The Skateboarder (A Beggar in Thailand)

This disabled man gets around on his homemade 'skateboard' which is

very slow-moving and contrasts with the fast-moving pedestrians and

traffic which shows in blurs around him, though he is moving at his

top speed as he changes position for better begging. Your ratings

and critiques are invited and most welcome (If you rate harshly or

very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive

critique/Please share your superior knowledge to help advance my

photography). Thanks! Enjoy! John

while ensuring his intimacy you did a very good shot. congrats

simon

I stopped in Bangkok and met a fellow who had been to Viet Nam with his Leica Digilux (and extraordinarily beautiful girlfriend), and we were talking about all three subjects at an outdoor place for libations (him treating). There I noticed the 'skateboarder' as we sat down, but the beggar was obscured, and the scene was far too 'busy' for a good shot and the 'skateboarder' then disappeared from view.

I mentioned there at 9:30 p.m. that the skateboarder was on my 'to shoot' list if I could get a good shot anytime.

I drank my 1/2 beer (my limit--just for social purposes, as I'm not much of a drinker, though not for ideological reasons at all), and the guy told me 'the skateboarder' had just rolled on by the parking lot turned into an outdoor drinking plaza and was about to disappear from view (left) again (see photo).

I wheeled around in my seat, grabbing my Nikon D-70, with 24~120 f 3.5~5.6 ED 'G' and Vibration Reduction (VR) Nikkor and squeezed off three single shots, only one of which was lighted well and had good composition -- this one.

If you glance in any color folder of mine, you'll see I do a lot of night and street shooting, and there are a lot of tenuous shots, held together by baling wire and guts.

This new Vibration Reduction lens holds those shots for sometimes over one second. I took one tonight at 1/1.3 seconds and it came out reasonably sharp at a telephoto setting.

(I can hold a shot sometimes -- if I'm steady -- without VR -- for 1/15 of a second or longer even with telephoto and once earlier in my life and well-braced, hand held two seconds a 200mm lens and it came out crystal sharp at night (see waterfall shot in my single photo portfolio).

But with the Vibration Reduction lens, the lens holds the frame artificially for you, computer adjusting one or more lens elements to compensate for camera motion relative to the captured 'subject', ignoring panning motions, and what you get is not 'speed' of a lens, but a steady frame (as though you had a 'fast' lens), but with all moving things reduced to blurs, as in this photo.

In fact, this photo is emblematic of how a VR lens works with a low-light, 1600 ASA/ISO speed setting a digital sensor (or film), and the subject is being PANNED (as this guy was actually moving and was being slowly panned slowly, all at about 1/2 second while all about him moved much quicker. After all, even in the solar system and the universe, all movement is relative.

I could have actually taken this shot well-braced, elbows against a table, but there, suddenly, surprised, with body twisted, unbalanced as I was, I think this shot would have been lost without a VR lens -- (although I cannot say for sure, as I have managed with less favorable situations).

This is one of many situations in which a VR lens would pay for itself in a few shots for a pro photographer -- plus this particular lens (of which I have three predecessor lenses) is pin-point sharp and if you own it, you really don't need the 'kit' Nikon D70 lens wide angle to moderate tele lens (though for economy, you should buy it because as a 'kit' it's cheap if you buy it when you buy the D-70 in the US, now afterward.

For any low-light shooter, this lens is a 'must' in my opinion. I had been told the optical formula didn't change between my previous iterations of this lens and the new VR version, but this one has 'ED' glass for no chromatic aberrations and high contrast as a result, and I think it's been reformulated -- the photos come out pinpoint sharp -- a digital camera requires a digital capable lens be 1/3 sharper to keep even with a film lens. Plus THIS LENS can be used with both film and digital, unlike the 'kit' lens. (and the 'kit' lens can't be used with a film camera at all.)

I think this type of lens will allow others (not so steady as I usually am) the ability to take shots such as this on a routine basis and add them to their repertory. (no compensation was given or expected for this spontaneous and enthusiastic endorsement -- I'm just a shoot anywhere, shoot anytime kind of photographer and I appreciate equipment that meets my needs.

(more on the guy's amazing Leica Digilux -- with multiple limitations and fantastic results at another time or another venue)

John

You mentioned about 'preserving this guy's intimacy'.

That always is one consideration in photographing -- but amazingly it often is a consideration more among American 16 through 18-year old high school girls who think I'm a dirty old man (how did they get so prescient?) than ordinary people on the street.

Street people come in three general varieties in relation to the 'street photographer' if they see him at work as I've deduced it:

1. People who at first are interested in what I'm doing and quickly lose interest, as I pretend to fiddle around with my gear.

I sometimes have a great big flash on top of my camera which I never use -- I just place it there, and when it never goes off (it is never charged), they assume I'm not taking photographs.

Bad guess -- I'm clicking away like there's no tomorrow, but they're making their own conclusions because there's no flash and I'm shooting available light.

That large, tall flash atop my D70 Nikon , a Nikon SB800 -- also can be jammed against a car's headliner to add stability to a shaky camera if a car's motor is turned off, even if the flash isn't fired -- it acts as a sort of brace and won't harm the headliner.

So the first sort of person is interested, but loses interest. Often they may have minor objections or just curiosity, but they are somewhat noncommittal. When they lose interest, they become very natural, benign or completely disinteresed and maybe ignore the photographer.

2. Vehement objectors --- they may be the aforesaid girls, even sunbathing young women at the beach in the most revealing bikinis assume that a guy like me is going to be getting his jollies off by photographing them instead of trying to make art or a 'statement' photographically -- tant pis.

Others to be careful of are very large guys who don't want to be photographed for any reason, Muslims who object to being photographed for religious reasons and are vehement about it, militant department store and other store personnel, (especially if you've already been warned), and numerous other types. To be specially feared are those who are 'wanted' by the law -- unknown fugitives, parolees who are breking parole or probationers who are out of their districts without permission and who will have their freedom lost because of publication of your photo. They usually make themselves known. Ignore their requests at the risk of your personal safety. Resident of local Moss Landing often fall into the last type -- they know I won't 'sneak' a shot of them and post it on Photo.net and they trust me for that, so I have the freedom to take all sorts of photos when they don't deny me permission to take photos (I just NEVER betray a hint not to take a photograph).

For some types, there are various ruses one can use, or one can just move on, or use a long lens.

In some situations, it sometimes works to use a VERY WIDE lens and actually get SO CLOSE to the subject while looking almost down their tonsils they assume you can't possibly be photographing them (because 'their' camera can't focus so close) and you can be snapping away with your quiet camera (so long as you prominently displayed flash is not 'popping'

For that reason with a Nikon D-70 with a pop-up flash it sometimes is helpful to pop the flash up manually even though you know it will never fire because your settings ensure it will not.

The trick is to appear to be focusing and to state you're 'just focusing' or 'practicing your focus' in any case (which you assuredly are) and then snap away at leasure if your camera is quiet enough (turning off the 'view' screen so it won't light up and give you away).

3. The hams. Everybody knows them -- they're sneaking up being their friends' heads making 'rabbit ears' with their fingers, smiling and if you try to take a serious 'portrait' of them, the 'smile' muscles are so strongly engaged they ruin the portrait -- I just tell them to think about 'death' of something similarly morbid and watch those smile muscles disengage and get my shot.

Those latter subjects can be very helpful and will help you compose a photo and allow themselves often to be used as 'models' if you are brave enough to ask them and more than happy to have their day of glory.

The first group -- the disinterested ones -- can be made interested by several devices -- one of them being enlisting them in helping you sort through your 'good' digital shots and enlisting their opinions about which of your 'good' shots are the 'best' or the 'better of 'two', etc.

Get them to 'commit' to helping you and soon they'll no longer be disinterested and they'll become not only your photo editors and opinion givers but also your models and cooperators. (with the exception of the high school age girls who often work their own ruse, trying to find the delete button, so they can try surreptitiously to 'delete' the photos of them or their good friends when they find you're not going to take their command and delete the photos they voluntarily submitted to having taken and even sometimes crying 'foul' when somehow you won't take their command -- (It makes one wonder just how far Kobe Bryant actually went after being 'denied permission' -- or whether he even did -- overstep the bounds of consent, as that (teenage girl delete) scenario has repeated itself numerous times in various iterations).

Muslims are deserving of respect and other than just surreptitiously shooting them without seeking permission and being refused when in Muslim mufti, I don't seek fights in this post-911 period, especially outside the US (as I am now -- no use being on the losing end of a fight).

Nevertheless, it's incongruous as last night when two Muslim women armed with shopping bags were in a large department store, full chadors (veiled outfits carrying fashion shopping bags and happened to 'frame' three display mannequins with skimpy bikinis, and I just couldn't resist -- I had staked it out and shot from knee level.

(Like the Marines, I shot and we'll let God sort that one out.)

Most of the objectors can be enlisted as helpers when you're shooting digital by sharing your good work with them if they 'see' it's serious (and obviously so to them), and you explain what you're trying to do and obviously not trying to ambush them.

You take a photo and show them the results. Twenty times today, I took photos, showed the results and had the subject shout to friends how good the photo was so the friend then became my new willing subject -- I was 'presold' and got passed from friend to friend as a newfound 'friend's' photographer -- a new acquaintance who did the new subject's friend a good turn by taking a flattering and skillful photograph.

Ahhh, the wonders of digital.

If you're taking film, it helps to talk about Photo.net, its vast membership, how many 'views' you've had (thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions, and people get impressed that it's serious business -- don't hide your light under a bushel -- people usually never met anybody who had ten thousand to a million photo 'views' before and sometimes they're delighted to be photographed by such a person who takes the art of photography so seriously, even if previously they were an objector.

Just some thoughts.

This 'skateboarder', Simon, might have welcomed me into his private world if I could speak his language,; and you might have been surprised, how, if he could see this photo, he might be enormously flattered -- you never know the reaction you get and how enormously flattered some people are to have the limelight -- their 15 'seconds' (this is not TV where you get 15 minutes) of fame (Newtom Minnow redux).

These are just some thoughts about a subject you triggered -- it's more complicated than you may have thought -- and I've given it some thought of my own, obviously.

John

This is a great shot - commented on it last night but must not have hit "confirm" for some reason...Great blurs and colors, sharpness in the subject. He really looks from the back, like some teenager relaxing on his board, hanging out in the night life..

Night shot - 1200 ASA? I think you said - and SO sharp. Thanks for the explanation on the VR lens -since you take a lot of night stuff this will be invaluable! It tempts me, but the 80-200 2.8 is still #1 on my wish list! You do tempt me to the Dark Side (digital), however! I may have to go print some fiber glossy just to reaffirm my affinity for film! Stay safe, buddy.

I like the differences in pace communicated by the motion blur - though I think the surrounding speed might be disconcerting to your subject, threatening even.

Good timing and exposure.

Eat your heart out for the 80~200, but when you do get the 70~200 VR not the non-VR version -- just save a little longer. As for digital, get over 6 megapixels or get a D70 kit for $1100 (USA model) which you can get if you bargain, but your lenses must be one-third sharpet to withstand the smaller CCD, so beware, the smaller image area will expose any deficiency in your lenses.

And I'll beware.

John

I'm undeterred by things like encroaching night (or approaching nightfall) and like to take photos whenever the moment (or mood) strikes me, so off I go and try to equip myself for the moment, whenever that is.

There are moments, such as this, when it all seems to fall together.

Thanks for the comment.

John

I just had to comment on this one as I was your drinking partner here sitting next to you with the Digilux. It was a great pleasure, over a beer, to be at this vantage point on Soi 5 and to watch the master at work. You were very calm but quick, took only a few shots and ended up with a meaningful and extaordinary shot; marvelous.

By the way doesn't it annoy you how much of a role aesthetics seems to play on this site as if only beautiful photographs are any good. When I was in northern Cambodia I met a brilliant photographer called Philip Blenkinsop who specialises in disturbing images in Asia. Not at all beautiful, these, so does that mean he would be penalised on this site even though his photos are truly fascinating and world class and far more interesting than a shot of a drop of water on a leaf in macro or some insect or whatever?

I looked with care through the large gallery of images, many of them disturbing, of photographer Blenkensop. Some appeared to be there just to prove that the photographer was 'there' and for no other reason than to fill an empty spot in a newspaper or some such.

Others were there probably because of their shock value, something I once was criticized quite roundly for in this forum for my 'dead cat' photo with bulging eye, but Photo.net viewers ain't seen nothing yet, until they've seen the dog abbatoir, the man eating the vanquished victim's leg (for show probably, cannibalism said to be dead) and various others. Among the disturbing images that had true photographic value, in part because of their 'shock' was the headless woman's head suspended between two pieces of lumber against a transport, clearly showing the face, and making the viewer keep looking for the rest of the body (which of course is not there.)

And, good photographic values help boost a simple photojournalist shot into the ranks of a very good shot, and in that regard, I'm thinking of the ranks of marching soldiers taken from a low angle, the airfield in Cambodia taken through either barbed wire or shattered glass (I cannot revisualize it as I write this, but it clearly imparts violence), and most of all, the best shot of them all from an aesthetic -- photojournalist standpoint -- the Nepalese marchers showing anger after the murder of the Royals in 2001. As disturbing as that news was to the world, nothing portrays that violence so clearly as the faces of those marchers and the anger those faces show and perhaps the vengefulness of them. It seems that an entire royal generation vanished overnight and the world wondered why. Too bad I hadn't see this photo, or I would have understood part of the answer -- at least the emotion involved.

(And thanks for that beer I didn't finish on Soi 5, and excusing me for ducking out on you and your attractive companion, but I sometimes do not feel well or ambulate well at all -- and make the best by disguising some things to the rest of the world that only those closest to me know.)

And, yes, it was a simple shot, the above, just raising a camera and taking just two shots, I think, and the passing taxi created the 'blur' that 'made' this shot. Thanks for the company, the comment, and the most interesting 'link' above, which I now am sure that others will read (I hope they don't mind photos of people cooking monkeys, severed human heads and limbs, dead bodies and other images disturbing to some -- fair warning to those who might click.)

As to your comment on aesthetics, this site is largely one of amateurs and professionals who are NOT photojournalistically trained and largely from the US and Western Europe, and the site is aimed at those who might patronize its advertisers' wares of camera equipment (and fine stores they are too, I might add, without being sarcastic, so long as one is willing to get the best service and willing to pay for it -- equipment being basically fungible, but sellers not being 'fungible' at all.

And for aesthetics again, one person's water drop in multiple colors (without Photoshop) can be a miracle of photography that should arrest even the most jaded war photographer who might ask "How Did She Do That?" (Look through the 'Year View' of Top Rated Photos by 'Folder Views' and you'll see what I mean.)

Aesthetics was almost the entire point of Henri Cartier-Bresson's success as a photographer -- as obscure sometimes as it was, since he was an artist first and foremost, but also a former big game hunter, and a person one photo editor told him to his face might have (in another incarnation) become a pimp (and ended up being scolded to every patron of a certain Parisian restaurant for what he told C-B, and then shunned there by his erstwhile long-time friend and famous photographer, who always was a little headstrong.)

We all do the best we can with what we can, and this is our showplace. You have done well in your first appearance, and if that's all you do, it's noteworthy, just for your bipartite portraits (barber) (old faces) and your 'street chronicles', but of course there's much more to do and in front of you a long lifetime.

As for photographer Blenkinsop, whose work is linked above, I regrettably predict that someday (like other 'war photographers such as Robert Capa, etc.) he'll step on that land mine, walk into that scared sentry at night, forget to turn off that infrared to his flash at night when the guerrillas DO have new infrared night vision, etc., and he'll end up like those dogs in that dog abbatoir or that monkey ready for that feast -- a cat who's already used up about eight of nine lives and now has no more left to give.

Best regards (and to any friends who may be nearby)

John

I was drinking a beer, a Carlsberg, with Miles Morgan, whom I had recently met and was extolling the virtues of joining Photo.net and this fellow rolled by.

I raised my camera, squeezed off three shots, and picked up my beer, resuming our conversation, hardly missing a beat. (I did not finish the beer, not really liking beer that much.)

That's how some photos are made. Now Miles is a PN standout.

This is how he became a member.

John