'The Political Gathering' (Best Viewed 'Large') (B&W Version)

Citizens of an Eastern country, in midwinter, brave the cold to gather at

a political rally. Your ratings, critiques and comments are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically or wish to make a

remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John (Best seen 'large' for detail)

This photo was taken strictly by the tenets of my Presentation, found elsewhere in Photo.net, (its largest I think and still unfinished), 'Photographers:  Watch Your Background' as here the background is very important to the photo, not just the bearded guy who is pretty darned interesting by himself.

I asked him one word 'Portrait?' in his native language?   

He nodded 'yes' or didn't say 'no' so that was permission and it was a good afternoon just for this shot.

This shot was taken while practically inside his whiskers; I was that close.

;~)

john

John (Crosley)

A good image and a great character!

When you think about it, a guy with a beard like that intends to be noticed, although whether he wants to be photographed is entirely another thing. 

When approached with respect, he was game.  It was all over in less than a minute, too.

Thank you for the compliments.

john

John (Crosley)

Nicely done, good composition. This is the kind of photography I like. Jerry

Yours is the kind of feedback I always long for; seldom achieve.  

I saw this one on my screen (and before, even in the viewfinder) and I KNEW!  

It was carefully crafted with both spontaneous, split-second elements and careful composition to capture a special moment in a special way -- oh, so hard to do all in an instant. 

Wish I could do more . . . . .(lament).

Thanks so much for the fine compliment.

john

John (Crosley)

What an interesting character with smiling eyes and a wry grin barely discernable beneath his whiskers - a fine subject in his own right. But its the juxtaposiotion with the two women confiding to one another in the immediate background that really makes this an outstanding photo. Their close proximity somehow links them together and one can't but help imagine what they might be thinking (saying) about one another! I can't say this inpires me to try this kind of photography, after all it takes a certain personality to be able to make the necessary interaction with the subject, but I sure do enjoy seeing your photos. Thanks for sharing, RickDB.

Sometimes it takes raters knocking you down with unexpected high rates or a world class expert saying what you think is an ordinary photo is 'fantastic' -- 'world class', to wake you up to the worth of a photo, but in this case, I knew from the start.

Moreover, I used it over and over again that afternoon, announcing myself to potential subjects as a 'photo portrait artist' (with Russian/Ukrainian accent) to people, and asking for their portrait and for many, illuminating this photo on the back of my camera as 'proof' of my assertion.

It really worked well. 

I learned some new other tricks for portraiture -- so many people were standing around, very cold and very bored -- I was sometimes for them the life of the rally, and it was a pretty large one -- outdoors in snow and ice.

After a while, some people (even couples and groups even ) followed me around ASKING if I would take their photo, and when I agreed, often they'd line up stiffly, and I'd cross my arms and say 'nyet', refuse to take a stiffly posed photo (you know the kind -- three people lined up side by side with forced smiles) get them talking among themselves, or laughing, even shove them with my free arm or hand a little bit, or on occasion go so far as to shake their hand with my free hand sometimes so vigorously it couldn't help but provoke a great reaction. I'd literally  begin to pump their their arm until they were astonished, then shot the photo.  (nothing wooden about my photos I hope).

It's a trick I don't think I've ever heard of a photographer using.  The surprise at having their hand and armed sometimes outrageously and vigorously pumped by my free hand until I got a reaction I could shoot, was wonderful!

As I shook their hand over vigorously with one free hand, with the other I took their photo of their startled face and those around watching what I was doing.  I can manipulate 'focus point' with one hand - I'm adept with my equipment. 

It broke up those wooden faced people, and for many the life poureed out; most seemed to enjoy not just the hand shaking part or my crude jokes in vernacular, but looking at the photos which resulted - that made believers of them.  

Relatives to a one said they were the best photos they'd seen of their relations.

Many people told me I was a 'professional' which I am not, and said I was a 'first class professional' (still unrue).  There were lots of happy faces among my myriad, impromptu subjects.

(Not this bearded guy depicted above, however; he was among the very first and was pretty wooden.  Most I could get him to do was glance at the camera with his eyes for me to take this photo.)

My 'assault' on this large, bored crowd worked, and there are literally hundreds of pretty darn good photos from several hours in bitter cold.

And to top it off, from these people who never saw me before (and never will again) I got the word  KLAS (class), for the photos I took that they saw -- all said, over and over by subjects, though they were not what subjects expected at all and all photos were very spontaneous. 

Afterwards I sometimes was rewarded with huge hugs, embraces and shaken hands. 

Models even came up to me to give me their numbers, and to request mine. ;~))  

Now that's a fringe benefit!

In my book, however, this bearded guy outclasses most pretty girls for photographic interest. 

After all, pretty girls in Ukraine are a dime a dozen, though VERY pretty.

This guy is singular.

If you can believe it, this guy's impromptu photo session was all over in less than a minute, and is the last of several photos that started out as a straight on portrait --  but then I kept moving around him to get the background I wanted and BOY DID I get it, when I spotted these two women in the corner of my frame and got him to look at my lens as the women kibbitzed.

Thank you for such an outstanding compliment.

It makes my day, as did those embraces and shaken hands.

I have enough photos from one afternoon to illustrate a book on taking photos of faces in a crowd up close and not getting punched.

For sure, this one would be on the cover!

Thank you so much, Rick. 

Pardon me if my pride is showing -- I learned much this afternoon -- like a one-man discovery of how one photographer can move quietly through a crowd, starting out as a nobody, rumpled, ill-dressed, tired and limping, and after several hours almost be celebrated! 

Really -- it was a tour de force in 'street behavior' for me -- caused in part because my zoom  lens's minimum focusing distance is 10 mm, so I had to glad hand and ask LOTS of permissions (rarely refused from these bored, cold people -- anything to break the monotony.)

And, in a city of 3.2 million, I even heard my name called out from people I met elsewhere far away for whom I couldn't place name or face. 

I'm still in shock!

I feel like I went through a 1000-photo barrior today -- warp speed generating almost nothing but good will  --  something of a rarity for a street photographer -- especially shooting right up so close -- almost with the lens stuck in people's faces -- literally sometimes right in their eyes (or mouths, as the case may be).

john

John (Crosley)

(and all the time the President of the country -- and others -- droned on and on over giant loudspeakers, or so I am told, since I paid no attention -- I think he was on cable hookup to a Jumbotron or hidden out of sight on the nearby stage, but I couldn't have cared less! 

I was in photo heaven, and blessedly I'm not a journalist -- today I was a photo artist, however briefly -- at least in my subjects' minds.

jc

Street photography once did not really have the name 'street'.  It grew out of the great magazine photography movement from the days of 'Life', 'Look', 'Colliers', and so forth -- publications which (for the most part) are defunct now.  (Remnants of 'Life' live on to sell from the vast Time-Life Photo Library, a huge treasure of Americana and world history.)

The Magnum Group of photographers which served those magazines in the US and others throughout the world, had famous and serious photographers, among them three-time president and wonderful photographer Elliott Erwitt, who had a famous sense of humour.  He is said to have carried a bicycle horn to 'attract attention' when he needed someone to look his way while taking photos.

Co-founder Henri Cartier-Bresson famously was filmed shoving others in a crowd out of the way so he could get to a likely photo -- not roughly mind you - just so he could get there and not be impeded.  He could not wait for niceties.

I now have a new trick when photographing 'up close' in crowds -- get permission to photograph with a group, and if really up close, actually use a free hand either to slightly shove the shoulder/chest of a potential subject while simultaneously photographing them (if they are frozen into woodenness by the sight of a camera as some are), or even just taking my free hand, shaking their hand and pumping their hand with my free hand so vigorously it brings a reaction to their face -- or perhaps they'll turn in bewilderment to a friend.

Almost anything's better than wooden faces and blank stares in the middle of the frame staring at the viewer.

Take a few such shots, wear the subject out, get them tired of the process (and possibly of you) then as they begin to object and turn to their friends in exasperation or to seek comfort, take the photo.

That's the photo you want, or something like that.

You never know for sure, but certainly not three friends lined up side by side arms around each other's shoulders, smiling.  That's for Facebook, not serious work, unless you have a project to emulate Facebook photos. (I don't).

I tried both my new  tactics yesterday with a camera and a super wide angle lens, and they  worked marvelously -- no one was offended after they saw the results in their images.  No one took offense for more than a few seconds.

They equated easily what might have been regarded as 'offensive behavior' with wonderful expressions that were evoked and excused my 'messing with ''em' a little.

It's a new one on me.

Anyone else know someone who's done those things, especially written about same?

I'd like to know.

john

John (Crosley)

(Or I'll call it 'the Crosley Method for getting a reaction when shooting 'up close'.)

Very interesting character! And the interesting point of shooting!

;~)))))

john

John (Crosley)

The perspective of this shot is amazing, I love how the white of his beard is the first thing that catches your eye and the woman look like they are gossiping in the corner.  What a fantastic shot!

"Really -- it was a tour de force in 'street behavior' for me -- caused in part because my zoom  lens's minimum focusing distance is 10 mm," "10mm"? Are so unfamiliar with the metric system?

The term was collapsed for those who know photography.

For those who do not know, the collapsed term, expanded should read, the minimum focusing distance determined by a 10 mm minimum zoom measured from front objective to sensor on my wide angle zoom lens.

Those who know photography, I am sure understood fully.  Rather than attempt to denigrate me, why didn't you just uncollapse the speech for the newbies? 

It would have been much more helpful.

No scolding needed. 

Sorry.

You are plenty smart, and you are just trolling because you knew exactly what was meant and only meant to stir up trouble.

I know you well enough to know that as well as based on private communication between you and me recently.

Please contribute to critique of the photo and its analysis if you wish to participate rather than engage in sophistry and troublemaking.

In other words, try to act in good faith and be helpful, not destructive.  You can have much to add if you'l channel your efforts from a good place.

No one likes a spoiler.

john

John (Crosley)

Have you tried to trace your eye's movements as you view this scene.

I have, and they were as planned (even though I barely had a split second to form the image, it was a continuation of prior images, so I had a little more time than one shutter's slick to construct this.

For me, it goes from beard, to women gossiping to beard again, then to man's darkish eyes, then back to beard and repeat or scan the rest of the scene.

An entirely engaging scene.  I wish I could construct others so complex on a more frequent basis.  Most of my images are pretty simple, but from time to time I get a chance at something more complex, and I LOVE to work with more elaborate scenes.  One thing: I do work fast and well under pressure as this should show.  One more moment and it would be gone forever, but I constructed more than just merely captured this.

Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful feedback.

john

John (Crosley)

I have no idea what is meaning of "the collapsed term, expanded..." etc. Over my head.  I supposed you mean 10cm. You in America are not on the metric system and I am not into inches. A troll is something that lives under bridges and scares people?

The image is great, the constructing just marvelous..! I'm sure you weren't smoking..! :)

No smoking, or he's have gone up in flames I was so close.

How many opportunities do you get in a lifetime for some thing so luxuriatiant as this?  And so often we just pass it by; I asked.  'May I? and was granted permission by a nod.

A happpy nod it turned out to be

Thanks Olaf.

john

John (Crosley)

an excellent use of frame space in this multi-level composition... as fine an example of 'street' photography as i've seen, perhaps one of your best... thank you for sharing it

The first student of the 'lessons' I try to 'teach' others about 'street photography', found throughout my comments and my presentations, is me.

In making those comments and presentations, I also have been teaching myself not only how to articulate what it is I do successfully (and often not) but in the process how to break the process down so it can be done again, but now sometimes with foresight and intelligence, often on a split-second, almost instinctive (but no longer so) basis.

This is the work that started out instinctive, then with self-instruction was broken down into a 'method' which I think can be taught to those with potential 'street' talent -- at least the building blocks can be taught, and the reflexes too if one can learn the necessary personality to take photos of strangers . . . and not be consumed by psychological issues.

Part of acquiring that personality can consume tens or hundreds of thousands of photos taken, encounters with a multitude of different street situations, and eventually finding that in street the 'end justifies the means' in that you finally may learn to justify your potential intrusiveness by the quality and artistic value of the work that you produce. 

If you are not paparazzo, and after a photo of a famous person for a paycheck but after a great photo for the sake of a great photo, to me that justifies what it is I do.  I could not look at myself if were stalkerazzi of the rich and famous, and I won't do that (it's my credo in fact).

I taught myself, I think just how to take such a multi-level photo.

I might have taken some such photo years ago purely on instinct, but it would have been solely instinctive.  I was able enough as an 'instinctive photographer' but there are limits, and every day on the street shooting instinctively is an adventure, wondering whether you 'have it' or 'don't have it', whereas with some 'method' as here, you always have some of it . . . . and whether you can shoot GREAT or less so, is then up to the photo Gods, where you are located, your feelings that day, reflexes, what you ate for breakfast, your potential subjects, and potentially a million other factors.

'Street' is full of surprises, but some are controllable (with lots of practice).

As you encounter each set of circumstances and learn to classify them, you also learn to classify your responses, to they too become instinctive, and you automatically call them (even a group of the responses) up one by one or group by group, as the situation may call for it (them), during the course of shooting.

I was showing my 'art' today to a stranger I met who showed interest today on the street, and in the middle of explaining while we walked, a woman stuck her hand with cigarette out of kiosk. 

In less than a second, I took a photo of just the hand and lighted cigarette sticking out the door with the vast expanse of kiosk door and windows framing it.

In fact, it told a story of how now smoke and smoking has become alienated in modern times.

The woman would put smoke in her lungs - she could not help it. 

But she could no longer allow that smoke inside her street kiosk/shop (a sort of pre-fab, freestanding affair on the broad sidewalk, common in Ukraine).

That photo would not have been possible 30 years ago for three reasons.

1.  There were only Communist shops and no freestanding kiosks with private owners.

2.  Cigarettes were allowed everywhere.

3.  No one (or few) saw the harm in cigarette smoking everywhere, and no one objected if one smoked in a shop or the merchandise had been smoked near.  (my surmises, I was not there).

So, to my mind, the photo is 'dated' with a modern date, though it is bare bones, and blessedly, has pleasing composition (the cigarette and hand are in the exact center, well-framed).

The whole lesson to my brief companion -- all summarized in less than a second:  Take what interests you (as it may be interesting to others) and hope for the best. 

Take lots of such shots, and, as above, where you have the advantage of being up close and able to move around for a second or two, try more than one view, keeping in mind lessons you have learned by looking at your (and others') photos analytically.

Never stop learning.

And remember the odds.

Almost never does one get a 'hole in one' in street.  Success is measured by the failures along the way, just so long as one has talent -- and many do who won't try.

Nowadays with lots of practice, in a flash I can think my way through just such a shot, (or series of shots -- as this is the final one of a one or two-second series).  I think others can too, and that this craft can be taught to those with talent.

Thanks for the wonderful compliment; it is an extremely high blessing!

john

John (Crosley)

I wrote previously about how my (and maybe your) eye travels around this photo.

Now look at how the subjects' eyes are directed.

The woman, rightmost, has her eyes on her companion to her right (more center in the photo).

The second woman, more center, has her eyes, not on the woman to her left, but more straight ahead, and perhap just a bit right.

The man with the beard, when we finally see his eyes, which I purposefully did not highlight, looks roughly toward us, perhaps a little higher than the camera, maybe not.  His gaze is a little indistinct in its height, but very distinct in its direction -- he's looking directly at or over the photographer's direction.

If one uses subjects' eyes as 'pointers' one gets an interesting message about 'which way to look' I think.

In a way it reinforces the multi-layered, multi-leveled analysis noted above - each person here is an individual and each person has and is responsible for his/her own gaze direction.

Note the warmth of the face (and eyes/smile) of the rightmost woman (as we look at the photo), while the woman she is  engaged in obviously is telling her something, and from the listener's look, something pretty interesting and possibly welcome.

At least that's what I see.

Finally, aside from eyes,  with regard to our gaze, how many viewers' gazes get tangled up in the beard of this guy?  I spent a lot of time dodging/burning, adjusting levels on this beard and then sharpening it modestly to ensure that nearly every single strand would show, but not all at the same level of brightness, (it was almost blown in the original, but only in comparison to the rest of the photo's information -- all the information about the beard was there just not processed by the camera's - or Adobe's - processing softward without additional work.

I think without the beard's being 'worked on' this photo would be much more mundane, and would not have achieved its full worth or potential; e.g., it was white in the center with no/little detail, which was contrary to what my eye saw when I took the photo.  My 'image editing work' on the beard merely reconstructed reality, rather than created an alternate reality.  

Nevertheless, this is basically an unmanipulated image, except for the caveat about the beard, and that could have been attempted with global adjustments and called 'no manipulation' under the rules, I think.

Your view?

john

John (Crosley)

I like how this image is divided into threes - the gentleman, the center background and then the two women who are intrigued and discussing their intrigue. 

In additon, there is something that seems to connect my eye and thoughts with his nose and the triangular element dead center in the image.  I like that connection. 

The cut of his eyes really creates intrigue for the viewer (or at least me). 

Then by far the most interesting little element that jumped off the page at me when I first viewed this image is the white line in the flag above the woman's head is mirroring one of the single white eyebrow hairs above his right eye.  I love to find little treasures such as this and I seem to always be able to find treasure within your images and that intrigues me.

deb

As one of the last or the last of a very short series taken in a second or two, this is a constructed image, taken after a head-on portrait of the man as I moved around him as a subject, looking to frame him better.

So, what you see for composition is the intentional result of my mind swiftly composing as I hoped like heck he would keep his demeanor and his cool.  He was looking far away and I called to him to fix his eye toward me (in very rudimentary Russian), and I was partly successful, which is great by me -- I didn't want him staring directly into the lens anyway.

The 'little treasures' you find, are something you're likely to find in a more complex image, and one that is constructed, as I do more and more my images these days, though with my instinctive images, I also was constructing them, even though I knew less about the what and why of how and what I was doing.

That lasted until I began to pick my technique apart with the help of a long series of wonderful commenters (you're one of the very best of a very long series, and that is a high tribute.)

Yes, it's divided into 'threes' and that's deliberate - I have a presentation on threes, as subjects (or other entities) but I also divided the frame into 'threes' and then also included three subjects as well, bunching two of them into one third of the frame to throw off symmetry -- to create tension from lack of balance.

That suggests I have a great deal more control than I really have, and I don't really -- I'm just a very hard worker at 'taking advantage of what cards are dealt me', and here I was dealt a very full hand with this guy and his full beard. 

The beard was capable of creating a diagonal across the frame.

It covers about half the frame if you didn't notice -- and the dynamic angle of it, creates 'tension' within the frame that isn't ordinarily there with facial portraits -- it was a good choice to move around to his side and create a 'story' with the remainder of the frame if there were any possibilities (and there were as you can see).

I still do much in my shooting is instinctive, but it also is knowing -- I study Cartier-Bressson's work a lot, (and almost feel like I'm standing in his shoes many times now), study my own work a lot, as well as any other photographer who composes well in the camera and doesn't wait to crop later -- also those whose photos (I now realize) 'tell stories' in major part -- though not always.

Some of my work is more abstract (see buldings in a downtown for instance), while others is more story-telling.  I was amazed when world class experts looked at my work and said at once 'each photo tells a story - it was news to me, but they were right. 

I was amazed to be told that from their first glance when I hadn't realized it myself.

Once I did realize it, I began to try to work with it, since I did it so instinctively anyway -- the idea was to try to catch people doing interesting things, and the times they do interesting things are when there's  a story about, so, it's a natural fit. 

People don't want to look at dull photos, and a good composition is very helpful, especially in 'street'.\

If you capture the interest with an intersting subject, but don't capture the heart with an interesting composition, you're only part way there, I feel.  There's more left to be done.  It can't always be done, and certainly I can't always do it, but I certainly try.

There is a school that says 'street' often is just a photo of a bunch of possibly interesting looking people captured at random on the street looking natural doing posssibly random things.

I don't belong to that school.

I'm of the Cartier-Bresson/Magnum school which likes to find 'order' within life's disorder.  Cartier-Bresson famously like to try to find the precise 'geometry' within his photos by which he meant 'composition' as we use the term, and that appeals to me immensely. I try to do the same many times.

He was very good at describing it -- see his videos/kinos if you ever get a chance, where he narrates in English -- he grew up with an English speaking nanny and studied in England a bit, and photographed there. 

He was an accomplished English speaker, so much so that the one time (briefly) when I met him, I was unaware really he was so Gallic.

(I hadn't a clue who he was back then in 1969, but his photos 'blew me away', and basically I quit my new, much-coveted photographer's job because of seeing his exhibited work -- not because of our ever so brief handshake which I had forgotten about until a year or so ago but just by the enormity and wonderfulness of his life's work on exhibit at the time.

Best to you deb.

Keep on analyzing; I'll keep on taking the best I can.

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm game until my number's up.

john

John (Crosley)

One of your observations is worth a separate comment.

You find an errant white line in the flat above the woman - a jagged white line.

You find a corollary white line within his right (as he views us) eyebrow.

Such things are not readily apparent and require a most astute mind to find; I might have lived several lifetimes and never seen that, but now I will never be able to explain this photo without pointing that out (or sewing my lips shut to avoid doing so.)

Wonderful analysis!

You analysis is as multi-level as my photo, or more so.

john

John (Crosley)

Amazing