'The Sidewalk'

'The Sidewalk' is an unusual street photo that may cause arousal of

interesting feelings; I'm interested in learning your reaction. 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

A very well composed capture of one stark reality of life. The foot in the upper right corner of the image does not have relevance to the concept or composition and might well have been avoided or eliminated digitally.

Interesting analysis.

I view it this way.

Compositionally, the slightly visible foot, upper right, completes the outline of a compositional 'C' curve, adding an element that draws the eye from front to back.

How you view the composition's 'starkness' is a personal matter and how that foot fits in there is entirely personal.  To me, I view it as essential, but to you, probably not; can we agree to disagree?

Perhaps others will weigh in.

Thanks for anchoring a discussion which I hope will continue.

john

John (Crosley)

John if the primary thrust of this image is composition of objects like it is in still photography, then the relevance of the foot in the corner could be debated. I find the dominant element is the concept. There is a poorly dressed man on his knees with a stick next to him. May be he is physically challenged. His head is almost on the ground; indication of his helplessness. There is a cup next to his head.  May be he is an alms seeker. Then there are legs of a person with a healthy walk with good stride. He is not turning towards the helplessness nor stopping by it. This is what I had referred to above as one stark reality of life. The background, graphically patterned and completely uncluttered, well highlights this contrast. I would have captioned it as 'Unconcerned Walk'. If this is what you wanted to show, then there is no relevance of the corner foot.

You are right; different eyes will have different perception. My feedback to you is that the corner foot does not lead my attention elsewhere. It holds it till I make an effort to concentrate on what I consider the main subject. In my assessment this image deserves a seven. The distraction takes away just one.

It is a strong visual documentation of social problems. I like it very much.

I have a background in press photography (back in the days of print) and back then the editors of the newspapers often cropped the photos they were sent. It could be very anoying, but it also had a tendency to shave all unnecessary element away from the images. This - in turn - made us (the photographers) try to make crops impossible by attempting to get as close to the point as possible. If this was my photo i'd sacrifice about a fourth or a fifth of the right side of the image. Maybe darkening the patch on the sidewalk to get the composition you were looking for.

I'm interested in your view, both compositionally and emotionally.

I view this as not just one set of feet passing by, but two, suggesting that in the far distance, there may be more.

Compositionally, the stick of the woman beggar points almost directly at the far set of feet, and when one connects the points, one has a triangle -- which creates subtly a compelling compositional device (in my view), and helps keep this from being a photo with (1) empty space unexplained and (2) compositionally complete yet suggesting more of the same ignoring passersby in the distance.

Again, that's my view; this is a photo to discuss and there is no 'correct' view.

My personal view is that without the far feet I probably would NOT have posted it, not suspecting it would score so high with only one set of passing feet in your view.  That just goes to show you how subjective this photo and its analysis is.

I enjoy such give and take -- it's the stuff of life.

Thanks for a provocative and helpful colloquy.

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

I too have a background in press photography having worked less than a week for Associated Press as a photographer before their staff sent me to meet Henri Cartier-Bresson (told to me as Henry who's showing some photos over on Van Ness, San Francisco, just over there -- the De Young Museum, San Francisco which was crammed with Cartier-Bresson's finest work.)

Not knowing who Cartier-Bresson was, but having my work then compared to his, I spoke briefly to him, and now recall he told me there was no future in press photography and never to allow editing or cropping.

I went back to AP and quit as a photographer, so enraptured was I by his work and feeling its greatness (however my work was being compared to his) as being unattainable by me.

Fortunately AP rehired me immediately as a writer and set me writing news without interrupting anything, even though I had never written a story, and within a day or two my stories were going worldwide and nationwide on front pages.

True story.

I never would have tried to take or sell such a photo to or for Associated Press; there was no market for such a photo; this is an artist's photo only.

Cartier-Bresson  allowed himself to be called a 'photojournalist' formally but insisted that no one would be allowed to ask him what he called himself, as he had thought himself as a 'surrealist photographer'.

I never approached those questions, and when I was taking photos in 1968 and 1969, the term 'street' photo was something I never heard.

Interesting comment and interesting perspective.

This is NOT a photojournalistic photo; perhaps a documentary but more a 'fine art' photo with documentary origins, in my view.

Your viewpoint also will be respected.

For your information, I debated seriously whether or not even to post this, which just goes to show you.

;~))

Thanks for helping move the discussion along with your contribution.

john

John (Crosley)

And if this were my grandmother?Sad and too common I am sure for the few times I was witness to such a scene fortunately not so here because of our social programs .You have captured the essence of how people react faced with a situation they would rather not see such as the fast pace of the near person and the fleeing foot in the upper corner.A fine picture you have here John.Another good one.

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

I think the inclusion of the upper feet is necessary to point out not just one person was walking by this needy person, but more, and probably still more but just not seen in this photo. Unfortunately this is a common occurrence and a rather sad one. Great capture - for both the emotional and compositional qualities. Very well done! Thank you for sharing! :)

Thank you for the accolades and the thoughtful critique.

You can't believe how hard I went to keep the feet in place in the upper right corner, as I felt they were necessary to the composition and the meaning which you have correctly divined.

I'm glad to have such a thoughtful critique as you; thank you so much and for more, see my reply to Trisha, below.

john

John (Crosley)

Yours is a thoughtful critique and most welcome.

I thought you might be interested to know that (1) this is a crop and (2) that when I went to adjust for 'lens distortion' to eliminate that distortion Adobe Photoshop eliminated the feet, top right.

Of course I allowed the distortion to remain, rather than ruin what I felt was ideal composition.  This is one of a number of instances where the 'lens distortion' feature, if allowed to have its way, would have ruined an otherwise good or great photo, so beware those who automatically in 'actions' or otherwise apply 'lens distortion correction' blindly!  You may be missing something.  I do each step manually, and am much happier for it.

I totally agree with your take on the second set of feet, upper right -- it's the 'kicker' that really 'makes' this photo rise to another level and suggests universality rather than just another photo of a beggar and a passerby.

Thanks for thoughtful analysis, once again, and to others also who have contributed so far.  (more are welcome as well as opposing views)

john

John (Crosley)

The narrative aspects, to me, suggest leaving the foot in the upper right-hand corner. There are visual and emotional reasons to leave it as well. It moves my eye to a sort of transcendent place, beyond the main action, helping to the universalize the photo. It's a strange element, quizzical, enigmatic, yet now awkward. That's usually a plus in terms of the suggestive nature of good photos. If anything feels awkward here, it's the square crop rather than the inclusion of elements, and that's a gut reaction but not one that really undermines my positive reaction to the photo. It would be something I'd need to live with for a while because it might well grow on me and I like to remain open to a photo's growing on me. It's surely not a story that hasn't been told well before, but it does seem a personal take on the matter and captures gesture and starkness well. It has a certain blatant and unabashed power, like you weren't afraid to step into the moment, which is the case with so many less compelling and even offensive photos of people begging or homeless and on the streets. If that upper leg tweaks me a bit, if I am moved to ask "Why?" it may just serve its purpose. In some ways, it may be the very subject of the photo, hiding in plain sight.

By the way, with savvy use of the history brush in Photoshop, one can often use the lens distortion tool and then recover some of what it unnecessarily did away with. It would not have been difficult to correct the distortion and then recover, carefully and with some further adjustments, the foot in the upper right corner. For me, however, though the distortion is noticeable, it seems to make sense in the shot. It adds a sort of off-kilter emphasis to the goings-on. But the distortion does command a fair amount of attention, so I can also understanding wanting to get rid of it. Since less of the distortion is taking place in the upper right, you could have corrected the photo and carefully history-brushed back in the portion that the distortion tool would have deleted. It takes finesse, for sure, but can be done.

You have obviously studied this photo well, or it has struck you with genuine intensity.  In any case, your writing is self-explanatory and really deserves little comment from me.

This is a crop, and mainly because the 'action' occurred with a 2:3 aspect ratio frame's right side with nothing on the left side, so that got cropped out.  I had spied the succession of feet (two pairs) in the center and right and decided to click the shutter, but being averse to cropping this sat for a long time before I worked on it.

Still, cropping is something I am very averse to, and moreover, such a photo goes very much against my usual fare, but it had a compelling (to me) quality to it, and at the same time, I figured by posting it, I'd surely lower my averages and viewership, as 'who would get the point?'

Well, once again, the PN audience has shown me wrong in trying to predict what is a 'good' photo and what is a 'bad' one, and that's just one more reason I keep trying, reviewing old shots, taking new ones and posting.

Every time I see photos by a new photographer or look at gallery showings, etc., I get a new perspective, and this is partly a result of that never-ending quest -- partly because I 'saw' it in the viewfinder, but was neglectful to crop, but partly because I got the energy and vision to crop it from seeing how others handle unusual shots.

I've never been hidebound by 'rules' or expectations on Photo.net as so many no who've seen me post photos many may regard as awful, but refuse to take them down (You only need to look in my folders to find so many of them), but some of them I like so much and others I need others in the audience to show me why a particular photo is 'good', 'bad', 'so-so' or a mixture.

Lack of an informed audience is the main reason I gave up photographing for those decades when I took so few photos, and why taking it up again last decade was so easy, even with many photos in my original 'street' style, but no one here knowing I also did then 'stock' and color work which is similar to today's color work which I also post.

This also might have been named 'Five Feet', but I figured I'd be more general in my description and let the audience figure or puzzle it out, and really wanted to see if a discourse (as it has above so wonderfully) develop.

Fred, thank you so much for the critique and also the technical help -- I'm not much on technical tricks and tips, but I understand the knowledge your 'history brush' tip represents and appreciate it. 

If I had a gallery following, I probably would also have a private photoshopper to help me as I have had in the past -- in fact that may happen soon -- maybe more than one.  (Watch this space, but they can't edit things I post, because of PN rules.)

Fred G., please know that this is one PN member who greatly appreciates your many great contributions to my work in your critiques and your contributions to this service.

Best wishes.

john

John (Crosley)

This is a photo partly about formal compositional elements as well as a time-honored subject approached in a somewhat unusual way.

This may be seen in part as a photo about feet.

The two feet of the female beggar, prostrate in the lower left foreground.

The two feet of the walker, middle left.

The sole foot of the strider in the upper right. 

Five feet in all.

Or

It may be seen as noted by me above as a photo in which if one attempts to 'connect the dots' one ends up with a 'C' curve, which is a curve which invites the viewer's eye into the photo.  Next to the classic 'S' curve which is even more inviting, the 'C' curve is a powerful design element.

But this photo has something more that may not be readily apparent, alluded to above.

The cane (stick) of the prostrate beggar woman, foreground, lies in a diagonal line which if extended would perfectly bisect this photo (or nearly so), and if so extended would create of this photo two triangles.

A triangle is a most inviting element visually because it is dynamic -- anything with 'threes' visually arranged well can be interesting and a triangle is the epitome of 'threes' as a geometric figure with three sides.

The only way to compound that is to draw a diagonal line across a square or rectangle and create thus two triangles -- here that is suggested by extending the line of the stick.

Moreover the stick (cane) points directly to the shoe of the upper right male strider who is the second person ignoring this prostrate beggar.

That second ignoring person suggests that there may be a third, a fourth and so fourth -- we don't know, but it is implicit that if there are two and the last is cut off, there may indeed be more.  It's in human nature to create 'extensions' in our minds, though there may in fact be none; and it has been so noted in composition expositions.

So, this photo, as unlikely as it may seem, has achieved for me an unexpected 'welcome' by commenters and raters, in part, I think because of design elements that are not so easily described or revealed, described here.

Am I wrong, or do you have more to add?

I'm interested in your view.

We don't always play 'connect the dots' but sometimes subconsciously our minds do just that when the subject(s) are somehow seen as interconnected, and what could be more interconnected than a woman seeking attention from passersby and one, then two, passersby (signified only by their lower extremities) ignoring her entirely?

That those extremities are feet, and we see the woman (it is a woman) mainly by the soles of her shoes, is a further point of interconnection.

Compositionally, this photo is far more complex than I think any rater above or commenter above would have thought it to be unless and until they had formally dissected, though some of the above raters (perhaps all) had such a dissection within their capabilities.

I think about such things sometimes before I post, and sometimes after I post, and especially dwell on them when a seemingly 'odd' photo achieves prominence that was unexpected (note my comment above that I wondered whether to post it at all, fearing it would be misunderstood, and myself misunderstanding my colleagues' powers of discernment and understating my own ability to choose the good ones from the bad ones).

john

John (Crosley)

You are a demanding and particular fellow with regard to technical matters.

With respect to the fundamentals of distortion, you undoubtedly are correct, and I have little doubt your proposed 'solution' to correcting the distortion would 'work'.

But I take photos and let others work out the fine points.

Is that a failing?  I don't know.

I know after WWII or at least after Magnum Agency was founded Henri Cartier-Bresson never printed anything -- he had a master printer do his best work and probably all the other work in its entirety.

It may be little known, but in fact numerous now treasured Cartier-Bresson photos were sent out as giveaways, signed by Cartier-Bresson and mailed as 'mailing pieces' and rescued by various lucky people from their corporate garbage, and have gained in value to thousands and more over time.  They are originals, made by the same printer, and were to promote the Magnum Agency and its affiliation with Cartier-Bresson.

That's partly why there are no 'numbered editions' of Cartier-Bresson photos that I know of -- there just were too many free photos printed and distributed (and too many discarded with the trash or even used to line bird cages!).

Cartier-Bresson didn't even have ONE of his own photos on display in his own flat; he had the Muncasi photo of the African youths playing in a lake's surf that gave him the idea that he could take his own spontaneous 'instant drawing' photos.

So, like Cartier-Bresson, I tend not to print or show or even display my photos except on the Internet.  I don't even have any prints of anything in my possession except the original show quality prints of old photos that were printed negatives from long ago where the negatives were destroyed.

You know the ones.

So, I tend not to dwell on yesterday's photos or show them; and I don't pick favorites.

Cartier-Bresson even went throughout SouthEast Asia taking great photo after great photo, sending undeveloped film to London or New York and never even looking back or at the product until far later and mainly at the end of his life or to look at the product in magazines or the Magnum Archives is what I divine from rather extensive analysis of his statements and those who worked with him.

I tend to like to dwell on my own photos; reviewing them and analyzing them, so I'm different in that regard, as my shooting is not nearly so intuitive as Cartier-Bresson, and I always am provoked by the question of 'how can I make a better, more interesting photo?' whereas he was just looking for the intersection of the perfect moment where everything jelled in a form that was appealing . . . . I'll never have that.

But I can shoot color regularly and well, which Cartier-Bresson couldn't!  He even later in life tried to destroy his color work.  

Source, editor Paris 'Photo' magazine in an article written shortly after Cartier-Bresson died, describing Cartier-Bresson's awful behavior on being shown for comment some of his rare 'color work' and the horrible scene HCB caused in a restaurant, disavowing his friendship with the editor over the 'incident'.

Fred, you are technically a perfect man and no doubt digitally or otherwise in the darkroom you far, far, far outstrip my meager darkroom abilities.

Perhaps purposely I have not developed those abilities as my motto is 'if it needs much darkroom work to be good, why not just go out and shoot a dozen new good photos?  I've never wanted for the ability to 'make' photos and sometimes be able to get good ones.

You, on the other hand, are a portraitist, your clients come in for 'sittings or other prearranged posings, and you must by necessity have a different view.  You HAVE to 'make do' sometimes as you don't get an opportunity to do things a second time or just go out and shoot something else and I respect that.

We just have two different outlooks.

And my outlook would be different maybe if a gallerist were saying 'John, in order to sell your work, we need to eliminate distortion better -- take Fred G's advice'. 

I respect your different circumstance, your great eye and abilities, and your superior work.

john

John (Crosley)

No, no, no! I only mentioned removing the distortion and keeping the upper foot because YOU had already mentioned it. I thought it was something YOU wanted. It was not something I would have suggested on my own. I was responding to you, who had already said to Trisha before I came by:

"I thought you might be interested to know that (1) this is a crop and (2) that when I went to adjust for 'lens distortion' to eliminate that distortion Adobe Photoshop eliminated the feet, top right. Of course I allowed the distortion to remain, rather than ruin what I felt was ideal composition."

I was offering you advice to the extent that you had mentioned that you tried to remove the distortion. I was telling you how. I was not recommending you remove the distortion. I was merely following your lead.

You go on to say:

"my motto is 'if it needs much darkroom work to be good, why not just go out and shoot a dozen new good photos?' "

I don't want to read too much into this, but I want to describe my own position on darkroom and post processing work. When I post process, it's more a matter of want than need. Many people see darkroom work as making up for not getting it right in camera. (I'm not saying that's your position.) That's fine, but it's not how I work or how many people I know work. If we think of Adams as epitomizing the darkroom aficionado, we understand that he was not making up for not getting it good enough. He was post processing simply because that was part of his photographic process, part of fulfilling his vision. Think of the great painters, who go over and over their canvases to create one painting, adding layers of paint, brushstroke on top of brushstroke. They don't do that because the first layer isn't good enough. They do it because that's how you paint a painting. You couldn't say to a painter, well, if you just start over again enough times you'll get it on the first layer. That isn't the point. The point of painting is to build up the layers of paint. The reason to post process instead of shooting a dozen new photos is that you could never shoot the photo you will wind up with as a result of working in the darkroom. Ansel Adams could have spent a hundred years shooting in Yosemite over and over again and would not achieve, no matter how much he shot, what he WANTED to (not NEEDED to) in the darkroom.

John, I so much appreciate your consideration of how I might work:

"your clients come in for 'sittings or other prearranged posings, and you must by necessity have a different view. You HAVE to 'make do' sometimes as you don't get an opportunity to do things a second time or just go out and shoot something else and I respect that."

It's reasonable of you to think this, but let me tell you in my own words how I work. I have few clients. Most of the portraits in my portfolio and on my website are people I know or people I've just met who I've asked to be subjects for me. They have not requested their portrait to be done. I often consider my portraits a collaboration. In some cases, because my subject is a creative type and into the process of creating something more than a straight portrait, two of us are at work. In all cases, though, since another person is involved, I want to give credit to the subjects who give life to the photos and provide so much of the raw materials, emotional output and character. A few of the people I've been lucky enough to work with are actors and dancers, who bring their own art to our ventures and so we riff off each other, as it were. Since I'm not being paid and not expected to produce by anyone but myself I do, in fact, have the opportunity to do things a second time or to go out and shoot another time. I've been out with some of the guys in my portfolio as many as a dozen times. I post process to get the result I want, not because I don't have other opportunities. 

Only one or two shots in my portfolio are done in a studio. I prefer working outdoors or at other locations and particularly in the homes of my subjects when possible, to allow them to exist in their environment. I do plan to some extent, in that I may think about how I want to portray someone and may consider locations I'd like to head over to when the lighting conditions might work for a mood I want. Very often, though, I will simply meet up with a guy I'm going to work with and we will walk around town or head to some location, and just wing it. When we find a place that strikes us in the moment, we work with it. I will intentionally pose people, sometimes making the pose almost stagelike in its intentionality, if I want a particularly theatrical effect, other times making the pose more natural. I like to play with that line between natural and artificial, as I explore people's personas as much as I do their personalities. I take a kind of "All the world's a stage" attitude and often see people as wearing masks, masks that when photographed and explored and confronted can reveal some very true and unexpected things.

And some of my portraits were taken when not posed, in those in-between moments when we're taking a break, or the subject is changing clothes, or breaking for a sip of water or distracted by something that's not planned. Here's a RECENT ONE shot in an off moment.

Well, that's it in a long nutshell! :-) Thanks for your kind words, the in-depth response you gave me, and the opportunity to describe to you how I think and work.

John, it is always a pleasure.

I am a thousand times (or thereabouts) richer for your apt description of how you work and create, and thank you for helping erase some of the misconceptions I had about the degree of adherence I had thought you had to being a 'professional' in terms of the formal definition of that term, which means getting paid.  For you are a professional, as well as an amateur, it turns out (which I am also) for that is a person who does what he does because he loves what he does, as amateur derives from the word for 'love', and means 'love' of one's work and has no relationship (as we deal with it here) with the talent involved, I think we both agree.

Thanks again.

Don't be a stranger.

Your contributions are always welcome here.

john

John (Crosley)

One could not hope for a better review than a total of five !!!!! from you.

Thank you so much.

Bless you.

Keep coming back when something strikes your fancy, please.

john

John (Crosley)