Dick and Pat Nixon, Intimacy in the Crowd, Powell Street, San Francisco (Emphasis on Faces and...

Perfect capture of an intense moment. The hands spray around like an octopus. A shade tight, if I had to fault it, aesthetically.

I like the octopus analogy - in fact may incorporate it into subsequent explanations.

 

As to 'tightness' -- I am a tight cropper, but this was the maximum I could get on film from my 28mm lens. It is what it is, and my camera was held over my body (head tilted left) and held even behind my body for maximum angle, so this is a 'wide' as it could possible get. I was backed up to a planter with tree, or a parking meter, or something, and could not go back farther (maybe a parked car?)

 

I doubt it, as it was a loading zone, I think.

 

But there was nowhere 'back' to go, which is why Nixon is reaching around me (people on my right were not blocked by the obstruction to my back).

 

Good critique; well made and to the point.

 

John (Crosley)

 

This is obviously film! It has a raw gritty sensibility and aesthetic that no digital image could ever express. As to tweaking in PhotoShop; "I hope not!" This is like a Jim Marshall rock and roll photo; "Don't mess with the juju." The hand of the boy on his right says it all, "Reach out and touch someone famous." PhotoShop was just a glimmer in someones brain at this moment. I'm sure Nixon was extremely worried by the usual radicals that happened to call San Francisco home. You notice there's not a longhair in sight!

George W II learned a lot from Nixon, at least as far as crowd control went. Nixon was just lucky the pigeon's didn't shit on him this day as was common in the Union Square area in these days. Fabulous image John, don't change a thing! In fact it's starting to look like you need to have a show some time soon!

Yes, of course it's film and probably no one ever thought of a precursor of Photoshop except perhaps theoretically, at that time -- 1969.

 

Thanks for the thoughts and encouragement on not changing this one -- I'm not too inclined now to do so -- maybe dodge some hands, etc., just a little bit, and apply just a little shadow/highlight filter, but nothing to really change the contrast much.

 

It's not just a photograph; it's now a historical document (wow, that sure dates me, but I was just a kid who arrived in San Francisco the autumn AFTER the summer of love -- Damn!!!).

 

And I was so 'straight' that I really wanted to hang out with the hippie chicks, but they were always hanging out with some guy who hadn't washed his hair and was spouting some mantra about this or that, whereas I really believed in 'thinking' instead of 'cant'.

 

Just as this event was happening, some passerby snatched my press pass, pinned to my shirt and/or lapel with one of those little broad alligator type clips, but not a pointy one. They just ripped it off and it was gone for good; had to be replaced.

 

Obviously you are a product of this period -- I took a look (and a very long and happy one) at your bio page -- my world would be almost all red, except for some of the parts of South America in the north of the continent, some of Central America (but not all -- Costa Rica and Nicaragua would be red in your schema), India (I flew over it but had no visa to land and couldn't get one issued), Africa and parts of the Middle East outside of Turkey (was there twice last year, very briefly).

 

Russia -- been there, even lived there; Ukraine -- live there now (at least part time; more than I live in the US -- where I am temporarily today.)

 

In my way I'm a patriotic one-worlder which means I am proud to be an American in a sense (and ashamed in some senses), but also proud to be a citizen of the world and an ambassador for myself (and so much as applies, for my country and my art also).

 

Thanks for your encouragement about a show. I really haven't the foggiest idea of how to stage one; you are with an Artist's Cooperative, but I keep pretty much to myself.

 

Dennis Aubrey, member here and creator (I think) of Genuine Fractals software, has undertaken to introduce me to a few luminaries in the printing business, which will be accomplished shortly -- a week or so.

 

They'll undoubtedly have ideas for fostering 'getting my work out there', or at least Dennis has suggested that. I hope that I read him correctly, or I've gone to a lot of work for nothing.

 

I went to Seattle today and in exchange for accepting a later trip back to the Bay Area, Alaska Air gave me a free system-wide ticket (good to Miami, NYC, Boston, all parts of Alaska and (soon) Hawaii. I think I'll confound them by flying from Hawaii to New York City or Miami Beach, or to Alaska, then back (ticket says anywhere system-wide and they now have a national system -- just barely).

 

NYC's on my horizon as the center of the photographic arts collecting world in the USA as well as the publishing center of the universe (more or less), and a major player in assignment photography with numerous magazines and major assignment givers (ad agencies, etc.) headquartered there.

 

I once worked there for a magazine publisher on Park Avenue South and hated every minute of it -0- had huge headaches every day, but through it, got to know people like Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart, whom I spoke to every few days).

 

I'm kind of like a thinking man's Forrest Gump.

 

'Life is Like a Box of Chocolates . . . you never know which one you're gonna get.'

 

Well, my life has been one huge box of chocolates for me (with a few 'old maids' thrown in), and this is one fine memento.

 

As seen in the Fondation Cartier-Bresson's latest book a quote from an academician which suggests that the event photographed doesn't happen until someone actually 'views' the photo of it. Interesting take, hunh?

 

This didn't actually 'happen' for anybody there, until my film went into the developer and the print also. Hmmmm.

 

And, similarly, that Cartier-Bresson's photography was his way of tackling the world (my words, not theirs) -- essentially that he was sort of an artist-adventurer with a purpose which was to live life's experiences, with the camera and his images as his raison d'etre.

 

People wondered how he could give up photography about the time this photo was taken (and a traveling exhibit of his came to the S.F. Museum of Art -- De Young Museum, unbeknownst to me, to finance his retirement. I could have had a print of two of his for $100 or $200 then, but the latter was far more than a week's 'gross' salary for me then).

 

The answer was that his traveling and adventuring days were over and he was completely engrossed (and in love) with whatever his attention was drawn to -- in the case of his later days -- trying to resurrect his 'art' - drawings and (I think) paintings.

 

When his show came to the De Young Museum, I wanted to buy the whole show, really, and noticed that his photography and mine bore some sort of resemblance, but he was sooooo far much better than anything I could imagine, I just kind of faded away -- not knowing he was going to fade away from active photography taking with him his museum full of traveling treasures -- all for sale at what I knew then were absurdly cheap prices, but I had no cash.

 

In a sense, he stole my thunder and anybody else's who had any semblance of talent; his was an overshadowing presence that literally drove me from my photographic ambitions. How could I, a mere 22, hope to compete at my level with a man who had created such a great life's work, unless perhaps I wanted to be seen as 'of the school of H. C-B'?

 

(This is the year after I sold my '51 Porsche with the split windshield for scrap after its crankshaft broke -- $50.00. I knew it was a classic - to be - but it was broken down in the middle of the country and I owed mechanics for taking it apart, with no money to even store the body or get it to a safe place.)

 

No regrets, though.

 

I do want that show.

 

Soon.

 

I want to be published.

 

Soon.

 

I would like to try to make a living in photography -- my way.

 

And I wouldn't mind teaching photography -- also my way -- which I think I'd be very effective at, but probably only on a very personal basis -- or through some sort of 'new media' enterprise which I haven't thought through.

 

But I don't know anybody - nobody at all in the field of photography.

 

(Except Dennis Aubrey, and hopefully soon his friends . . . who are printing luminaries -- tops in their field.)

 

I'm headed that way, Philip

 

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

I've literally centered my life around that dream (or one like it -- don't know which chocolate I might get).

 

Thanks so much.

 

John (Crosley)

I saw Richard Nixon one time in my life.

 

I took one other photo seconds before, then this.

 

The other was published (on the front page of the Chronicle, I think and nationwide, also as it was circulatd worldwide).

 

AP had two White House photographers in this entourage who were assigned to getting good photos of the President, and they were undoubtedly in this entorage, (shooting 35 mm), but as a citizen (my job duties had not started yet), I 'scooped' 'em.

 

This was never published until now.

 

It's entirely unlike the other photo, which is a stunner, also in a different way.

 

AP has not responded to my e-mails requesting a 'copy' of the other photo, which they never paid for.

 

John (Crosley)

It is so unfortunate that in the world of art and its financial realities, that so many have been exploited by hook and crook for so little, if any return. Ansel Adams was forced to do commercial photography because selling his prints was just a monumental impossibility for many decades. He often commented that no matter what you engage in, in commercial photography; that everything should be had in writing upfront. Even still, he was continuously ripped-off, never to be paid for much of the work he had done. He valiantly attempted to absorb the costs for the work at the expense of his own personal indebtedness. Written, signed contracts not withstanding. Again, the primary beneficiaries of his art's financial success never really included himself until very late in his life. Same old repeat artist story. You gotta die to be famous and realize a financial success that benefits your descedants. It's a very unselfish expression in that regard. Wishing you much success in your future exploits. If it happens in New York, I'd love to be there for any show, venue or opening you might have to celebrate. Just let me know.

I practiced law for nearly two decades, so contractual aspects of things are not beyond me, nor the ability to get appropriate recompense.

 

And before anything is shown every copyright will be registered. Bar none. That way my attorney will get paid if anybody kipes my images. Fat chance they should be so popular, but you never know.

 

I met a wonderful printer, named the best in LA (or maybe the US) through an acquaintance -- he's printed for numerous famous photographers.

 

He liked my work and the next day after meeting him had me meet him at what I am told is LA's most prestigious gallery (I won't name it here) with hopes of just saying 'hi' to the proprietor, which did happen with the suggestion that the owner is open to a future meeting, which was the point of the whole exercise, but the meeting took place during a gallery opening of a certain photographer with huge multitudes in attendance, so personal greetings were extremely limited.

 

Various celebrities were pointed out to me at that opening -- Heidi Klum, photographer Nick Ut (napalmed girl in Viet Nam) and so forth, and even some young male stars who wanted me to take their photo together (thinking I was paparazzi?), and I just refused - it was outside at night and I had no flash I said. (Actually one camera did have a built-in flash.

 

My work, however, seems to be very interesting to photography/gallery people, and I'm pursuing that avenue right now.

 

Who knows?

 

In any case, I have the additional good fortune to know my photography does not just appeal to the Photo.net crowd (or another site on which I post) but also to the 'gallery' world and 'fine art' world, at least insofar as 'street' work can do so.

 

I am very hopeful based on the reception I got.

 

I never begrudge anyone who can sell something of mine their percentage. It's the oil that makes the world turn. Better to get 60% of something than 75% of nothing too, if someone does their job -- a lesson I learned when I did 'stock photo' for a famous agency in New York which sold almost nothing but charged a lesser commission, and also a less famous agency which sold nearly everything but charged 20% more. The lesson was that the higher fee of the lessor known agency was well worth it, since the first (famous) agency sold almost nothing -- I got lost in the crowd of famous and productive photographers.

 

I'm very grateful for your story. Did you know Adams personally, since you're in S.F. Many people I have met tell me he was a local fixture and even have pointed out his original house to me and told me a few stories. Do you have any or are you writing from general knowledge?

 

I am grateful for your taking the time to write me.

 

(And AP still has not replied to my long e-mail requesting a copy of that other print -- even now.)

 

I have other ways to get my hands on it, though, and someday it will be showing up here.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

Thanks for your update. I even like the way you reply to comments on your imagery. Very stream-of-consciousness.

Regarding the Ansel Adams info, I was fortunate back in the seventies to have been afforded a photographic education (Photo Science & Illustration) from Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). Of course, much of what I was taught is absolutely useless in today's digital world. Noteworthy studies of edge diffraction functions (the response of light sensitive particles on the sensitized edge of a film plane.) Or such wonders of physics as the calculation and analysis of the modulation transfer function of silver light-sensitive particles. So much for such arcana. The one part of the education that was pretty much unanimously acclaimed was their guest speaker series. This gave photo majors an opportunity to meet in very small groups with some of the more notable photographer's of the day and some of the notable photographers from days past. Ansel Adams was one of those speakers and he spoke about the trials and tribulations of becoming a paid full time photographer. Although Adams was a giant by this time, I was most moved by our meeting with W. Eugene Smith, a photographer who was famous for his photo-essays in LIFE and LOOK magazines from the 30's through the 70's. He was a very unassuming man who manged to move mountains in terms of the impact his imagery had on the magazines readership and upon society-at-large. When I met him he had recently been honored for his Minimata series (click "back" if you get an ad immediately from this link), an essay regarding the mercury and chemical poisoning of the residents of a small Japanese fishing village by a corporate chemical manufacturing giant. Unfortunately for these people, the genetic mutations they are suffering have not finished running their course, even in subsequent generations. W. Eugene Smith was so severely beaten by corporate goons while attempting to document this atrocity, he nearly lost his eyesight from the head trauma he suffered! Fortunately, LIFE magazine featured this story so prominently that the Japanese government was forced to respond and they demanded some cleanup begin. (Of course they didn't shut down the company, they only started to study the extent of the contamination that had come to exist in the marine ecosystem from which many villages subsisted.) I have a strong belief and appreciation of the power of good photo-journalistic work like this.

Keep up the good work and wishing you much success as further developments unfold (no pun intended!).

All The Best,

Phil.

I drove for a day from Central California coast to LA to get cameras from Nikon repair and to have my third meeting with a world-famous printer who it appears knows EVERYBODY, and personally and has printed for the best of them -- not Ansel Adams of course, as he did his own -- he spent the greater portion of his time working on his prints (the polar opposite of me, since I've never printed anything, though I have wonderful Epson giclee printers.)

 

On my second meeting, it was to meet this printer at the gallery opening gala of a man he said was a world famous photo gallery owner, and it appears he indeed was. It was a shake hands, very brief meeting.

 

Today, I delivered to him maybe 200,000 photos on 1.375 terabytes -- 98 percent taken in the last three years. (Maybe my software counts jpegs and raw files - shot simultaneously, as one -- I don't know).

 

He assured me he was preparing to go through ALL my photos, and to make a presentaton to the gallery owner (a close friend). I think I have struck gold -- he says 'aim at Getty, big museums, major collectors' -- he was referred to me as someone who could 'change my life' by a seasoned photo industry pro whose judgment is unparalleled, and I think something important actually may be happening.

 

Who knows?

 

Whatever the outcome, in the old days, photography for me was 'hot sweaty work' that made me uncomfortable -- but now it's like an extension of myself -- my able and quick mind translating itself into photographs of 'moments' I capture others in. (sometimes they know it's happening; other times not -- and it hardly matters to me -- so long as I am physically safe.)

 

And the feedback from showing digital captures to total strangers is completely amazing -- it makes so many new friends.

 

Thanks for your story -- I collect such small anecdotes/stories, and later on when I need them that knowledge just pops out - and I often cannot remember exactly where it came from.

 

(and all that chemical stuff is not arcanae -- even though you may not use it in everyday shooting -- but it means you understand not only the photographic process, but digital's relationship to its antecedent - silver halide chemical processing -- soon few will know that.

 

In fact most new photographers now probably know nothing of that. There are differencers between film and digital captures -- each with its own charm and each with its own problems (issues?).

 

It's helpful to know what works best where (and to be able either to switch media when appropriate or to 'emulate' another medium at times.)

 

I'm off to Ukraine in a day or so, but always keep signed in when I'm there on my cable Internet connection, so don't consider me a stranger.

 

Best.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo, from my archives, features a surprisingly gregarious Richard

(Dick) Nixon, then at the height of his popularity, a tender touch around

his waist by white-gloved wife, Pat, who stayed with him until the end,

and a complete phalanx of pedestrians from the military and Secret

Service to passersby, admirers, press (and even 'Dick' touches yours

truly the photographer, as this photo is taken from overhead with

camera/wide angle lens held by my outstretched arms as Mr. President

shakes a hand reaching around my waist). Please consider this as

a 'street photo' and as a piece of history -- and if possible, please take

the time to read the unsolicited comments left by others when first

posted (a request for critique then was not required for comments or

ratings). Your additional comments are invited and requested. Photo

taken on Powell St., San Francisco after he took an impromptu and

unscheduled cable car ride. (I was walking to work at AP.) Thanks!

Enjoy! John

This photo was rated voluntarily after 11 ratings 6.36 when I requested critique Sept. 16, 2010, and it then automatically was placed in the 'critique only' category and ratings were erased.

john

John (Crosley)

PDE

This is a very interesting shot - is already history. This is something that is gone. You have touched this story with your eyes and showed it to other people.

This is a great shot!

7/7 !

This is the man who had the 'kitchen debates' at an exhibition in Moscow with Nikita Khrushchev, which had Khrushchev telling Nixon things I can't print here, according to photographer Elliott Erwitt of the Magnum Agency who was there and photographed it.

Yes, this is history; the man is history, and he was a disgrace for American presidents. 

Maybe he was just one of the bad presidents who got caught OR he was considered bad because he was so paranoid and so concerned about his own history he tape-recorded everything in a society full of lots of laws that applied to US Presidents in a country that (at that time) was full of decent people as well as conniving politicians, that his own paranoia (or concern for history) by taping himself caused his downfall, as he tape-recorded his own crimes (and his secretary 'accidentally' and repeatedly erased some of those tapes in one famous incident . . . . . researched by the FBI which Nixon could not control).

In the US, even presidents could not control institutions such as the working men/women of the FBI and the CIA (then, though George W. Bush later gave it a very good try and before all this, Lyndon Baines Johnson gave it a good try also).

And LBJ (Johnson) also may have been a criminal, but he did not tape himself so extensively and conducted some humiliatting 'personnel' disciplinary sessions while defecating on the toilet, just so the object of his displeasure would 'get the point'.

Nixon wanted so much to be important and President and was so competitive, but he was more than a bit devoid of principles and character. 

We found with his taping, that this seemingly 'moral' man swore constantly -- was foul-mouthed almost thoroughly, despite his Quaker upbringing.

He deserved the exile he got, even though he lusted to return to society's good graces. 

Good riddance to a proven criminal.

He did some good, but left a stain on the presidency and on the United States that has not gone away.

George W. Bush used some of Nixon's arguments: The President can do nothing illegal -- if he does it and he's president it's therefore legal -- to try to justify many of the illegal things he did.

Yes, Svetlana.

This is history.

A popular moment.

For a man who ultimately was undeserving.

He first earned staying at the top, but ultimately he earned his own undoing through his unbridled ambition and overweening lack of character.

(thanks for the recognition)

john

John (Crosley)

this is almost perfect (and perfect, thanks good is non existent) in BW Photography.

all elements are in, all in balanced chaos. how is that you were so high? how could CIA guys allow it?

BB

This was a favorite of mine, taken in my 'off hours' walking to work for AP just after I shot a photo that went worldwide.  They had no interest in this.

(See above comments for description of photo they did print; I am trying to get hands on it).

Yours is a very high estimation of this photo; thank you so much for the compliment.

US Treasury/Secret Service protects the president/ C.I.A. is forbidden by law from operating on US territory or at least was until recently IF the law has been changed.

I got so high (read above) because (1) camera was overhead on outstretched hands and (2) my possibly interfering head was ducked and tilted to the left to avoid blocking the shot or getting my head/hair in this 28 mm (film) view.  someone said it best, I think, when they said the press photographer has a big smile because he recognizes that I nailed it.

Big smile.  Thank you so much.

john

John (Crosley)

I feel I have found a treasure which is priceless, your images, wow lots of history an amazing picture. Warm regards from Miami. 

I am greatly complimented by what you have written, and though not everything in my life is hunky dory this instant, you have improved my spirits greatly for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

john

John (Crosley)

I have just uploaded a replacement scan worked on just a little in Photoshop, but not to the extent advocated by Dennis above, or Dave Collopy, and keeping the original  in high contrast because it was taken under a bright California sun, but fixing a few things.

I remembered in working on it, the advice of one commenter:  'Don't Mess With the Ju-Ju', and attempted to keep it as nearly in the original as I could, while still improving it.

Original posted scan attached.

It may take a day or so for the new upload to work its way through the Photo.net servers (there are at least three or four of them, and they update on an irregular schedule that takes time, replacing uploaded images from time to time in a way that cannot be predicted with accuracy by members.   If you have seen this image before, even for a few seconds, you probably will have to clear your browser cache to see the new version.)

Please have a look at the new scan posted, then older scan attached here.

john

John (Crosley)