'Grandfather Frost' (Ded Moroz) goes about his other 'business'

Is it real or is it staged; I ain't telling. This is apparently Grandfather Frost, the Russia,

Ukrainian and other Eastern country equivalent of Santa Claus stopping for a rest.

Eastern Christmas is on the 7th of this month, but Ded Moroz helps celebrate New

Year. Care was taken to 'imply' rather than to show and NOT to reveal the identity

other than show the costume. 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! john

But as I rounded a corner and saw this and from the hip, my camera almost automatically rotated and my finger hit the shutter as i was exiting, wondering what I had done, almost without conscious thought.

 

I've never ever taken a photo in a rest room with anyone in it before -- I took once some photos of fancy Parisian urinals in an empty rest room in the Gare du Nord, but this photo just 'had to be taken' my body told me.

 

The Eastern Christmas is Wednesday, and then the basic Eastern holiday season starts to wind down, and Ded Moroz (Grandfather Frost) becomes outdated for another year.

 

I doubt if I'll ever take another photo in a lavatory again, however, so please don't lecture me on what I should do or refrain from doing in the future.

 

I would have posted under 'nudes' but he ain't nude, and if there were an 'adult content' box, I would have checked that.  I do remember, however, that we have been told for the ten plus years I've been a member that THIS IS AN ADULT SITE, and children/minors should not be allowed on the site except with parental supervision and approval.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

...this is very nice moment you've captured John...

John. Absolutly splendid. I'm not surprised you couldn't resist it. Now can't help wondering if there will be "series". Rgds. Rick

Thanks for the affirmation  . . .. I had all sorts of doubts how this would be received, even though I knew I HAD to take it . . . . there was an absolute street shooter's compulsion to do so, and as explained above, it was almost instantaneous and automatic -- I just rotated and started firing.

 

Again, thanks for the affirmation; I was trepidatious about posting, though for me, this was a 'great shot' I wondered how others would take it.  Now I know, and I'm no longer so worried.

 

Bless you.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Until the moment I took this I thought I had an iron-clad rule:  No photos in lavatories/rest rooms at least if they had people in them.   Fixtures were OK but not with people as there is such a great chance of recrimination and being 'misunderstood' or just offending people.

 

Life's too short.

 

But along came this and I couldn't follow my own rule; the gift horse had wrapped one up and placed it in front of my camera and whinnied 'John . . . . neigh . . .. . you gotta take this one . . . neigh . . . . because if you don't, you're not a street shooter or much of a photographer . . .. it's just too great an opportunity.'

 

And the gift horse was right; my rule about no shooting in rest rooms now is re-instated.  There will be no more such shooting, no series and I plan to take no more such photos at all.  Too much risk and too much chance of getting arrested or beaten up.  Life's just too short and I take too many chances on the street and know how to avoid those things on the street, but rest rooms?  I don't know how to avoid such consequences if trapped with an irate guy or cop who feels I'm a pervert with a camera.

 

So, no more such photos; this is one of a kind, I think.

But who knows, maybe the gift horse will whinnie again some day, and by instinct while I'm going to do my own business, I'll by instinct reach for my camera again -- I don't intend to, but a good photo is a good photo no matter where it arises.  I just don't want the hassle.

 

Thanks for voting in favor and helping allay my fears of a negative reaction.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

(I was prepared for lectures and a string of 3 ratings..)

 

jc

Many of my best photos deal in contrasts, the greater or better seen, the better the photo in my view for most in that genre.

 

Ded (Dade) Moroz (Grandfather Frost) is a fictitious creature -- a creation of the mind -- and one does not expect fictitious figures to have human needs.

 

This is the ultimate debunking of the fictitiousness of the figure -- the legend of Grandfather Frost, the Eastern Equivalent of Santa Claus, must ultimately go to the bathroom (I presume that's what's in progress here, though I can't absolutely be sure).

 

There's the fictitious figure; then there's the reality.  This photo reduces the understanding of that contrast to a quick glance, and I hope with good humor.   I certainly laughed when I saw this photo, but I was unsure of others.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

P.S.  As a photo it shows its very best in color.  The red jacket can be desaturated but looks muddy or just dark near black when the color is taken out, then placed against the near black tile walls, the entire photo in black and white loses its entire impact, in my view, which is why I will consign this photo to the 'best viewed in color' category.

 

jc

Sorry, i couldn't help it and this adds nothing of intellectual discussion...but this first thing that came to mind was "the Great Whizzard." I'll excuse myself and leave the room.

Ok, so i'm back with my serious hat on. So John, I follow your work and am a fan. I know you have an emotional connection to this, we all have those images. I say this out of total respect for your work, but i don't think it's up to your typical standards (the color gamut fails for Jpeg..getting too saturated and overblown) and there's some atypical camera shake (due to long exposure) that makes it look out of focus.

 

But more interestingly, i think this does raise some questions about street photography vs. privacy. I'm opening this up as a discussion, not a condemnation but would like to know what other folks may think (in general) about the implications of this shot. My personal opinion is that in a bathroom, although public, everyone has a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Though you didn't include anything lewd and cannot (without effort) identify the man, I don't think that it was appropriate to take this image. I'm a huge proponent of the 1st amendment and will condemn censorship at all costs..but like the "you can't cry FIRE in a crowded theater" argument, there a certain limitations (or repercussions) for endangering people or violating privacy. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

--PatrickD

We'll promote you to a sophomore, because that's sophomoric humor, and not unwelcome.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

With regard to your second comment, the overhead lighting made manipulation even in Adobe Camera Raw almost impossible to meet your standards; I tried mightily, and I have skills in that regard, but this is the best I could do.

 

As to the privacy issues; see my Hamlet-like discussion above; I was greatly troubled by this too, but in the end, it was too 'implied' and too good a frame to pass up.

 

I can be criticized for that, and justly so, by many, and plead guilty as I broke even my own rule, but you can't unwind the clock.  I did it, and out came a good image.  I guess I'd do it again given the amount of 'implied' image and the wonderful colors and composition, but all others in the future, I expect to pass up; as my general rule remains 'no photos in rest rooms" (see discussion above by me)

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Woo Hoo! Thanks John. I'm finally overcome my Fresh Man status. :)

 

I understand your trepidation and am very glad that you had a moral struggle with it both at the time of capture and with the thought of sharing. I love good discussions about the ethics of photography as it challenges us to expand our understanding. I think street and documentary photogs are the vanguard of establishing that line. My day job is an IT professional and I am constantly having to draw the line for what information is available by whom. There is often thousands of shades of grey (sorry Ansel) as to what should and should not be done. No matter what, we need to be able to intelligently rationalize why we shoot what we do. It is also OK (in respectful manners) to disagree and debate! I have often been the stirrer of pots and teapot tempests agitator.

--PatrickD

John, I haven't yet read the above comments. I just wanted to say that this one is just great! I love the humor of it. Visually the pop of red in the neutral ground is wonderful. More to point, I love the way this shot levels the playing field: even "Grandfather Frost" has mundane humanity to deal with.

Amy

Okay, now I've read the preceding comments. This shot doesn't make any ethical alarms go off for me at all. Of course one would normally not take shots where there is an expectation of privacy; I just don't think this man's privacy has been breached in any way- he is not at all identifiable, truthfully all we see is the back of a man in costume. The assumption of his activity is contextual only. 

That's my two cents.

Amy

I knew this was a good photo the moment I pressed the shutter even before i reviewed it, and when I reviewed it, it verified what I expected, but I knew I had broken my promise to myself, so I said to myself 'what the hell do I do with it?' . . . . I didn't have a hope of posting it then.

 

As I wrote above I expected a string of lectures and 3 ratings for punishment, but every once in a while with guidance PN members will surprise, and that has been the case here.  Maturity has shown through, as in both of your comments, and I am heartened.  Yes, the red 'pops' which is why I felt compelled to take the photo -- yes, compelled as if there was really no choice even if I could show to no other.

 

I have a few taken at the 'porn convention six years ago with a sex doll and bystanders interacting with 'her' that will never see the light of day except maybe behind a curtain in a gallery showing.

 

I try to be discreet; I don't want to be a 'Peck's bad boy.'  That's for others.

 

I'm glad you like it, and also glad you see the 'implied' privacy and realize that there is nothing explicit or easily identifiable (except for this unique costume and perhaps the shoes) in the photo, and lord knows whether there's even a urinal there, or whether's he's just 'adjusting' after or before using a urinal.  One can't see a urinal at all, and one is left to imply a urinal, but frankly I am not sure one's there.  Sometimes 'suggestion' works better than explicitness -- the mind's a fertile thing and enjoys a good exercise.

 

I enjoyed the response which was 'polar opposite' (a pun?) than I might have expected on a worse day.  I am heartened.

 

Thank you for buoying my thoughts and verifying my strained judgment -- see my worries above.

 

No more rest room photos though.  You won't have to worry if you walk into a rest room with me that I'll be taking photos -- just 'business' as normal, not a 'photo opportunity'.

 

In the future, as in the past with this one exception.

 

Best wishes for the New Year, Amy.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

John.  The bottom line is that it made me laugh and like Amy said, "leveled the playing field".  Not sure exactly how I feel about the privacy issue.  Both Patrick and Amy make good points and you obviously have thought about it.  In this particular instance, it doesn't bother me. You weren't staking out the urinal but reacted to the moment.  However, I suppose it is a slippery slope and worth the discussion and thought.  All the best.  Dana...

I guess the ultimate point for me too was that I was so stunned by the sight that I laughed inside and reacted instantaneously and so spontaneously that it was just instinctive -- there was no real thought until I glanced at the capture and realized it was good enough to show.

 

That's when the sweats started.  Could I admit to having taken a photo in a lavatory/rest room?  It breaches all the standards I have stood for (except if the lavatory is empty).  But in the end, the laugh is the thing, and I can control myself enough there's no risk of a slippery slope.  This is one and only.

 

If there's anything else as wonderful as this and as discreetly and instinctively taken, then maybe . . . . some day . . . .. but it's only happened one day in a long life, and it's not likely to happen again.

 

So, no slippery slope; and certainly no staking out anything.

 

My thoughts as shown above are absolutely clear about that; and I  guess that's why we can laugh and not have recriminations -- because I have a modicum of trust in this site about my word and what I post - and no reputation for testing the bounds.

 

That, in the end, serves me well, and allows you to laugh without looking for any underlying motives on my part, and that's good, because you won't find them.

 

Best to you in this new year, and thanks.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)