'The Anonymous Metro Rider'

'This is the 'Anonymous Metro Rider' and two temporary companions

he was entirely unaware of. (They were on the Metro tunnel wall

outside.) Your ratings, critiques and observations 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

This man was entirely unaware of his female 'companions'.  They are on posters on the Metro tunnel wall, posted at a station; the train he is sitting on is stopped at a station, allowing these posters to be seen as though they were bookkending him.

He had absolutely no idea why his photo was being taken, even though I tried to show him.

john

John (Crosley)

It seems this old man reallized about your intention and unfortunately you were not fast enough to capture his face! Shame - by the way from which country you took this shot? Russia perhaps?

No shame involved.

If he saw what I saw, he would have been delighted; he just could not see the whole; he was unaware of the background which disappeared in less than two seconds

Sorrry that you jump to wrong conclusions; it happens sometimes with those who don't shoot street.  'Street' is not studio shootinng and involves making many choices; many of which involve initially surprising people being captured, sometimes to their initial upset, then when they see the result they're often delighted; some even want to be best friends as a result.

You can't extrapolate from an initial 1/30th of a second and impose 'shame' when you don't know the outcome, or have not been involved in 'street' shooting - that would be patently unfair and wrongly judgmental.

Consider this a 'surreal' capture, and measure it by its symmetry and its mystery, then re-evaluate as 'art' please.

john

John (Crosley)

very good and ironic capture

Thank you for an enlightened comment.  The 'irony' is part 'dramatic irony' in which the subject is unaware of surrounding circumstances, which we are.

There is other irony, too, of course.

Best to you, and thanks for understanding.

john

John (Crosley)

Apologies for misspelling your name -- failing keyboard.

john

John (Crosley)

When I shot this, I hoped for a chance for a shot with the guy's face showing so I could make a comparison; no such luck.

However, on two days' reflection, I am absolutely certain that his circular hat hiding his circular (global) head, makes a more mysterious and therefore more intriguing and more surreal photo -- and for me, more satisfying and interesting.

This, then, is not a run-of-the-mill photo, or necessarily an intrusive photo (after all, it doesn't show his face) or even a rude one -- I offered and was refused when I went to show this man what I had captured, then he got off at the next stop. 

Many fellow subjects on being shown such a capture would have been intrigued, fascinated and even have shaken my hand for showing them something interesting in which they had  part. 

He obviously couldn't have imagined that this could have been more than a photo of him, and thus showed no patience -- how unsatisfactory for me, who really wanted to show him this, and how regrettable that he is deprived of knowing his role in something interesting.

People often really want to be 'stars' of something interesting, especially younger people, and many often beg to be photographed or when photographed well, start bragging to their friends when shown the good result. 

This man was deprived of that.  

That is not self-justification, just my telling here what is a common reaction to good captures that often start out with reluctant subjects.

All-in-all, a sad ending for the guy and for my wish to share.

I'm sorry for that, for I think this is a worthwhile photo, and don't want to be known as that 'intrusive guy' who invades everybody's privacy so that people hate me and my camera' - I often bring big, even great joy, when I snoop around and point my lens at people, then often show the result to the interested ones.

It helps break the monotony of frequently 12-hour days and 6-day work weeks, and helps some have something to talk about with their friends.

I know for a fact that a significant number of those I capture ask for how to find my photos on the web, and because my photos are so easily found (google me and click on the first return), and because of their follow-up e-mails, comments, and subsequent meetings, I have a good idea how many actually do find my photos (and often their own depictions).

Some seem to have memorized the entire 1,850 photos on my site, too,  and can describe in words to me many photos I have forgotten or never heard described in words before.

That's why I feel little 'shame' as suggested above.

If a 'street photographer' was consumed by large feelings of shame, he'd never get any rest with his conscience, and he'd never press the shutter.  I experienced that once, and it was terrible for my output.

Now I do as Cartier-Bresson suggested: I steal for the sake of giving in return something that is special (such as this). 

Without this two-second intrusion, there would never be this photo, and I judge the trade was worthwhile, especially in view of the other frequent, favorable outcomes, even when things start out not looking so good.

Bruce Gilden described his experiences in staying safe by saying despite what people assume is outrageous behavior in front of subjects by explaining "I have a great street manner". 

It protects him.

One woman I heard nearby told another in a crowded bazaar in Russian (which I barely speak) that I was a great comedian, yet (again) I barely speak the language and often must mime what I intend to convey.   She was entertained; I was accepted, however grudgingly and tolerated well.

I also have my captures to show digitally; I can choose the best to show favored subjects  and their friends, and often win converts that way. 

In that way I often can turn one stolen snap done well into a dozen or two semi-posed or 'street candids' 'up close' while a subject goes about his/her business with me right in front of them making images, often right in front of their faces - sometimes only a foot or less away and with the subjects cooperating, because they liked what they saw with the first photo - one  which they may have objected before seeing it.

I've never been hit by a subject.

Bystanders are another category, and can be far more dangerous because you often are unaware of them, and some dangerous few are just crazy SOBs with anti candid photographer vendettas. 

They can appear out of a crowd, previously unseen, with a 'mission from God' to 'protect the rights' of subjects they don't know but they feel are being violated, even when the subject is unaware of being photographed or doesn't mind the process.   

Those dangerous bystanders are rare but often are 'spoiling for a fight' as 'enforcers' but with no transgression apparent.  They belong on an analyst's couch, and one supposes that's where they have come from or are headed.

Maybe they saw photographers hound Britney Spears or someone else famous on a television site and make a faulty comparison; it doesn't matter; they can be dangerous to you the 'street photographer'.

But the whole process of 'street photography' generally is entirely fun and rewarding -- new art is just a shutter click away; a world class photo may happen any second, and that's a powerful incentive to keep on clicking.

I took this photo when I swore 'no more photos for the day', then stepped on a Metro coach and voila - the sight compelled me to memorialize it.

© 2011, John Crosley All rights reserved.

john

John (Crosley)

I watched first returns come in, and they were '3s.

Members at first assumed this was about taking a photo of a guy hiding I think, and dismissed it. I think it's far, far richer than that.

I like this photo very much, and on reflection, I think it will rank among the best of my recent photos; it has depth, surreality, (surrealness), it's ambiguous, it has to-die-for composition, and it has mystery, good tonality and frankly, above all it's 'interesting' - something that tops everything, I think when I evaluate the worth of 'street' captures.

If you look at this photo, do you just glance at it and dismiss it, or do you linger a while and take it in, integrating the parts or at least try to do so?

Not surprisingly (to me) it has higher rates) than any recent black and white photo, even those with far higher rates, and at one time one in three who viewed it, also felt compelled to rate it.

That is a great suggestion that not only is this out of the ordinary but in some way it's compelling.

Your view?

john

John (Crosley)

 

Google Images, through whatever arcane system and certainly not on 'image views' has somehow figured that this not too highly viewed and not really highly rated photo is among my very best ever.

It stands next to my landmark 'Balloon Man' as their choice for No. 4 in Google Images as among my best.  Google Images has had an uncanny ability, probably based on some indicators of taste, by which it makes its choices, but those choices are not revealed and certainly are more than counting image downloads or views, as this photo was not even in a publicly viewable Photo.net folder when Google.com gave it such a high ranking.

It's almost as though they had someone watching the choices as well as relying on their statistics, as I know of no statistical way to place this image No. 4 in popularity, yet in my view, it deserves a ranking somewhere near the top of recent images and aside from older work which is not viewed much any more, the rank seems justified.

Of course the ranking is transient and is based somewhat on views -- it will only stay there if people click on it.

It has been 'stolen' by blogs, and it's possible Google.com has some sort of image recognition software to prevent too many blog versions of the same image from appearing on Google Images, so that search engine is counting blog views also, even though they have for display connected the Photo.net version (the original of course).

In fact, I'd be surprised, since there's commercially available facial recognition software, if Google didn't use image recognition software for weeding out duplicates.

So, maybe blog views have helped Google.com make its choice; in which case score one for the pesky blogs. 

At least they always seem to spell my name correctly.

And they consider my images worthy enough to 'purloin'.

No one wants to purloin a cubic zirconium, I'm sure.

So, maybe that's a sort of backhanded compliment, even if it dilutes the main source (PN, the official posting source), so long as it does not confuse my ownership and copyright.

john

John (Crosley)

(this listing rank could change in a flash; Google updates about every four hours.)

 

 

John,

Not much time to give a detailed critique, but this shot certainly grabs my eye, as does the body of your work.  For those who do not understand the challenges and rewards of street photography, perhaps they should try it themselves.  Like they say, if we have to explain it, they wouldn't get it anyway.

Cheers!

Joe

Thanks for the support - we see things alike, I think.

 

The response to this has largely been underwhelming.

 

I think it's one of my better shots, but the viewers are the ultimate arbiter, at least on this service.

 

I'm so thankful you picked this one to comment on; I feel vindicated.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)