'Here's Looking At You'

From time to time a person on the street will stare at another,

especially if one has a camera or two; here two sets of eyes are

set to drill any onlooker, but at the same time provide an inviting

target (the street photographer generally knows how to resolve

this issue, but you may want to address this in your comment).

Your ratings, comments, and observations are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly, critically or wish to append a remark,

please submit a helpful and constructive comment; thank you in

advance for sharing your photographic knowledge to help improve

my photography (and let me know your thoughts -- take the photo

or walk on without raising camera). Enjoy! John

Each set of eyes tells a different story. Well done. GJ

And despite different stories, see how they line up;  the slightly 'upper' eye on one side is mirrored by the 'upper' eye on the other.

This is what 'street' photographers live for, all in a fraction of a second. (then an apology to the guy sitting leafing through this documents -- they're documents, as they're enclosed in plastic, a Soviet and Soviet system and hence Eastern  Europe convention. If it's a 'document', it must be pristine and to keep it pristine, it should be in plastic - otherwise it may not be recognized as a 'document'. 

Really, in many cases, officials are said by popular wisdom to reject anything but pristine documents no matter how 'original' they are and how binding they were intended to be.  Fold a deed or other certificate or entitlement?  God help you, you might as well tear it up.

Here's looking at you, GungaJim.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

Hi John,

Fascinating with the two pair of eyes. Especially the different looks and the expressive and very differing facial expressions on the two. The image works well in b&w. And is a typical street capture I myself forever hunt in my sporadic photographic walks and urban excursions.

Great work. I also appreciate your captions and strong involvement.

All the best   

I too am always looking for such captures, but the truth is after six+ years after renewing my taking of photos, I'm almost assured of getting something good when I go out for a few hours.

In fact, you may think I photograph every day for hours, and there are times I do, but there are times, due to health, schedule and other reasons that I can only get out once every three days (even leave my flat so seldom).

I still manage to remain incredibly prolific in part because (unlike when I was a youth armed with a Nikon or two and a 50 mm lens (and a couple of very el cheapo teles, manual stop down), I didn't have the slightest idea of what I was looking for, and therefore felt 'no rules' and had to satisfy no one, because I only shot for myself.

You see, this is pretty addictive, street shooting.  I was looking at FLICKR which someone here touted as having a very strong street and documentary forum, with thousands of enthusiastic supporters, but comments on photos literally amounted to 'great capture' or 'good eye' and things like that -- in 'street and documentary' plus of course there are copyright issues with 'creative commons' I cannot stomach or at least I feel are too untested to protect my captures.

Looks like I'm here for a while, at least.

FLICKR may be slick but this forum works far better for me, and frankly the 'street' shots on FLICKR with some wonderful exceptions were often shots I'd pass up every day, every hour, often minute by minute.

I look for things more extraordinary . . . . juxtapositions, compositions, etc., and many 'street' photographers eschew composition in favor of capturing the 'usual' and the 'unusual', whereas Cartier-Bresson narrating 'The Decisive Moment' video, said it was all about geometry (by which he meant composition)  I commend that video to you (search for it on U-Tube, or some other sources, I think.).

A photo like this can only be taken in seconds, and in fact in order for the reading guy right, to raise his eyes,  I had to approach which got his attention, THEN I got the shot.

I knew what I wanted, stepped in, got it, showed him, and he appeared surprised and many subjects are absolutely delighted (some aren't or just ignore . . . . there are as many reactions as there are individuals . . . . some aggressive . . .but very few).

Thanks also for the special comment about my 'involvement' and my 'captions'.  I put a great deal of work into this, all for no feedback other than 'views' and 'comments' like you have made.

Thanks so much.

John (Crosley)

I am not a street photographer but I like your approach of capturing a spontaneous moment and then showing the result to your subject.  If they object after that I might apologize and move on.  If they are extremely annoyed and aggressive, I would pretend to delete the photo and then quickly take another showing their angry expression.  And then run.

This is probably why I am not a street photographer.  By the way, I really like this photo.  I think there is a strong similarity to the two sets of eyes, both show mistrust but one is more confident than the other.

A very impressive shot, John!

Didn't you just write another book?  Oh, wrong Woodward?

Sorry (if that's the case, who knows?)

My street instincts are very well honed.

I came across a photo last night of a fist aimed at my face and camera, from the husband of a woman who actually did hit my camera and caused it to strike my face with great force, though I had NOT taken her photo (she mistook what I was photographing, and she was a peasant seller in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine.

I hit her fast and square over the head with my D2X because I was assaulted and trapped.  Police arrested her and the husband and because a witness gave an incredibly clear account, after I am sure they beat him severely they sent him out of confinement to apologize to me in well-rehearsed English, of which I am sure he did not understand a word, though he did know I was not pressing charges which would have sent him to a horrible prison for a year or two.

The woman bled and bled and bled.  She is the one who deserved the beating (I was unaware then of the beating practice).

I showed mercy.

Street sensibilities vary from situation to situation, but I can assure you unless favorably disposed cops or protectors of another sort are nearby, do NOT take a photo of a person who is very angry, NEVER let anyone demand you delete a photo (and if so, use recovery software if they override your objections).

And above all, NEVER run.

Maintain purposeful strides and get out of there,  striding, because most people are far too lazy to chase you (there was one exception) and be prepared to (1)  get into a crowd which might protect you and (2) scream bloody murder for them and otherwise make a scene and take plenty of photos, even if that's set them off (I never was attacked by a subject, only by people who 'thought they were subjects, though wrongly so). 

There are 'enforcers' of their own code of 'street conduct' out there who are looking for targets for their aggressive tendencies and a 'street photographer' may be one of those.  I can think  also in Paris's XIXth Arrondissement, another such incident when an 'animist' thought I stole her 'ju ju' and maybe her soul when I walked past her beauty shop and aimed my camera inside (but took no photos, there being noting worthy.)

Just never run.

People in packs are like dogs in packs.

If they sense fear they'll attack from behind and can do severe damage.

Never turn your back on angry people and above all, unless it's the dead last thing to do, if you're really just taking photos and NEVER want to return, don't run if someone gets angry (unless they have a knife, gun or there are 20 of them after you).  If they get you, they'll beat the crap out of you.

That being said, those are the only two incidents I can remember that caused an uproar and most of the rest is pretty great, with some people saying angry things, others posing for the camera, others mocking poses, and so forth.

Everyone is different and individual, but I will NOT take this act into a Muslim country and take photos of women on the street in the Middle East at least (Indonesia might be another thing, but not in the Middle East and perhaps parts of North Africa.

There is a certain boldness that the knowing street photographer who knows what he is doing and believes in his work attains.

You do get the photo, but never try to sneak a photo or sneak a delete; people are much too savvy these days for that to work.

If you do delete, there goes your evidence, but it can be recovered if you don't shoot on that chip again until using recovery software.

I live for shots like that brief shot I took, and didn't even think it was so good until I posted it, then it struck me how strong it was.

I get along very, very well with 99% of people on the street; some I josh with and cajole, others I may be assertive or aggressive with if they try to stop my photography (be careful there, though), and so forth. 

'Street' judgment cannot be broken down so easily as to give general instructions for each circumstance.  I have been nearly attacked one minute but don't get too riled, and then the next few minutes will be engaged in outrageous repartee and mime with someone else (and very often they end up being my subjects, paying me back for entertaining them!)

There are as many circumstances as there are people and groups of people have their own dynamics.

Just step in, if the guy is receptive and aware and the photo does not show him badly (e.g. passed out bum, thief, poorly dressed person causing difficulties on the street) then by all means sometimes show them the capture, but USE DISCRETION. 

You never know when you can misjudge.  Find out of they're tired by observing them; a tired person will not take more than a step or two in your direction in anger . . . . . but youths can be another issue, while my relations with youth are really top notch in general.

And never point a camera at a parolee or probationer who might be breaking parole or probation -- they'll let you know with a drilled glance 'don't take my photo' and that glance is learned in gangs and prisons. 

Those are photos you don't take unless you can get to them (or a friend) and overcome objections.

Selling is overcoming objections.

Street photographers when shooting 'up close' are sales people; we must 'overcome objections' and can do that ably if we have experience. but it's always possible to misjudge a situation.

With teles, it's quite different, of course, or other surreptitious shooting.

I always take a photo then turn quickly away and focus on something else, even if I will turn back and take another.

It confuses subjects.

'Did he take a photo of me, must not be because now he's focusing on something over there, way over there, very intently.'

It's a feint and a ruse, but you must play that ruse with a poker face, or break into a great big smile if caught and make a gesture like 'oh, darn, you caught me being sneaky' let's laugh about it which often works well with youths who still have some 'fun' left in them.

This is a long answer to a short post, but I hope you (and others) will take it to heart.

It's not just about pushing the shutter.  A famous tale has Cartier-Bresson with an observer in tow, taking a photo of a farmer, then the next second being chased across a field by that same farmer, now angry.

As he said famously, 'you have to milk a lot of cows to get milk to make some cheese with'. 

This photo is my cheese.

I milked a lot of cows to get it.

Thanks for the comment.

john

John (Crosley)

A wonderful comment from you is a sign of true worthiness.

I'm worthy, I'm worthy,I'm worthy! is how it would be said on Saturday Night Live' television show I think.

Thanks Ruud.

Coming from a master and master critic, it means something special.

john

John (Crosley)

Thanks for sharing some of your experiences "on the street" --  very instructive and amusing.  I've admired your work for some time now and it's good to learn more about your methods.  Thanks,

Thanks for the compliments; you're a viewer after my heart.

I think the ultimate sin of the communicator is to be boring.

Sharing photos is communication; otherwise they belong in a file drawer in a folder, like some 'fine art' prints that are just hoarded for value rather than showing, say by framing on a wall.

Museums and galleries often have many times what they can exhibit in drawers and tend to exhibit the most interesting.

By telling me my stories are interesting and amusing, is a great compliment. It's not so easy writing these commentary replies, but I am assured by readers/viewers, that a certain number of them come in part to relieve their boredom just at looking and long for some interesting verbiage -- but only 'interesting'.

(some find these things boring, and my word to them is 'don't read'!)

I could show these things without verbiage, too, as one would in a museum or gallery, but this is a 'sharing site', and I for one take that to heart.

Thanks Robert.

Ever so much.

john

John (Crosley)

Another wonderful street capture, John. Regards. Richard

I did not see the full potential of this photo until it was posted.

I was surprised how well it shows.

Sometimes life's like that.

Thanks for the endorsement.

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you for sharing your errm "Cheese" The photo is arresting and I can draw the same parallels you spoke of concerning the eyes. It is interesting to note that both sets of eyes seem to follow me, no matter which angle I view them from.  The word "ephemeral" springs to mind, used in the context of, only lasting a moment.

Your insight into street photography I found both informative and fascinating. I have long since found that street photography is not a case of venturing out with my camera into the city and aiming it vaguely interesting subjects and hoping for the best. Although a total failure in this aspect of photography I do admire it and have the utmost respect for it.

Your description of the various scenario's you have encountered and how you would best react to them tells me you have great experience of life. I was born on the streets of a tough city (Liverpool UK) and quickly learned the value of being able to weigh up any given situation rapidly, a case of  survival really. That being said I do not have the confidence you have for taking street shots, maybe this is something that can only come with time, practice and experience.

I too find your antidotes and stories entertaining and amusing. The line

"I hit her hard and fast over the head with my D2X" cracked me up, I'm really not sure if it was mean't to be funny or just informative, but suffice to say it got a chuckle from me.

Thanks again for sharing the image and the wealth of accompanying information.

Kind Regards

Alf

After returning to this photo for one last look it struck me that one of the most interesting technical aspects of this photo is the upward diverging angles of their faces as well as a similar diverging angles to some of the less obvious linear features of the image.   This would make a great POW.

Last, and only time,I was in Liverpool, I stopped with a drive-in McDonald's to get a Coke as I was very dry, somewhere on the road to the huge wharfs.

Over the intercom, was that distinctive accent.  I was almost sure it was the ghost of John Lennon himself, so distinctive is the sound - sort of an English, Irish, Scottish mixture, probably because Liverpool is such a crossroads with its entrance (at least formerly) to places far away and a huge mix of travelers, workers for ships and those who served them.

Liverpool obviously was a while ago (and maybe even now) a pretty hardscrabble (American equivalent to 'Rust Belt' sort of city when I was there, having lost much of its function, but its history of 'street' life endures.

I really did hit the woman over the head, and very hard and swiftly right on the top front with my D2X after she punched my lens and camera driving it into my face - purely reflexive, but it was the right move.  She thought I had photographed her, after after police (I am sure) beat her husband and told them he would spend years in jail for attacking me (and her too), for wrongfully hitting me then attacking me, he did apologize in phonetic English - he understood not one word, but Ukrainian prisons are no prize -- Hell could be worse I'm told, and I did not prosecuted and he knew it.

I have NEVER been attacked or had an incident with anybody who I photographed -- only people who 'mistakenly' thought they'd been photographed, or worse, 'enforcers' with a beef against people they believe are 'trespassers to their way of life' (e.g. photographers) and take it on themselves to 'vindicate rights they see the photographer is 'invading' for other people who could care less.  Those are dangerous people because they're unpredictable.  They can come out of a crowd, or out of traffic and cause great problems.

I tell my stories of milking and achieving my 'cheese' (direct quote from  spoken words by Cartier-Bresson himself in 1974), because I want people to understand that 'street' photography is like 'golf'. There are occasional 'birdies' and 'eagles' and every once in a while a 'hole in one' but its more the 'misses' that are counted on the way to a winning score e.g., portfolio (or cheese!).

I was delighted with your response.  Some people will criticize me for 'writing too much or in Josh Root's words being 'overly verbose' - but I get congratulated quite frequently just for what he criticizes me for. 

This was a 'sneaker' photo - just another one to post, and I did not understand its importance and its synchronicity until after I posted it.

I  have posted many worthy photos that only got a few viewers and/or critiques and have languished . . . . and every once in a while, I post a winner.

My cheese!

Here it is:  Brie, Camembert, cheddar, or whatever.  Sometimes even some old famous smelly cheese like one didn't wash one's feet and socks and took off one's shoes, but for a few 'cheeses' there is a substantial response, and sometimes I get greatly surprised.

From the guy who produces the milk that makes the occasional cheese, which ends up here, thanks from the bottom of my heart.

john

John (Crosley)

(it would be stupid to tell these stories without being (1) entertaining and (2) informative at the same time.  They take a while to write, though I type like the wind, and it is not all hubris. I do really believe in sharing.

I want people who come here to feel 'rewarded' for doing so.

jc

You make an interesting and very astute observation about the 'eyes' that 'roam, and as well about the 'diverging angles.

By the way, did you notice his faint 'zipper' lines on his jacket and compare them with the lines of the cracks in the poster glass?  Just a thought?

You have added (again) to this photo's understanding.

Thanks again; you're always welcome here. (oh and thanks for the Photo of the Week suggestion - competition is fierce, and almost assuredly this one won't make it, but I welcome the encouragement!)

john

John (Crosley)

Yes I did notice the zipper line as well as lines in his shirt and the wall behind him.  On the other side the cracks in the glass are joined by the angle of the sign letters and the silhouettes in the poster.

That's the wonder of a 'good' 'street' photo.  When some things work pretty well together and there's a very good capture, then you look around and often in such a capture, there are other things as well that add to the capture that are barely noticeable, and certainly cannot be seen well enough pre-photo to take into account, yet they add some immeasurable 'something' to the photo.

Now, armed with that knowledge on re-photoshopping, I'd probably try to emphasize the glimmer of metal on his jacket zipper more, so the zipper and lines/cracks in glass would mirror much more and become a 'real compositional element'.  That is the wonder of photo.net critiques.  You never know when something wonderful in your own capture will be revealed to you, the photographer - a huge bonus for REAL critiques (not those like found on FLICKR which are just back-patting for the most part.

I looked there the first time in the last day or so when someone told a forum here FLICKR they had 38,000 active street and documentary photo participants . . . . but when I looked, aside from a very few (even a wonderful few) photos, most was just junk.

Maybe they all have a different idea of 'street photography' than I have, but I remember a couple of memorable shots and the rest mostly appeared pretty random to me -- taking a camera on the street, focusing (sometimes) and shooting.

And believe me, Cartier-Bresson (by his own words I've found) did not just use a 50 mm lens.  He also used a 90 mm (his words) and I think also a 135 mm especially for landscapes (and maybe his famous pigs  over the Rhine photo was with a 90 mm I would be willing to bet).

And many of his portraits HAD to be taken with a 35 mm or wider lens.

There was just no room even in spacious French apartments from long ago, for him to have included so much, and use a 50 mm lens, and still not have to knock out some walls.

He also climbed on ladders or stairs (see his famous wartime photo of Matisse in his flat with pigeons and imagine how high Cartier-Bresson had to climb -- I'd be willing to bet that also was with a 35 mm lens, (not wider because I don't think Leica made a wider one. 

He was seen going in to the jungles of Malaysia (or near by) with at least three Leicas on his body/neck.  That had to be three different lenses, I'm sure.

The stuff about a 50 mm lens only is good for legend, but it's just not true (read his unauthorized but 'told to' biography for an insight and some backup for my assertions.)

The point here, also is that Cartier-Bresson used 50 mm lenses to start because that is what there was, then branched out to other lenses, for other uses, but liked the 50 mm lens.

If he grew up with zooms, I'd be willing to bet he would have used a zoom and probably his compositions would look quite different . . . . . as they are the product much of a guy with a great eye and mind using  50 mm lens primarily (note:  primarily).

Me, I use whatever's on my camera, but I do like the 12-24 mm zoom on a DX sensor, but also prefer to have (at the same time something from 24 to 200 mm or two lenses for that range.

If I have to use only one lens, I would use the 24-120 which is sharper and better than most people believe, and with its VR-I does a most creditable job, though its bokeh and contrast are not perfect, and it's not as strong as other lenses at the 'long' end.

The only thing really is 'seeing' and 'capturing' with whatever's available . . . . and I use what's handy, and hunt with a 12-24 mm and a 70-200 when I can or a 12-24 and a 24-120 if I want to cover the middle ground.

I haven't tried the new 24-120 and would like to; it may be super sharp with nanocrystal coating, which, trust me, is pretty amazing, especially on the 105 f 2.8 Micro (macro) which is tack sharp.

This photo could have been taken with a $5 clearance lens from a camera dealer's trade-in counter (you know the kind, sitting in half a box on the counter with the sign that says 'Used lenses, $5 per, pick any one or more' 

They'll all be good about good enough for a photo like this.

Some of Cartier-Bresson's earlier captures with his early Leica and early lenses are very, very unsharp, but it hardly matters because it's the 'image', not the lens so much for 'street'.

(Sharp lenses are nice to have, but not necessary.)

Thanks for returning, and please pardon the discursiveness . . . . people read these things and some substantial number do use them to learn!

john

John (Crosley) 

My first attention was also to the zipper lines and how well these lines work together. This is amazing scene and moment and excellent street photograph.

I noticed those lines, but didn't realize their possible importance if the zipper were 'brought out' more with Photoshop - just a little 'selection' and some brightening . . . . and then it would have been a little more clear.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long colloquy -- I learn that many do read these things, and am very thankful, for your and their participation.

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you, John! Your comments is a good school for me on the behavior of the photographer on the street during the shooting of people.

Svetlana.

I am more than a little surprised by the 'success' of this photo; after all, it's just one more 'chance' shot (actually several in a burst) taken late one afternoon when I literally felt I wasn't going to get anything.

And after this shot, I really felt it was 'not much' compared to some of my best.

But raters and commenters have shown particular affinity for this photo, and it's teaching me a lesson.

Part is that this is an entirely 'original photo' and in a genre which I seem to use more heavily -- particularly in the past -- than others, the photo with the advertising (reclamen) background interacting with a live subject.

I forgot the popularity of these shots as 'found shots', and of course, could have confined my entire career in photography just to such shots (as other photographers have narrowly focused).

I do now see its worth in a broader realm, and feel that I've not appreciated it as much as I might have.  Maybe I dismissed it because it was so 'easy' to see and take and just took one second or that and a fraction, then 'moved on' to something else, not thinking so much of it.

Well, surprises like this are good for the ego.

Thank you Richard (Ricardo).

john

John (Crosley)

Shooting 'street' is a 'whole 'nother animal' (English/American colloquialism for 'an entirely different experience'.

People often are very afraid of it, because they don't know how to act around strangers who ordinarily would pass them by, but now they're  engaging in an activity that sometimes seems to invite a response, and they don't know how to (1) prevent the activity from being seen (observed) when appropriate; or (2) deal with the varying reaction of people (often different reactions within the same group being photographed).

These reactions are as varied as there are people, so 'people skills' are paramount for the 'street photographer' who ventures where she/he can be seen photographing 'strangers' in places where it's not always expected.  The ordinary places are at public events -- parades, weddings, rallies (political or otherwise) or other events that invite souvenir photos and/or press attention.

One way is to 'look' like you're 'press' by carrying big, expensive equipment, but that can backfire if you try to say 'I'm just a serious hobbyist'. 

They might allow 'press' to photograph them, but not someone they see as a non-press 'stranger', while others will try to avoid the 'press', being publicity shy (perhaps they're fugitives, their wife/husband/parent might not like the depiction, the location, knowledge of their companions, activity, etc.) or they're just plain bashful.

Some react with pleasure, showing smiles, winks, more posing, request for more photos or to 'see' the output (if in Russian they say 'klas' -- class -- that's a good sign).

Some react with disdain or just ignore.  Many just ignore.  Some parents of kids will think you're a pedophile, and others will bring their kids to you and ask for more photos.  Some people react aggressively; others are highly flattered or just very interested.

Beware the bystander who takes offense and is aggressive or who mistakes being photographed when you are not photographing him/her,  as you are not watching or expecting a sometimes hostile reaction from such people - they can be occasionally most dangerous.

Some will want to control 'your' images.  Remember, they're your photos, and they have no control over them. 

Even if you acknowledge the taking of their image they have no property rights to it.  It's yours.  Period.  They have NO control over its disposition, except as you volunteer, and if you delete, it makes it harder for ME on the street.

Because I don't delete short of being at gunpoint or knife point.

So far neither has happened.

Once with film, I took photos of executives (at their invitation) that they learned might cost them tens of millions of dollars each.  When I refused to turn over my film, they attacked me for my camera and film, stripped the film and exposed it.

I had two nearly identical rolls in my pocket they were not aware of!!! '~)

I took the matter to the FBI, and am not sure if they lost those tens of millions or not; they deserved to.

You sometimes have to be tough, and other times be extremely kind and/or diplomatic.  At times you may have to show as many as ten or so different personality aspects (views) within a two or three minute period.

Shooting 'street' well is not for the lazy or ill-prepared, or those not schooled.  Thank you for acknowledging that I am doing good schooling here for you.

I write these things just so people who try 'street' will know that their situations which they inevitably will 'get into' are not unique to them, and also how to handle many of various situations.

They're part of the territory of 'street'

john

John (Crosley)

copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved, John Crosley/Crosley Trust

EXTREMELY impressive!!