'The Restaurant'

There seems to be a lot going on one busy night at a fast food

restaurant. The city's name is withheld, as the scene appears to me

to be almost 'universal' within at least the Western world. Your

ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If

you rate harshly, very critically, or with to make a remark, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! john

Interesting scene!While the young guy playing with his phone is trying to look not interested by what his older brother or maybe his dad is up to with his date,that young girl at the back is really focused on the action....maybe waiting to see how this is going to develop.And all this at that Fast Food place clearly printed on that soft drink container.Good timing and excellent street capture John.Well done ....again!

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

I'm quite well known for posting rather 'simple' photos -- photos that reduce 'moments' to their essence or essences.

I decided a while ago to take more photos of the sort like my photo 'Leaving Las Vegas, (My Style), or similar name, in which there are actually three different subjects telling three different stories.

I felt I would like to take more such photos, but also felt the circumstances for such photos were fairly rare, so I could be excused if the plupart of my photos were more mono-subject rather than plural subject.

However, in analyzing my output, which I do rather consistently and which guides me in the increasingly short times when I actually observe through the viewfinder (yes, I spend very little time now looking through the viewfinder), I decided to become more aware of more than one 'story' or a multi-part story within my frame.

That involved pulling back a little bit as here, and not zooming in to the fullest.  Using a high megapixel camera sensor in which a crop could 'save the day' combined with a sharp lens (even kit lenses these days are 'sharp'), I can shoot 'wide', and if there is a capture within a capture, then I can crop if necessary. 

This is a crop to a 5:4 from a 2:3 aspect ratio and involves removal of part of the right side of the capture.

I have tons more to write about this photo, but maybe never or 'all in good time'.  Let's give others a chance to write their observations.

Felicitations and merci beaucoup for your contribution.

john

John (Crosley)

Maybe too much contrast or lack of sharpness! But the captured scene is more than lovely, it's a story and psychological study!

Best regards, John!

PDE

Thank you for the compliment on this interesting capture and the story(ies) it tells.

The restaurant had high contrast lighting, and so the capture was in high contrast; all I had to do was desaturate it, but I also added sharpening 'in camera', but 'in Photoshop' later I tried to 'tone down' some of the high contrast, especially on the 'kissing man's' face. 

There are other ways I could have done it; I worked from an in-camera edit, since I liked the way Nikon (NEF = raw) handled the capture very much in converting to jpeg, so I stuck with that rather than introducing errors in Adobe Camera Raw, then 'evened out' some things in Adobe Camera Raw, then Photoshop 14. 

All in all, the high contrast serves a purpose I'll comment on later; you note it has not enough sharpening, but believe me, it has plenty.  More later.

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you for the compliment(s).

You are right about the 'high contrast' and its giving structure to the shot.

It also serves another purpose, which I may comment on later, but not now, not yet.

This photo is far more complex than first meet the eye, and it is not a simple photo even then just in its treatment of the subject matter with so many things going on.

Best to you and thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

In understanding 'sharpness' in this photo, understand that is it plenty sharp, and it has undergone Adobe's new 'blur reduction' as well as vibration reduction from the VR lens.

'Blur reduction' or whatever name they give to it introduces artifacts and it meant for camera/lens motion correction, but it also works for blur from subjects being slightly out of focus, but it also adds smoothing and artifact reduction to mask its effects since it creates artifacts, so the boy left, who was out of the plane of optimal focus was just a tad unsharp and his image underwent 'blur reduction' (not for movement problems however).

The image also was 'smoothed' by that command as well.  Same with the background woman, who was intentionally Gaussian blurred, but Blur Reduction seems to have undone the effects of 'blur introduction'.  (Interesting!)

Still, this is almost the same as the 'in-camera edit' despite the fancy tricks I tried to use, because it was almost perfect (for my purposes) from the camera, using in-camera NEF editor, including the sub-editing controls for sharpness, contrast, and brightness, that are available for black and white conversions under the NEF edit command.

I think few know that those edit functions are available in Nikon NEF in-camera editing, especially the 'sharpness' and 'contrast' commands, which can really 'prettify' a black and white conversion into something really viewable if one spends a few minutes learning those controls (and how to access them -- by using the 'big thumb wheel', pressing right, when one has selected 'monochrome', the menus turn up). 

I doubt one in ten Nikon user even knows about NEF in-camera conversions and of those that 50% know how to find and use the submenus, which are wonderful and can help make a photo 'view worthy' right there in the field.

There is another reason (now withheld) for making this high contrast, and it has to do with composition -- more probably later.  In any case, it's a little 'busy', and high contrast helped tie the important parts together.

john

John (Crosley)

You're entirely correct Meir, however, for some reason I like very much the overall desaturation I got from using the in-camera JPEG process, and decided to go with it.  I then went into Photoshop to try to smooth out the exact transition you complained of as it was much worse.

I keep experimenting; as I am a 'raw' (NEF) guy now for several years, and this is one of the first JPEGS that I have posted or perhaps the first in half a decade that did not derive from processing a NEF (raw) capture first where a raw capture was available.

You have proved your point well, and I'll be working this up in raw to see how it stands up.  I happen to like the overall contrast for reasons that I'll explain in a day or so, so I went with this version though I could easily have worked up the NEF (raw) version in Photoshop.

Good, helpful comment, where your knowledge shines.

john

John (Crosley)

I'm intrigued. I've been looking again and asking myself..."Why is the high-contrast so important here?" The only thing I can come up with is that there might've been something in the shadow areas of the photo that you didn't want to be seen. I don't think this is right, but please do be sure to solve the mystery.

BTW, I think the contrast works, I do see the forehead area that was mentioned. I don't  find it particularly bothersome, however. It might be of more import in a print than on the screen, though.

What is striking to me about this composition is the reactions (or in the case of the boy, the studied NON-reaction) to the adults.

Another good eye and capture.

Amy

This particular restaurant features almost theatrical, overhead lighting, which almost guarantees high contrast captures.

So, no matter what you bargain for, that's what you get, in this portion of the restaurant at least.

Now look at the background, left top.  It's a huge head of what Americans call 'butter lettuce' or Europeans just may call 'salad' photographed from the top, and taken in high contrast, showing all its curvature and crenellations (in the sense of 'indentations' not battlements).  That photo/mural is extremely high contrast and full of curves.

Now look at my captured subjects.

There are three persons but there are really FIVE round subjects in all if one does a full count, which is why I chose this particular capture.  It's the only one in which there are 'five' round captured subjects. 

What are the 'round subjects?'

First there is the round balloon (shari) left, then the young boy's head, the roundness formed by his hands and the mobile (cell) phone he's fiddling with (creates a round figure equivalent to head size), and then the two figures of the older boy and the young woman.

This is the only capture in which one can line up the round figures because it's the only one in which the boy fiddling with his mobile (cell) phone forms a circular figure - which is handy, because without it, it destroys a good part of my theory of why this photo may work well.

In all, there are five subject figures, all round, not just three people.  Four of the round figures are 'lined up' too.

You may say, that's 'outrageous, I only see three people, and that's all that should count, but your eye actually sees these figures and their roundness, although the roundness of the balloon left is somewhat muted because I didn't lighten it somewhat, although I might have.

Now all this series of figures (except the balloon) is highly contrasted emphasizing the curvature, which 'mirrors' the wall poster/mural of the lettuce (salad) seen from the top, also 'high contrast' and heavily filled with rounded/curved lines.

In order for this photo 'to work' and include the wall mounted photo of lettuce, background, it was best I felt to keep the original high contrast of the faces, hands and other parts of the other round parts of the photo in order for the eye (one's consciousness may have missed it but the eye probably doesn't), to 'see' the mirroring of what I shall call (for want of a better term or terms (theme or texture).  (roundness and high contrast).

In a sense the boy's curved, high contrast hand and the older boy's high contrast face, all become 'mirrors' or 'extensions of the theme of high contrast' set by the mural of lettuce (salad) on the wall'.  The 'high contrast' theme or device ties them all together, in my view.

You see, there really was a reason, but it was not easily and simply explained.  

It seemed stupid to try to explain it if viewers thought this photo was just a piece of 'nothing' or even excrement -- in which case I would have had nothing to explain. 

Since raters are expressing good feelings about this, and views are high, now is the time to weigh in, I feel, and I thank you for asking.

I think I'm being vindicated in my choices, and your question now gives me an opportunity to explain - how'd I do?

Make sense?

Thanks for a good, helpful question.

I really do think that deeply, strange as it may seem (though not always by any means). 

Years of participating in the critique forum here have helped greatly in my ability to 'see deeply' into potential of others' and my own captures' potentials, I feel.

john

John (Crosley)

Somehow Meir Samel, who made a fine comment with a photo attachment had it removed (or it was removed by someone else, which I doubt).

That orphaned my comment in reply which acknowledged above his good comment, thanks him for his contribution, and for which I gave him a 'helpful' comment acknowledgement.

Meir, if you removed the comment after I commented in reply 'during the editing window' that was bad form; yours was a good comment and deserved to be seen.

You long had a bad habit before the 'editing window'' was developed of removing comments even after there were replies, causing responses to be orphaned, all in violation of terms of service.

If this is that, bad form, Meir.

I do not think I inadvertently blocked you, but if you think I did, you should straightaway e-mail me, as you know my e-mail address so that I could attempt to undo such a wrongful act.

john

John (Crosley)

First of all, thanks for sharing your thought process here.

As a follow-up to confirm an assumption: it seems impossible to have thought all that through before you hit the shutter. I can only assume that these decisions influenced your choice to edit this one as a "keeper". Allowing that with as much as you shoot, you have developed an innate sense, without it being necessarily a conscious one to as to the best time to click. Or...do you just shoot A LOT and then edit?

Much of your work is so public and you manage to get such great captures, both "engaged" and not. I would like to develop these skills. I often fear that there are spotlights and horns announcing my presence when I hold a camera. *Sigh*. 

Anyway, I admire all the great street work I see from yourself and others on this site. I hope to get there some day.

Amy

Amy H. 

If you fear disapproval of others when you take photos of others who may be strangers and that's an overriding consideration, and you cannot see any way to overcome that fear of disapproval, then you will never have what it takes to become a ''street' photographer.

However, if you read in the 120 or so computer pages of comments under my portfolio for the few gems I've authored regarding how I get those surreptitious and not so surreptitious captures, then go trolling through the 17,000 +  comments under all the photographs on this site under my name (over half by me) and go looking for those directed at those which address the 'art' and 'science' and the 'where, when, and how' of making each particular shot, which was provided in many instances for then present and far future readers like you, you may develop an inkling of how to begin the task of developing such instincts.

Look also at the work of Svetlana Korolyova, who in my personal presence dresses surreptitiously, with a hat and a coat (weather permitting) and keeps a very low profile (the one time I saw her shooting), and did not interact then at all with the subject(s) (on the street).  (This may not be representative, however, as she and I do not keep company). 

There are different modes for different photographers.

Famed photographer Bruce Gilden, who prides himself on his street presence and manners, is hated by many of his compatriots for passing subjects on the street, aiming a flash in their face close up and taking a 'street' portrait of them right then and there from very, very close. 

Perhaps the surprise in most circumstances keeps them from cold-cocking him, but a Photo.net member who met him and whom he took home to share dinner with him and his wife told of a most kind, charming man (a number of years ago), with a very engaging 'street' manner.

I've been told by others I can be very 'charming' without even realizing it, and in some ways I'm like a chameleon -- one second chameleon -- indivisible, and the next engaging. 

I might take a surreptitious photo or series, then call over the subjects to review the photo I find particularly good, and if they ask for a copy say 'never' (I'd take 20 secretaries to fulfill all the demands and it takes an hour just to process ONE photo, so 'NO', I'm sorry, BUT, you can look on the INTERNET, and then out comes the smartphones or I just pass my name and ask them to look up my work on Google.com if they've got interest, and perhaps a photo of them will appear in my work (if it seems likely), telling them it may take from one day to five years for that to happen.

Many are delighted to be the object of someone who acts professional (though I'm an amateur with pro skills) and has some skills and repute.

Others, less so.

You have to have interaction with people, and you get that by observing them and having occasional run-ins with people who don't want their photo taken, and through that you learn when to press forward and keep taking photos, know when to desist, when to go away or 'seem to go away but keep taking the photos', say from a great distance with a 'tele', and so forth, or when just to seek a new subject.

It helps to have a good education and a great curiosity about life.  I'd say that's the most important thing of all, because 'street is putting boundaries (photo boundaries) around things that naturally occur in life and saying 'this is a capture' and 'this capture tells a story, evokes a feeling, or so forth'.  You have to engage your mind as you shoot to do that; it requires some innate intelligence and some education helps.

Please read through a large and representative number of my comments and you'll get the point, I think, if you have not already.

Sometimes I SEE the photo well before hand, and sometimes I see the photo only when I edit.  Many times it's a combo of the two or the first is enhanced by the second.

The more critiquing I do, the less I need to look through the viewfinder, though that can be most helpful, especially with a longer focal length where one is unobserved and it's more easily possible for a longer period.  It's very hard to keep looking through a viewfinder when the subject is two feet away and the lens sometimes is almost brushing their nose, and of course it's almost impossible to be surreptitious except in a news, crowd, etc. setting.

Start with a moderate tele is good advice, and then work your way in.  Work in public circumstances, like a parade, carnival, etc., and news events where photography is expected as practice, to build confidence.  People don't object at those venues.  It's a good way to practice shooting people without directly engaging them.  Also, learn to scan a crowd and shoot intermittently without simply always aiming at your subject.  Choose your subject, scan a group and as you pass your subject, fire then keep scanning, and your subject will never know they've been photographed, if that's a concern.  However, you may not get 'THE MOMENT'  doing that.

Learn to keep the nearest eye to the subject closed sometimes (the one they can see, as though you're drowsing, and view them through the far eye over the bridge of your nose (I've never written about this before).

They won't expect they're being observed, but you can see ever movement, then at the right time, snap the shutter as you raise the camera, and they might not be looking your way, so you might get other chances, so immediately lower your camera, close that nearest eye and await another chance.  ;~)))

Tricks of the trade are numerous and too many to write about on Photo.net.

My most recent portraits were done with a 12~24 mm lens on DX format if that tells you anything about my people skills, and none of those people had ever seen me prior to my stopping them. 

Some even approached me after seeing me photograph other things. 

Sometimes I even refuse people who want me to take their photograph and even those who want to PAY me to take a photo, because that assumes then they have Control and will 'own' the product, which is not worth it unless they're willing to pay far, far more than they ever could fathom.  I refuse because those people usually are pushy AND not interesting.

I started off on the street at 21 years old with plenty of time and a 50 mm with a 35 mm film camera taking 'scenes' with very little subject movement.

Over time, I soon began taking 'news' because there was much 'news' happening around me, and I quickly got published.  

There was no expectation of the news subjects for privacy, so I just fired away (e.g. campus riots, racial disturbances, King assassination, Kennedy assassinations, etc.)

I went to Viet Nam where one does not announce one is taking photos or one will be knocking at St. Peter's Gate prematurely (in hostile areas at least).

I came back to work for AP but quit after meeting Henri Cartier-Bresson and seeing his work, but AP made me into a writer -- in other words, almost immediately after being hired as a photographer I quit, then was rehired or continued but moved into a job as writer - a job for which I had absolutely no training, but at which I excelled right from the first day.

I was moved twice and ended up in New York Photos working with sometimes Pulitzer greats on the New York and World Service Photo desk(s) at world headquarters, before at age 25 moving on to another journalism editing job, then law school and another career of a couple of decades.

I worried much later about disturbing people while photographing during my 'sensitive phase', then somehow later in life after practicing law, just lost that sensitivity, and what you see now is the uninhibited me, but it's taken much of a lifetime to make the transition to what you see now.

I've worked with Pulitzer greats; one future Pulitzer great helped draw AP into hiring me, as he like me when I freelanced in San Francisco (Sal  Vader).

You can spend a lifetime working with people to develop the skills I have, yet others with only a year or so experience may have superior skills. 

I quit my pro ambitions when I saw Cartier-Bresson's superior skills reflected in his work without really having an inkling who he was, but met him at a giant museum exhibition of his in San Francisco as it traveled the world. 

I was overwhelmed, but he stole my thunder and I realized for my future, all was lost. I could never be what I had envisioned -- he did it so much better and had a museum full of work and I had maybe 20 good photos 'of the sort he took' but never was going to be great, so I quit.

Now I do it for fun and possibly future exhibition -- maybe sale.

Do it because you enjoy the wonder of putting together a great photo or at least getting close and maybe because you enjoy getting out and making something from 'nothing'.

In my mind, there's nothing like it.

Best to you.

john

John (Crosley)

Thanks so much for taking time to respond so thoroughly. In the course of my work day I talk easily with strangers on the phone, and enjoy it immensely. I just need to learn how to transfer that confidence to the street, and with a camera in hand.Thanks so much for sharing some of your practical tips, it is much appreciated.

Amy

There's the text of a complete book on the art and craft of street shooting if someone goes to the trouble of sifting through all the comments under my portfolio and those I've left in the critiques.

Use them well, and you'll own them; they'll be yours, then you can carry forth a tradition that scares the living BeJesus out of so many photographers who fear very little else than shooting 'people', but who are terrified at the thought of raising a lens to take a photo of someone they imagine (and who may from time to time) actually disapprove of being photographed.

Part of the fun of the craft is developing people skills to defuse tense situations and make people who might become enemies in to admirers and friends; to be in a major metropolis among strangers (or people you don't recognize) and hear your name called out from someone or others you met years before as though you're an old friend because you spent a few moments or as much as ten or twenty minutes with them and gave the a link to your photos on the Internet.

For many who are impressed with 'celebrity' that may be the closest they ever come to anything they can talk about with pride in an otherwise non celebrated or otherwise hum drum existence.

YOU may be a big thing in their lives IF you play your cards right and learn to defuse hostile situations and CONVERT them to your advantage -- even friendships.

That's part of the wonder of successful 'street'.

;~))

Better, once learned, you never forget, and the skills are transferable worldwide.

john

John (Crosley)

I thought perhaps too critical and removed immediately. It is not orphaning. One has a legitimate minute or so to  rethink and then edit or delete a comment. That is fair.

And in fact 'critical' is not an enemy here.

'Good faith' constructive criticism is exactly what I seek, and that's what you gave me.  It was neither hostile nor in bad faith, and it was entirely constructive; it helped me (and others who might have viewed your comment) as entirely helpful, and I noted it as 'helpful' too, which I do not always do.

You have yourself been too critical of the way your own criticism would be seen, when in fact some of your other comments often are less welcome than such good, constructive and solid criticism. 

I would like to see more of that sort of criticism and less of the one-liners, throw-away lines and non-sequiturs, because that comment actually addressed something that was 'wrong' with the capture. 

That I knew it and the readership might not have, did not obviate the usefulness of your comment; many read the comments under my  photos just for the sort of hints that occur in the colloquy -- I'll bet that many over time read the 'street hints' above that I gave to our female member pondering how to make better street captures, and a great number of those readers may also have been helped by reading your comment on the nature of too much contrast in working with JPEGS and TIFFS instead of the RAW captures (If I correctly recall and understand what you posted).

You have a good, solid, technical working knowledge of the basics of photography, garnered over many years of practical experience, and when I get an analysis like that, critical or not, I value it highly, even if I am aware of its genesis and already have tackled it or otherwise handled it (somewhat), or at least been aware of it.

Others, unaware of the issue or seeing it but not recognizing how to tackle it or how to handle it, might have been aided by seeing your posted example and your now scrubbed comment to which I replied.

Note that my reply was largely congratulatory.

You should think of posting more such comments rather than scrubbing the same thinking it's 'too critical'.  I can take good healthy discussion based on technical merits and welcome it.

I learned from editors my second day at Associated Press that good editing was 'designed to make the writer look better', and the same applies to photos benefitting from good, solid, technical criticism from an experienced Photo.net member made constructively and in good faith.

john

John (Crosley)

you wrote "It might be of more import in a print than on the screen, though." It used to be that the print was the goal. I do not know what the goal is anymore. A new world. If you knew and recall what Mark Twain said about "the right word" and "almost the right word" .....well that is the difference between a vintage print and a jpg.

I like very much this photo, as a street photo. What is important to me also, it's the discussion on the human side of photo, technical options and post prod.

I'll add one thing : street photos are possible if you have a "great heart", if you are interesting by people, before shooting. If you want to shoot first (as a paparazzi), perhaps you will have a good photo, but you won't have an emotional one, a great one.

Thanks a lot to all contributors, and the time taken to explain and develop your point of view. It's very pleasant and so ... human ... 

You have given me and the other contributors here - the ultimate compliments.

Notice I do not take credit personally but share it with the others involved in this colloquy.

Others involved in other colloquys also are worthy other, similar or identical compliments - they are the stuff which gives this site special worth.

Without them and their predecessors I might not have the insight necessary to 'see' such a photo, even though I started out taking photos with an innate sense of what was 'correct' from my very first roll.  But on Photo.net, I have learned how to (1) explain and (2) share with other members the factors that go into creating such photos and analyzing them.

Each time I raise camera to eye, I am influenced by prior critiques -- really, and it informs my shooting greatly. 

Moreover, many members have shown me things about my own photos that I have missed entirely, leading me to review past captures and even now for 'old favorites' being able to discover 'photographic devices' I used in the past but went previously unrecognized and uncommented on. 

I'm a natural shooter, but the abilities to 'explain', 'teach', and 'share' are also important and a result of such feedback, which I find an outstanding features of this site.  It's a good reason I stay and participate actively. 

Each of those in this discussion here should take his/her individual bow for their own contribution.  Even those who just made remarks that seem slight may have elicited a long response from me started something that resulted in a substantial sharing and that is a substantial contribution.

Again, thank you for the ultimate compliment about the comments and to be called 'h u m a n' - - the highest accolade for a street photographer.

(You may sense that for some reason I simply detest paparazzi, their morals and how they get their captures.  I'll leave to your imagination to analyze why.)

Merci beaucoup for sharing your kind thoughts.

jean

John (Crosley)

The only difference between this photo and that of a  paparazzi's is that these people are not celebraties. Everything else is the same.

One difference, pointed out above, is the human-ness.   The humanity of the motives if you will.  A paparazzo does not usually have much of that.

I'm an amateur, and I don't hound people, step over people, do wheelies or doughnuts in the middle of Wilshire, Pico or Sunset Boulevards among other places when I spot a likely subject, I just pass them by.  Paparazzi do the opposite.

I'm entirely NOT motivated by money; paparazzi are just the opposite; most will sell their mother's soul for a paycheck.  I turn down requests for people offering to pay me (absurdly small albeit) money for photos frequently. 

In their defense, for their value system and their view of who they think I am, they are offering me what they think are quite handsome sums of money -- from $1 to $5 usually -- and my response is when they get to $1,000 I'll start to take them seriously, otherwise, just please let me get on to taking something that interests ME, and if they had interested me, I would already have taken their photo, no money required.

And I would probably have stopped them and maybe have pointed out where I might post the capture in the future where they could right click and get a copy for free. (I have the copy protect feature turned off on Photo.net currently and most times).

I refuse to take celebrities; it's part of my credo.  The exception is if I'm invited or if it's expected.  Otherwise celebrities are verboten.  I spend lots of time in the LA area and areas where there are lots of celebrities and movie stars; I don't want them cringing when they see me; I even lower my cameras when I recognize someone famous who could use some privacy.

I've peed shoulder to shoulder with Kirk Douglas, but I wasn't about to take his photo before or after.  He was just a citizen and not a likely photo subject for me.

Now if he were in a fist fight with son Michael or a public argument with Catherine Zeta-Jones, that would be entirely different.  That would be photo-worthy for the drama, not for the celebrity; otherwise I leave such people alone.

I'd never just take his photo because he's Kirk Douglas. 

And of course if Mel Gibson were to take of his clothes and walk in front of his limo as his limo driver once swore to me he did long before he was really famous, I would of course take that photo.  It would be 'interesting' not because of his 'celebrity' (he wasn't a celebrity then anyway) but because of the circumstance.

Fact is, I spend so little time with the mass media I really don't recognize anyone. I don't read People, the National Enquirer, US, or the other celebrity blats and never have seen Buzzkill or TMZ, so I have no idea of who's HOT and who's NOT.

And I don't care.

I took one of my best photos ever (Leaving Las Vegas) after having a conversation at the United Airlines ticket counter with an academy award winning actress, advising her how to get to LA faster than the stupid ticket agents were telling her (and she took my advice), but I never asked her for a photo or tried to take one.  I went to the waiting area outside security and was rewarded with one of my best photos ever of THREE COMPLETE STRANGERS.

I could walk into the most famous HOT and IT person on earth and have a conversation with them, cameras hanging from my neck, and not even have an inkling they're a likely photo subject.

If they asked or if a likely photo presented itself, the cameras might be raised, but only with permission, and if I found they were a celebrity, I would apologize, invoke own credo, and refuse unless they begged me to take their photo.

I was guest at a famous photo gallery opening attended by Heidi Klum and Nick Ut, (Napalmed girl in Viet Nam) among many other glitterati.  I had been speaking with a man who was a marginal paparazzo.   'Look', he said outside afterward to me, nudging.

'Heidi Klum is flagging down her limo.  Get her picture. You can sell it for sure for big bucks; I'll show you how.'

That paparazzo was in disguise, a marginal kind of guy with a point and shoot who had snuck in past the guest list by avoiding showing a large camera (I had two large ones, but was on the guest list).

I refused to take the photo.

I also refused to take the photos of a scruffy but handsome bunch of young men there who wanted me to take the photos.  They were uninteresting to me.  

I now think were the cast members of the HBO hit series 'Entourage.'  I didn't think them worthy in the way they presented themselves other than for their own celebrity,  I wasn't knowledgeable about their celebrity, nor did I care.

I am NOT INTERESTED in celebrity unless my presence is requested or the occasion or situation is newsworthy.

For a long time I lived a short distance from Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman and their kids.  They frequently walked the beach that served my house and theirs (one of many for them), but I never would have brought out a camera or walked the beach with the intention of taking their photo. 

I draw the line.  They were neighbors.  They didn't know me from Adam.  I preferred to be neighborly.  I also did not stalk them with a huge tele, though I had a trunk full of the longest teles which I used for birding and they would have served the purpose easily.

John Travolta, a limo driver told me, frequently flew into a local airport with his jet to visit Cruise, [both are Scientologists] and the limo driver told me how to stake out and photograph Travolta, [with info from the driver of course] but the info went in one ear and out the other.   Maybe Cruise and Travolta and Kidman at Travolta's jet?

I just wasn't interested.

I'm hardly interested in celebrity.

I prefer to think that I can stop someone on the street and make them a 'celebrity' subject of  one of my photos.  Otherwise, how would one know when looking at John C.'s photos depicting a celebrity whether they were looking at John C's photography or were drawn there primarily because of the celebrity depicted.

At present, we know the answer -- it's John C's photography only.  No celebrities, except Richard Nixon from long ago (touching me too).

Paparazzi are motivated by cold, hard cash.

I am not, though I could be if my style of photography were in vogue with my same subjects and I had freedom to take what photos I wish in my style. 

Otherwise, there's Social Security and a clean conscience. 

No tire marks on people's lawns, no complaining neighbors, no broken traffic laws, no 500mm or 1000 mm teles peeping into people's living rooms or onto Mediterranean rocky villas to capture a pair of princessly boobs, even if such a sneaky depiction would earn me some serious cash.

I have nothing per se against the surreptitious photo, but for me it's an 'art form', and like Henri Cartier-Bresson, I enjoy 'la chasse'.  If someday it rewards me, that's secondary. 

I abhor paparazzi. 

You will not find me in the pack of photo hounds hoping for a peek up Britney Spear's dress when she's 'going combat'.

Sorry.

So, all in all there's precious little that is in common between this photo and one taken by a paparazzo except it was taken somewhat surreptitiously.

Please note, however, I took it quite plainly and openly with a zoom at 55 mm not concealed, but they just didn't happen to be looking, and I was not announcing.

Like many photos where the subjects are 'busy' they just were too 'busy' to notice, and there really was 'no true concealment' involved on my part at all.

It's frequently that way. 

Much more often than you'd guess.

john

John (Crosley)

A paparazi is a photographer who takes pictures of athletes, entertainers, politicians and other celebrities as they are going about their normal life routine -unquote PERIOD...usualy taking advantage of an opportunity...

These two are not celebreties  etc. but aside from that you have fullfilled  all of the above with the main difference being that you don't get paid.

That is all I am saying.

Some find this photo amusing. I do not. Remember the "golden rule". Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you (the original version).

Your definition, Meir, depends on celebrity and payment, and this depends on neither.  Paparazzi, the scum and bottom feeders, get paid and do what they do not for the 'art' but for the money and that's all.

I do what I do because I see 'art' in what I do and for no other reason.

If I didn't see that (and others didn't too), then I'd give it up.

Your definition of 'paparazzi' and what they do is almost entirely negated by my explanation of the taking of this photo.

As to 'the Golden Rule' -- I am at a loss to explain how it applies here. I would have no problem having my photo taken, and in fact it's been taken numerous times in ways I felt might be unflattering, but 'live by the sword, die by the sword . . . ;~))  Those who took my photo, and who continue to do so, often I get the feeling they're 'turning the tables' on me, and in a sense they may be, but no matter how haggard, unkempt, uncombed, or miserable I feel I look, I don't object, and in fact I cooperate (I'll even start to lower my drawers if it helps make them an interesting photo if they want to post something) 

As I said 'live by the sword, die by the sword.  I believe in 'interesting photos' even if of me (if that's not an oxymoron!).

I have no complaints if someone wants to try to take a great or at least interesting photo of me, though they'll have to wrestle with a difficult subject matter, I feel.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)