'Three For Dinner'

Sometimes photos have to be sought out, and sometimes they

practically strike you in the face; this is in the latter category; I looked

up from my 'cherry pie', and this scene lasted for about the twenty

seconds it took to pick up my camera, set framing, and shoot two

(different) frames. Your ratings, critiques and comments are invited and

most welcome; if you rate harshly or very critically, please share your

photographic knowledge. Thanks! Enjoy! John

I really related to what you said about those moments in every day life that just scream at you - to take ur camera out.. quick. those are my favourite pictures. 

i love this one. so colorful. really builds up an appetite. 

I also love the way this women is sitting down so casually. makes me want to know what shes looking at and what shes thinking. 

 

an older, and serious anti-photographic guard kept circling me, the tables and my cameras and my food, certain to prevent anything serious photographically from happening. 

He had worked at another restaurant in this chain, recognized me and was dead certain I was to get the idea of 'no photography'.

My cameras were spread out on the table.

I am sure in his mind it was a 'test of wills' -- the all-seeing security guard with a will of iron vs the wily and impudent street photographer.

I had no wish at all, however, to take a photo; it was summer solstice, I was out for a walk, needed a cola, a 'cherry pie' and a place to sit. 

The place had just been remodeled.  I had no 'contest' in mind at all. 

No photo either. 

NO intention to take a photo and none visualized or previusualized. 

Not even any real interest in taking one.

Then, for an instant, he disappeared, convinced I as NOT going to photograph, and the woman left appeared with a companion, who then left to get food, as I looked up, and the woman right, sat down.

I still  had no wish to take a photo until I REALLY looked up and voila.

Suddenly, instinctively, I had great interest.  I couldn't stop myself, guard or no guard.

The rest is presented here.

This is photo that had to be taken, even if it got me kicked out (which did not happen.)

;~))

The summer solstice photo gods smiled that night.

The guard never saw what happened.

Sometimes life's like that.

john

John (Crosley)

oh and John , i would love to see the other frame as well..

 

All the best. 

Her thoughts:  Where's my fries?  Why's my friend taking so long, leaving me here alone.

I can read minds, now with so much 'street' experience.

The prior exposure shows her in the same chair, face down, bored.

I judged this the better of the two.

Only got two, then when I looked at this, the friend showed up and the scene vanished.

It simply deconstructed, fast as it 'constructed'.

Life's like that.

Thanks for the other comments; I take them to heart.

john

John (Crosley)

The other frame is so slightly different,  my description above, should be enough.  This is better, but only slightly so.

But trust me, OK?

(We twice crossed in posting).

Thanks for commenting.

john

John (Crosley)

thats so wierd with the guard. why did he care if you took pictures?

where was this taken? 

ye from the description this sounds like the better shot.

He probably was told in orientation 'no photos' and doesn't want to lose his job.

Also a power trip, of course.

Security guards are like that, especially if they take a dislike to your taking photos previously or told you 'no photos' previously even though everyone with a camera phone is doing so.

With, most security guards, it's a 'power trip', since they usually are the lowest people on the totem pole.

They have no real power, and they completely misunderstand the role of photography.   They fear a large camera, but not a small one.

I know a man who uses a camera for surveillance; he uses a 12 megapixel, very small camera attached to a clip board by an apparatus and simply walks around taking pictures without putting eye to eyepiece, and takes his photos.  He gets what he wants, then disappears and NOBODY knows he has taken a photo at all (he has a remote trigger.)

Anybody who wants to take a photo clandestinely will not go armed with two Nikons and serious, professional lenses, they'll go with camera phones or digicams with fast shutters and large apertures or rangefinders that are small, and snap away, without putting camera to eye or peering at the camera's digital back, much as did my acquaintance.

Photographers who are after 'art'  get singled out for stupid reasons, and such stupidity is a hazard of the profession, and when there's a language barrier, one cannot make a serious joke of it to the guard who is lacking in common sense (uncommon good sense is a better phrase, there really being no such thing as 'common sense' -- it's in really short supply, despite folk wisdom.)

john

John (Crosley)

Which countrey are you from ? or was this picture taken? i never saw a gaurd be so funny about taking photos. i mean in a certain museum or govermant building etc i cant undestand.. but just in a food store? 

its funny , its true, often people fear you when you have a professional camera, i noitced this. especially here in my neighborhood, i came across very funny behavior

. people can understand taking picutres if your a tourist walking around some tourist attractoion or some beautiful landscape.. they accept that.. but they just cant put their mind around u wanting to take pictures around the street. just every day life.  some people just look like - whos this crazy person.. but some poeple act really hostile. especially if your taking pictures of them. i try to smile and be nice and just explaine i like taking pictures .. sometimes i say im studying photography  and out on a task.. cause i feel they can relate to this better. and that can kind of make sense to them more..

i was wondering what kind of reations do you get from people (not gaurds and people in charge) just normal people walking about , and that may or may not be ur subject ... 

Your question is far from simple and has occupied a great deal of my previous six years here answering.

And I have attempted to share my answers in comments I have written underneath my portfolio in reply to those who write me.

Also, the same in the thousands and thousands of people who have written comments on the  1,446 photos I have posted to date.

The best introduction to this question is to take some time, and start reading those comments, starting with the 100 pages of comments under my photos in my photo gallery/portfolio, then move on to individual photos and comments.

There's more than enough for several books on the subject, and those books do not exist, so if you really want the answer, I've written it, and may yet write that book or that anthology, based on a rewrite of what's written here.

Be my guest, and 'get a leg up' on all those who leave this thorny question unanswered, for it is the most thorny question of all for the 'street photographer'.

The simplest answer is that it varies from photo to photo, from individual to individual and as you progress, you'll develop a 'grab bag of tricks and pat answers to give to people and a knack for doing this that'll allow you to slip in and out of circumstances that would deter lesser photographers.

It's the truth behind the secret of 'how did he get that fantastic or improbable photograph?'

And it's all there for doing a lot of reading and research, all thought out and written, for people (photo.netters) just like you, with people like you just in mind.

Be my guest.

With 'street' photographers it's always a prime subject, especially as more and more video cameras record everything, as tensions heighten in the post-terrorist age, and as people become more paranoid about child molestation. (women seem to have an easier time taking photos of stranger's children than men for obvious reasons and it varies from country to country and in Ukraine, it's not such a big deal, but in LA or France it's a huge deal and if you point a camera at a kid, cops are likely to be summoned, no matter how good your reputation and how pure your heart.

That and other subjects are always on our ('street photographers') minds and hearts).

Welcome to the club.

You've asked the foremost burning question.

Henri Cartier-Bresson, father of us all, refused to allow himself to be photographed, for fear it would endanger his life, as he become a photojournalist documenting the world's hot spots.

Be cautious who you give your name to, and do NOT carry a card that you give to everybody . . . . and if you carry a card, use discretion in giving it out.

The most dangerous of all are not photo subjects, but people on sidelines who observe you and take umbrage at what you are doing for personal reasons that are unfathomable and personal, and you can never prepare for their sometimes outrageous and occasionally violent or confrontational behavior.

To shoot street, is to learn street smarts.

It sounds like you're learning fast, which is good.

Because it's GREAT SPORT to get a capture like this, just for eating a cherry pie and a diet Coke.

john

John (Crosley)

 

I'm a passport bearing American.  I practiced law for decades in America after starting out as a journalist for Associated Press. Hired as a photographer, I disavowed the profession of photographer shortly after being hired when I inadvertently met the master of us all, Henri Cartier-Bresson, who in my opinion was the greatest 'street' photographer who ever lived.  He has been classified by many as one of the top five ARTISTS (not photographers, but artists, as in Picasso, Cartier-Bresson, et al..) of the 20th C.

I often photograph in Ukraine, where people look like Americans and Europeans and thus are familiar but are also exotic in their own regard and are not  so self-conscious about being photographed. (good fo rme).

I did not know who Cartier-Bresson was, but his museum work so impressed me, I gave up all hope of producing a body of work comparable.  I did not know he was so great or had such a reputation, or I might have stayed with it.

I left to write news, then moved into investments, then law, then other things and returned seven years ago, here.

Some of my early works are found in my B&W portfolio, and they are considered 'good' but not Cartier-Bresson good.

Alas.

His work was and is magnificent, and I advise you to look at it whenever you can; Google.com his name and go to the Magnum photo agency web site, sign in and look at his work there (especially his books).

That's how to take photos.

All else is just a hobby pastime, like with me, even the above.

john

John (Crosley)

Very cool image, John. I love your title. For me, I feel bombarded by color and confusion. There is too much visual stimulation going on, and yet these women seem oblivious, and relaxed. This is what the public is used to, I supposed. I'm not a fan of the public, in general.

You make another worthwhile comment, and I am tempted to just let it stand rather than pick it apart.

I am divided.

While I am not too trusting of popular opinion in general -- after all in the USA the voters gave us George Bush Jr. two times, despite his obvious lies and manipulations and a budget busting war, I do revel in popular culture as a student because of my photography.

Without it, I'd have nothing to photograph.

The more outrageous, often the better the photograph; after all, people will be people!

You are always welcome here, Liz.

john

John (Crosley)

John,

all in all I like this picture.

It's outstanding features are the sparkling colours, not only the interior, but also the blue sky outside.

Furthermore, there are the two women sitting there all alone, the pose of the one on the left being very interesting.

The problem of this picture is that there is no single vertical line. I guess you shot it without looking through the finder and the lens was quite a wide one.

My viewing technique - as you know - is to figure out how it would look like enlarged on a white wall. Maybe a bit cluttered, in the sense that the eye - my eye - can't find any rest.

With regards,

Luca

In fact, I did look through the viewfinder -- 99% of the time I do.  That's something you can almost always count on.  Rarely, I'll shoot from the hip, but you can see it from the shot; here it is shot low but I'm seated, so it's not a hip shot.

This is an awful photo to try to coordinate for vertical lines, but who said a photo has to have perfectly vertical lines.  There is a possibly vertical line to the right of the leftmost girl, but due to the very wide angle of my lens and possible distortion, plus the cluttered and visually cacophonous background, I cannot say that it is vertical within the restaurant.  It may be and it may not be.

I think there may be a true vertical line where the text and the wall graphic come together or where the green and the grey/reverse colors of the text come together too, so that is another vertical line for reference, and not distorted.  Maybe you didn't look hard enough?

But no never mind, to use colloquial English.

This obviously is colorfully cluttered, but that's part of its charm.  It is a sort of modern/post-modern melange, and its charm is the placement of the two women and its absolute sine qua non is the pose of the woman, left. Without that, there would be no photo at all.

Three women, and one gazing off frame like that, so charmingly, make the photo; without that, no photo at all, I think.  And threes, of course, a leftover from my early days . . . if you noticed.

I'm glad you liked it, and glad you chose it to discuss.

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

Luca A.R.,

You write that your eye cannot find a resting place.

That is true.

One of the chief problems with many photos is the eye too easily finds a resting place.

It finds it right in the center where the subject is, surrounded by loads of extraneous superfluity.  Alone, right in the center.

The eye (and mind) quickly views then dismisses the photo.

Many other photos with which the eye feels comfortable do not engage the viewer's eye.

One sign a photo may be successful (in part, not always) is when a photo 'engages' the viewer's eye.  In other words, when your eye hits the photo and seeks a resting place where it will be comfortable and can STOP looking, it is tempted to keep looking.

'C' Curve photos, 'S' curve photos (a close cousin) and a variety of other more cluttered or complex photos tend to engage the eye, and this is one also that engages the eye.

In a sense its layout (composition) is simple - it is three women.  Two are living and seated, though one gazes interestingly off frame, while the third is a giant wall graphic.

Together one views them as a giant triangle.

Without that, the photo would have no real composition.

All that is not so neat when it must compete with a visual cacopophony of colors, especailly lime greens on the wall behind one woman and also on a sign behind another (mirroring lime greens with text framing each woman, did you notice that?)

This is an exceedingly conplex photo when presented in color and for some appealing and perhaps others less so.

It is not so 'friendly' that it immediately pleases, but at the same time it has intellectual appeal and artistic vision and appeal, I think.

And it has several layers of compositional elements to consider which engage the mind as well as the eye, which may -- more than the lack of a vertical line -- be why your eye cannot rest.

john

John (Crosley)