one does not appear in that search. The listing of the POWs seem to skip about 3 weeks. At least that is my observation. I could be wrong. I wonder if you could have a look at it, and if I am right, perhaps your wordly icon could do more towards having that corrected than my blitherings?

I followed our trusty Marc G's comments to find this POW.