One Reader and a Magazine's 'Top 100'

This photo is an example, I think, of a color-dependent photo -- a

study in reds, blacks and flesh/white colors. (Desaturate it and see

if you agree . . . ) (Translation of advertisement from Cyrillic

characters 'Korrespondent' (magazine) 'Top 100' - a familiar magazine

theme. Your rating and critiques are invited and most welcome. If

you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your superior photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

I had just taken a long 'mashootka' (jitney bus) ride from the local railroad station where I had been photographing and across a wide boulevard near where I stay is a streetcar stop -- often very busy.

This woman was seated there, just like this, but I was a very long ways away - it would have taken a 400mm lens just to frame this scene like this. To get there, I had to cross an intersection where two four-lane streets/boulevards cross -- usually a very dangerous intersection, but with no light (and traffic has to stop in the center because of tram tracks that otherwise would cause damage to tires and auto undercarriages).

Counting on that feature of the tracks, I went through the middle of the intersection, and also counting that traffic was slow, I stopped in the middle to frame one shot from afar (too small, but usable) just in case she moved.

She didn't.

I got within 200 mm range, framed, and took this photo, and promptly moved on.

(it needed a trifle of rotation -- accountable in part because the structure and advertisement -- one of the other was 'out of plumb')

I'm glad you liked it; this is not a 'strike your forehead photo, where you say 'If I just had been there and blessed with holding a camera I could have seen that and taken that, and it's a fabulous photo.'

It's not a fabulous photo, but it does stand for something.

It stands for a photo in which reds, blacks and flesh/white colors predominate and all fit within the frame rather well. It, thus, is not an ambitious photo, but it's one I wanted to show.

Thanks for the comment.

John (Crosley)

Yep. no wasted elements here, and what is there is ideally placed. The figure is well 'grounded' in the picture with the bench. The cigarette butts and that waste bin could distract but doesn't, and on noticing them one realises that they subtly add to the scene!

John, aside from the ' how colour works' lesson, for me this is more of a lesson in composition and framing!

Thank you for sharing!

One of the reasons I post so many diverse photos from seemingly unrelated styles but or a 'street' genre, is that I take lots of photos and not so many of them really are very good.

Maybe that's just in the nature of 'street' photography, but it's kind of sad.

Here I sit, having awakened today in Santa Cruz County, then flown to Seattle, spent ten hours there, and returned this evening/morning to Santa Cruz (by plane of course, silly), and the book I was reading of Henri Cartier-Bresson's work is still open on my bed.

I went through his work -- all the negatives/prints he allowed to be placed in the Magnum.com website, but they're all gone, now, as well, I think, as page-by-page copies of his books. What a shame for us.

A visit to the Fondation de Cartier-Bresson (his foundation) indicates they're cataloging his work; they probably withdrew it or ordered it withdrawn from the Magnum.com website, except the work that they wish to have shown, keeping and cataloging the rest for the purposes of financing the goals of his 'Fondation' -- the further dissemination of photography, all in his name. But his fondation's atelier had few of his works on exhibit when I was there; only those of others, regrettably.

Now I take a few photos that might be of his style, but many more that are of no particular style.

It's just me trying to fit the most interesting things into the frame, and keeping the uninteresting and/or distracting things out.

Which accounts for the almost absurd variety of photos in my portfolio, I think.

I don't have so many in any genre, and seldom repeat myself. There will be no more seated women in front of posters like this with red and black as a theme.

I do appreciate your comment; I try so very hard to do well and often like a photo that is not 'ambitious' like this one, but pleasing nevertheless, and it gets slammed by raters or (worse) ignored.

From the moment I saw this scene, from afar, I knew how I would frame it, and took one interim shot as I crossed a major intersection on full tele just to 'cement' the shot in case she moved. She didn't and I took this second shot when I got closer (200 mm tele range -- full frame).

The rule of mine for framing and composition really is simple -- again, just put all the interesting stuff within the frame and keep all the uninteresting and/or distracting stuff outside the frame.

Nothing more.

Each photo I post is my attempt to do just that, which is why all my work may 'look alike' in some 'weird way' that you can't place your finger on, but somehow seems to 'hold together' (paraphrasing a fine critique from Matt Vardy, member, two or more years ago).

It please me very much to get recognition for a minor photo such as this (or maybe just a much more subtle photo -- one lacking in ambition.

Thank you so much.

John (Crosley)

I noticed a rate from you on this.

For me that's always a good sign.

One, that you've visited.

Two, that with your very good to exquisite taste, you found something that pleases you, and more tending toward your own 'genre' -- the single color photograph -- painting with monochrome (or here bichrome), but predominanelty 'red' with 'accents' of 'black and white/flesh.

Best wishes to you if you happen to see this.

John (Crosley)

P.S. (After noticing the rate, and authoring the above, I also found the comment you left. Thank you so much. I wrote this in the absence of having seen that comment, but it still stands).

JC

Will come back to comment on it later (this is just a bookmark). I agree that the colours are key, mainly the red.

Best, Luca

I welcome your comments, as always, Luca.

John (Crosley)

John,

the first thing that I like very much are the dominating colours, which are red, black and white. That's why I agree with you that this picture "needs" colours and should not be in B/W.

It is a late afternoon scene, with a nice lady reading concentrated on a street bench. She must have been there for some time, as you say.

The only thing that disturbs me, but no one can do anything about it, is the litter, the cigarettes and papers. But maybe they add realism to the photo.

I would very well see it enlarged on an exhibition wall.

By the way, this summer I have tried to adopt your techniques for street photography. I have to say that you have to be very calm, focussed and concentrated to spot the scene, quickly frame, make sure that the horizon is straight and then fire, of course before the scene decomposes.

Best,

Luca

You have been learning well -- I am glad you are reading my 'hints' for prospective 'street' photographers.

When you see a scene you think is promising and you think your camera(s) might cause the people to change their positions/expressions/react to you, etc., then you might consider doing what I often do.

I often immediately turn around, look down at the top of my camera where there is a camera-top LCD screen that shows 'focus points' and other pertinent information, such as whether my exposure is dead-on Nikon Matrix Metering or if it is 'adjusted' to be a part of a stop or a stop or more over or under.

I consider the scene, where the focus point should be (in case I want to take more than one frame, as simply centering an active focus point, then shooting one frame with the camera re-aimed, is sufficient for single frame shooting, but in multi-frame shooting, you must have the focus point centered on something within the scene.

So, turned around, I adjust ISO, focus point, 'Easy Exposure Adjustment' shutter speed and aperture to the extent necessary, then turn around and proceed toward my photo opportunity, so I don't have to fumble with controls when I get there, as nothing ruins a scene with unsuspecting participants or perhaps hostile or wary participants than seeing a photographer eyeing them and fiddling with his camera adjustments.

Moreover, I sometimes, for close subjects when I am using a wide angle lens, will adopt my 1,000-yard (1,000-meter) stare, which presupposes I am looking at something very distant and not the couple immediately to my front but far to the right.

I keep my eye trained on the distance (not focusing on the distance) and use my peripheral vision to view what is going on in the scene I might photograph.

People give 'tells' just like poker players give 'tells' like rubbing their nose when they are bluffing, but betting low at first when they have an outstanding hand.

I often can 'see' an impending kiss or a playful slap minutes or precious seconds before it will happen, based on prior conduct. And if a couple is 'horsing around' (playfully), then if they are hitting or slapping each other playfully, and stop, it probably will start again, so keep your lens pointed at them.

Or don't keep your lens pointed at them and maybe turn your body away from them and look at a far distance in that distance (or make it appear so), keeping an eye on them until the fateful moment and then turn your body and camera to the action. It works very well, especially since you can't hide Nikon's large, expensive and heavy lenses.

For instance, if photographing a group, I may pretend I am focusing on a distant building above them, only to lower my lens at the last minute when the action begins.

I have been known to hide behind kiosks, power poles (I am not easily visible but not completely 'hidden'), etc., so that people who have not 'spied' me, will not be likely to 'see' me, and if they do see me, I have a variety of feints designed to make them be confused or mislead about what I am photographing.

I was in Seattle the other day, and photographed a woman and her child, and the woman asked why I was photographing, and I replied truthfully, that I photograph everything that appears interesting and just took an interest in them, however briefly (about 3 seconds).

She said that being photographed made her 'nervous' and I asked 'why?'

She said because maybe I could be printing my photos.

I said 'so what?'

She said, then I might cut out my photos and 'twist the figures into obscene and perverted shapes.'

I said 'lady, that's the sickest thing I ever heard; I think you need to see a counselor about your thouts. (this was in an airport where everything is 'secure' and 'sterile' and travelers are 'vetted' (lists of passengers are cleared when they buy their tickets even before they enter the airport, then they get a feirce examination.)

Life has a few crazy people; she was more than just skeptical, but literally paranoid. Imagine, cutting out figures and twisting them into obscene photos. One has to expect everything from potential 'street' subjects.

When you take your photos, then turn your camera to 'another subject' or so make it seem so, and just 'wheel about' and don't regard the subjects again -- and adopt that (I'm looking at the church steeple 2 blocks away, sort of look, completely ignoring them.) They'll probably wonder if they've been photographed, because my technique allows me to take a photo in a thrice. I've often planned it in advance -- or the situation, at least.

Other times if spied, I'll just turn a 'thumbs up' sign to the subjects, and smile broadly, as though I caught them in some naughty indiscretion but am not giong to 'tell'.

(Avoid 'thumbs up' signs in Egype where it is considered obscene -- I'll leave what it 'means' to your imagination, but you might be the object of shouts, or even an angry Muslim crowd.)

Be aware of local customs -- some cultures such as Black African animism feels you steal a sould when you take a photo, or that if Islamic that 'grafven images' (Christian term) are forbidden. Orthodox Jews who are very religious will shun the camera too in my experience.

Some will tell you, as a young woman in Ukraine did the other day (it's always young women, who have a high idea of their 'value' as thou0gh they are Heidi Klum walking around) that it was forbidden under the Ukrainian constitution to take a photo without asking permission. That was so stupid and so wrong (I researched it beforehand), I didn't know what to say, but just to laught at her and remind her she was in public.

Some people BEG to be photographed and are offended if you don't walk a half block to take their photos.

It all depends; flexibility is the natural ally of the successful street photographer.

the story is that the master, Cartier-Bresson took a photo of a farmer with a shovel one minute, late in life, and a seconds later was being chased by the selfsame farmer. It can happen, but my 'feints' can help you.

It's 'hard' to get anything good on the street. I have now 160,000 images counted by Photoshop ELements 5.0 which I use for downloading, and yet only less than 1,000 posted photos (of course many are retakes or part of a sequence,and I think it counts NEFS and faws coupled together as TWO photos.

© 2007, All rights reserved, John Crosley, first publication, 2007.

(pardon the copyright but I want to write a book someday soon, or summarize my comments, and don't want them stolen by some other writer, ever.)

I hope this helps.

In fact,I can hardly see why it would not.

Use these tips at your discretion, but with my best wishes.

John (Crosley)

We were resting outside the Air and Space Museum in Washington DC last week. There were three little nice black boys dressed in striped coloured shirts. They were playing and shouting around and chasing the pigeons. I took some pictures of them and when our group left (two women and a boy and me) the woman who possibly was the mother of the children looked at me suspiciously. I did not care and we went off.

But this is symptomatic of the mistrust and suspiciousness of our society.

As to your trick, I try to use it. Pretend I'm doing something else than taking photographs.

I have found out that the best equipment for street photography is my F5, with the 17-35 and with the 80-200. But gosh does it become heavy after a full day walking around in the burning heat!

Luca

Try two Nikon D2X(s) models, which are as heavy or heavier, one with a 70~200 mm lens and the other with any old wide angle zoom (12~24) or something a little different, say the heavier 17~55 mm f 2.8 (a very heavy lens).

My neck and back hurt like he** when I am photographing with these, but they have the advantage of always working and taking superb photos (in focus) and focusing quickly because the lenses are bright and they're 'S' lenses which 'snap' into focus -- also helpful if you're 'street' shooting.

I was there Monday, for a day and at the airport there (Seattle - Tacoma which is near a major air-space museum at Boeing Field) and shot 3 8-gig flash cards full, but I didn't have my low-light lenses which I needed for indoors, so I was not satisfied with the clarity. An 18~200 mm lens, even with VR-II is not the same as shooting with a 70~100 f 2.8 because the former is f 3.5~5.6 and you just have to use slower shutter speeds or expect subject movement to be captured.

Such are the perils of 'street' shooting. No tripods, not driving to a favorite overlook and studying the scene for 30 minutes. In a way, it's 'speed photography' (at times) while other times, it involves identifying a scene that needs to be 'filled out' and then just waiting (often not too long either).

Best to you.

John (Crosley)

P.S. I reread your post and noticed it was in Washington D.C., not Washington State -- my error.

JC