Public Place; Private Moment

Intimacy is the theme of this photo -- 'Public Place; Private

Moment'. This couple is being very intimate with their touching

gestures towards each other, so this is a study in intimacy without

overwhelming with overt sexuality. Your ratings 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

This is an excellent photograph. Your title, "Public Place; Private Moment", fits perfectly and somehow makes the photo even better. These two folks are in their own blissful world, and I find myself wondering if they are about to part; or just rejoined after long absence. The evening light is perfect on the tree and grass in the background. A portrait of Springtime if I've ever seen one! Thanks a lot, John.

I'm glad this one pleased you; it certainly (or as Groucho Marx often said 'soitenly') pleased me, and despite having the lowest ratings of any of my photos save possibly one, it's gonna stay.

 

That it pleases me is enough for me to show something regardless of ratings. Ratings ARE a popularity contest, and maybe with two raters, this is unpopular at this moment, but in the end, it may be quite successful as a photo, unless someone can give me a decent critique to show why it isn't.

 

That hasn't happened yet, and I can be myopic about my own photos, so I'm open-minded.

 

I thank you for taking the time to offer your critique; it is well said, and it needn't have been positive to be respected.

 

John (Crosley)

I have yet to make one year as a member of Photo.net. It took me about 6 months to completely disregard the entire ratings system. However, I do realize that it is integral to the competitive process of the website. But, I began to compare the number of views each of my posted photos received to the number of raters and the far lesser number of comments that each received. Doing some quick math, I reached the conclusion that, as in life, most people are content just watch while a few others take action and even fewer still do all the thinking. Like you, I treasure each comment I get (and I get a WHOLE lot less than you do)because some people care enough to take a few minutes to participate in my artistic development...for lack of a better phrase.

 

You are consistent on here and one of the handful of photographers that I learn the details from.

I really like the authenticity of this image ... the kind of thing we see in the best photojournalism. You have to see this quickly and shoot quickly, and, of course, risk being attacked verbally or otherwise for intruding into someone's privacy. Bravo.

An intimate, well captured and suggestive composition. He seems to be more engaged than she is. Even though the woman caresses his chin by brushing her finger against the bristle of his beard playfully, her attention seems to be caught by something else outside of the frame. Either that or she is lost in her thoughts.

 

The man is truly in love. His eyes are closed in rapture as if trying to impress this moment in his thoughts and file it in the back of his head. He puts his arm around her protectively. However, she does not seem to reciprocate this affection. Notice how her left hand is resting on her instead of holding him. This picture is a great study in body language. I would like to hear others' interpretation of it.

Yes, I have a little photojournalism background, but my photography preceded my entry into photojournalism; I was taking some of my best B&W photos from the first roll of film I bought (it came with my new Nikon). See three men, on three benches with three supporting metal poles on Staten Island Ferry in 'B&W From Then to Now' folder; it's from my first roll (maybe I had two rolls and really was trying hard).

 

I actually can remember framing that one with the ferry's vibrations under me with a relatively low shutter speed and trying to be very still so the photo wouldn't be 'shaky' and really knowing nothing about photography or even shutter speeds at all, but 'knowing' composition and 'subjects' somehow intuitively.

 

As for the risk of being attacked; I have been attacked, at one time in the past year, three times in three countries (police saved my ass each time, including those who are claimed corrupt).

 

I happen usually to like the coppers, because if things get outta hand, they usually separate things. In fact, in each circumstance, I was NOT photographing the person who did the attack and was just misunderstood -- perhaps I was an icon for an unhappy life, and someone's -- several persons' -- resentment of an unhappy life.

 

In any case, each time they are interested in the images; not my ass, and the coppers set them straight (a couple went to jail).

 

But generally, with a long lens I can get in close, as here and no one is the wiser. Those who are likely to object often are those I'm not aiming at, and they come from the background and are not subjects -- in one case a black woman's mannequin in front of her hairdressing shop in the mostly African/Arab 19th arrondissement of Paris near Gare du Nord, and she thought I was photographing her.

 

The flics set her straight. I have a gift to give her one of these days, but I'm not telling what it is. I'll have the last laugh, I think.

 

In one instance, I was photographing a man from the corner of my wide angle and a woman punched my camera, so I beaned her over the head with a D2Xs and she bled like a stuck pig, then her husband came in (he went to jail).

 

And then there was the car chase through LA that lasted 30-40 minutes before the cops stopped them and assumed the position with guns drawn of 'GET OUTTA THE CAR' -- another misunderstanding.

 

Luckily I had my mobile phone with me.

 

I think it doesn't actually happen very much;

 

I've just been very prolific and busy.

 

Sooner or later it'll happen but they don't want to harm you specifically, just stop you from photographing or take your photos from you; "delete them' is what they want usually and if they tug or pull at camera straps, just pull back; they don't want the cameras at all.

 

If so, they'd have knives or guns, but irritated people (near subjects, but not subjects) are the worst to deal with because they come out of nowhere, and are unexpected because they are not subjects -- they will blindside you.

 

(Remember, keep your friends close; your enemies closer. -- Watch your subjects, but be aware somewhere someone may be watching you who's crazy -- stark raving loonie with some malevolent idea against photographers or photography.

 

But most people are highly flattered. I took photos today by walking into a tattoo parlor and asking nicely if I could sometime come back and take photos -- I was allowed to take them on the spot and welcomed to come back. The subject being tattooed even cooperated. It takes all kinds, and most people are highly flattered if they can see themselves being photographed professionally -- so just don't look too much like you're taking photos to take home and use sexually, as some have suggested that's what photographers do.

 

The very thought turns me sick, but there are (besides us) some awful perverts out there, and one guy in the LA area especially who poisoned the well for us photographers -- especially if we want to take a photo of a kid having the time of his/her life.

 

America is not a wonderful place to photograph people, I think, either, as many are overwhelmed with 'their rights', but in public they have no right of privacy or not to be photographed.

 

They're often just emboldened by their own sense of who they are; they usually calm down if they see themselves photographed cleverly or artistically, and it is good always to be like the FBI trains its agents -- always know who is around you, and always don't leave your back open.

 

Then again, I do much photography at times from my auto if I'm driving and the rules are slightly different and usually require a long lens, or good placement and hiding a camera below the window until 'the moment'.

 

It takes all kinds of trick and feints to stay safe, but I'm alive and mostly well; and not gonna stop taking photos like this (they couldn't have cared less -- if the guy had seen me, I would have looked at him, smiled broadly, given him the thumbs up sign and winked and just walked by; he'd know I approved).

 

That's just the way it is; I'm more likely to get accosted by a friend of theirs or a busybody than him or her.

 

And if they saw this photo, I think they'd love it.

 

Thus endeth the lesson (as they used to say in Episcopal Church)

 

(I'm done preaching.)

 

Thanks for a good comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Elmo,

 

It took me far less than six months to understand that ratings had a place, but were not everything. You are entirely right, though.

 

I do do a lot of thinking, but as someone noted recently, maybe I do my thinking after I've taken the photo in some cases, or I just think fast and subconsciously.

 

I do frame them purposefully, but often with just a little concentration and in very little time, generally, and I'll often take several of a scene as I'm seeing more 'richness' in the ways of treating various scenes -- which is interesting trying to choose one best one sometimes.

 

Also, V.R. lenses sometimes when they're moved cause the view to 'jump' and sometimes it'll jump at the wrong time, so I have to recompose and take another, after the view in the viewfinder has jumped to ruin my shot.

 

I'll often be zooming and shooting at the same time and maybe even walking forward or backward, too, just so I won't miss something if someone stops an interesting action before I've got it fully composed and framed (it takes a little time to zoom and sometimes subjects are moving arms, mouths, feet, etc. in ways that the photographer cannot predict or 'see' in time to push the shutter release and motor drive or taking a 'C' sequence will help greatly.

 

And, of course, I treasure my viewers' comments; they'll help me to write that book (just print out the comments and excise them, perhaps).

 

Also, see my Presentation on 'Photographers; Watch Your Background' for a book in itself.

 

(And that's not finished and may never be until this site revises its presentation making software).

 

Thanks for your comment, Elmo, it means something substantial to me that my photos and comments engage you, and you took the time to let me know.

 

That's great validation.

 

It takes effort to comment, and I know that.

 

John (Crosley)

One has to be cautious about what one reads into a photo of a moment. Things can change rapidly within seconds. A touch or an averted glance can become a tongue down a throat in a moment or so, or a slap in the face; one never knows.

 

So, your analysis is good, but these people may have shifted a moment later and begun hugging, and the photo does not tell you that.

 

And women like to be 'pursued' and feign lack of attention, but her motion in stroking his beard to me is very telling -- very, very telling.

 

She has had sex with him recently or plans on it soon and it's not the first time, I think.

 

That's my view.

 

I see the frames before and after, and sometimes they surprise even me.

 

And of course, I was there, and I in addition I have been in relationship with a female who feigned lack of interest, only to see things get red hot within seconds or minutes.

 

Or vice versa.

 

One never knows.

 

Thanks for the insight and the viewpoint Adan.

 

John (Crosley)

True indeed. Things change in a matter of seconds. Hence the camera never lies, does it? I think the camera sometimes tells distorted truths. It's a great picture John. One can tell that the exposure, dof and frame are done by a pro.

Well, photos seldom 'lie' but the key is in their interpretation; one tends to take the depicted moment as standing in for (being an icon for) THE truth, rather than a continuum which is the real truth.

 

One had better examine a videotape for 'truth' (and even those 'lie') than examine a 'still photograph' and expect it to tell the whole truth when there is human movement about, (or even animals to some extent.)

 

A classic case is in my photo of a sea lion apparently biting the tail feathers of a bird on a pier, but in reality, it's a juxtaposition and the sea lion is maybe 30 to 60 feet from the bird and they're superimposed and foreshortened by the tele zoom lens and shot with a small aperture so there's adequate depth of field, front to back.

 

This is the truth of the moment - meaning a visual depiction - but as noted above, a tongue down a throat or a slap in the face could have followed; the photo doesn't tell us that (or even whether they just had or will soon have sex).

 

Maybe that's a strength of this photo. . . . do you suppose?

 

Nice to see your thoughtful comments, always.

 

John (Crosley)

where the story told is - imho - perfectly proposed to the viewer. (I would have given a chance to b/w, what do you think?), thank you, G.

I was reviewing images and just stopped at this one and was amazed I previously had passed it over. Maybe I have hundreds of such photos that only require an educated eye to look at them and re-evaluate them, much as my mentor/critic famous photo and fine art printer Michel Karman did for me for a half year or so.

 

It is so emblematic of a 'touching moment' (complete with actual touching -- but nothing strong or too overt -- just gentle touches and 'being together).

 

I decided I had to share it; I'm glad you endorse my choice.

 

And I was undecided to post in color or B&W and will certainly desaturate this one and maybe present it on a different service or wait a substantial time and post the desaturated version here - who knows? Soitenly (as Groucho Marx would say) not me.

 

I just go minute to minute and without much plan except to expose my photos to good criticism and hopefully to improve in the process.

 

And eventually to see my photos get a wider (or at least 'higher' audience) which will be personally remunerative.

 

Yes, B&W is also a good choice, I think. I had personal feelings about whether or not to post in B&W, but there was a 'color' slot open, so I posted in color -- that's the only reason, really.

 

That's the way it sometimes works.

 

Color is not 'strong' in this photo, but neither does it detract too much; it's life 'as it is' 'where it is', and they were unperturbed by me (and didn't even see me).

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

John (Crosley)

I never quite get how people come up with their ratings, but I never get good ratings when I ask for them and its usually the same group that rate me as a little less than mediocre.  It only hurts for a moment:) This photo has that nice quality of being on the edge of voyeuirism which good candid photography often does.  A "real" moment clearly presented.  

It's been a while, and since I've photographed maybe half a thousand couples together, many in full embrace, so near voyeurism' is hardly the description in Ukraine for this photo, though I understand the sentiment.

 

Interestingly, I spoke with a former assistant in Moscow who tells me such behavior is virtually nonexistent in Moscow; when I lived there, I was so fully engrossed with my fiancee, I was not even aware of whether or not it existed, and I was not then photographing anyway, so I was clueless.

 

I think this is a very tender, real moment, much in line with what you have written, and think it's quite touching.

 

Interestingly if you look close, she's quite young; he's very much older, and at least at the time this was taken that was very much accepted, though matters between the sexes now are trending toward more toward same age relationships I think.

 

There is a strong undercurrent in Ukraine/Russia and indeed most of the the former Soviet Union of a young woman marrying a much older man for security, safety, stability and true love (he's done chasing skirts is the presumption and will appreciate his younger bride. 

 

When I found an exceedingly beautifuy young woman with brains, personality, highest education, an exceptional cook, and so many good attributes I can hardly name them, yet she was half my age, her father ( a physician of repute and standing) not only took a liking to me, but urged our marriage.

 

She started by taking me to weddings . . . . . and you know what that means.

 

I knew even then that it was a serious indicator of her intent.

 

It took me three years to understand that it was not some cosmic joke on me, and so we eventually got married (three months later she got brain cancer with a fatal diagnosis).

 

(It was a cosmic joke, on me -- and her too.)

 

I had never been happier, nor her, I think by what she had told me the day they discovered the brain cancer, just before the accident that lead to its discovery.

 

I felt like a billiard ball in some interstellar billiard game the stakes of which I was not permitted to know and never will be.

 

I adore capturing a touching moment like this; and enjoy experiencing them also.

 

They are part of life's universality.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Very touching story and brave of you to share it so openly John.  I hope you don't think I was making a negative out of voyeur as term.  I really think in a certain sense all street photographers, including myself, and candid photography in general does involve to some degree a bit of voyeurism.  That doesn't mean in any way sneaking around "stealing" pictures, it just means closely observing life around you and situations that we may not personally be involved in, and recording it.  

When I gave up for the most part photography in my 'early period' it was for two reasons.

 

1.  I had a new wife who was acutely sensitive.  I had a new job as an editor (read writer/editor/photographer) for a business magazine which involved some travel and invariably in some photos I took for business on its few business trips there were attractive women. 

 

My young, new and inexperienced wife came unglued when she saw such photos, always candid, taken inside stores, of women I never spoke to and obviously so from the context. 

 

I was very intimidated by that, wanting to keep the marriage to the woman I loved who did not appreciate my photography.  Too bad she didn't appreciate or acknowledge my love of photography and instead sought to 'cure' me of it, because the possibility of my photographing a beautiful women threatened her so (absurdly or course, as I was faithful for an amazingly long time, even long after all intimacy disappeared, a decade, in fact.)

 

2.  I personally also was sensitive and sensitized by her reaction of my wife and a shaky interpersonal situation with this sensitive woman, so I a;sp re-evaluated all the otherwise firm underpinnings of my life and that included the otherwise sound permission I had given myself as a single man, including permission to travel and to take the photos I wished, including all sorts of photos of strangers.  I began to feel more that I was 'stealing souls', and felt the guilt associated with that, and lost sight of the 'art' aspect.  I had become myopic and narrow, focused that way because of my wife's selfish focus on her own insecurity if I even got near another woman, though I NEVER gave her the slightest rational cause for alarm as I was a poster boy for faithfulness in those years.

 

I had previously given myself permission to take those photos of strangers without guilt or much fear, always keeping in mind there was some, but justifying it as part of 'my art', but the re-evaluation and my increased sensitivity (from the shaky sensitivity of my new bride) caused me to rethink whether I was 'stealing' images.

 

I began to be upset by possible 'guilt' at taking clandestine photos, which was very unhealthy for taking candid photos -- something completely antithetical to taking street photos and also to my basic nature.

 

My personality had been stood on its head and I was a willing participant, so great was my desire to please my new wife.

 

In short that marriage spelled the end of my first photographic career.

 

I gave up my photograpy, then,  for the love of the woman I felt I would be married to for the rest of my life.  I felt it was an OK deal and if not, I had given my word and there was no turning back.  

 

Looking at her emotional instability at even the fact that I might possibly return with a capture of another women taken at a distance inside a business building whom I had not met, I understood the handwriting was on the wall for my candid photography.

 

I always safeguarded and cherished my few good photos and my photography but mostly did not take many subsequent photos except until the marriage began to crumble decades later, and after it crumbled did not return to active photography for another decade and a half. 

 

I refused, however, to take snapshots ('That's not what I do with a camera,'  I would explain:  'I take photos, not snapshots.   Photography is my art, anybody can take a snapshot.' 

 

I let my spouse take the snapshots; it was easy for her, but if I were to take any it was like picking a wound, the task of making people smile for a snapshot when I could be taking real art.   It just was against my nature to take 'phony' photos or memento photos.  I wanted the real thing, and if I couldn't do that, I would take no photos.  Let others take those.

 

Even Queen Elizabeth's sister, Princess Margaret had better sense (or just couldn't stop) her husband, Lord Snowden, photographer Anthony Armstrong-Jones, from photographing, which he did continually, producing stunning work (but also having affairs and out of wedlock children before divorcing in the '70s).

 

I loved enough my wife to give up my other love, photography mostly for the length of the marriage.  I developed bad emotions about 'stealing' images of others, losing sight of the 'art' that I create.

 

In my mind, this photo is a very good example of the 'art' -- though this photo is largely unsung (it is a special photo of mine, however unrecognized, because it 'tells a story, socially', and because of its illustration of tenderness which bespeaks true love.

 

More than you wanted to know?

 

(there are others who might read this for whom this might be significant . . . . and I write for a larger audience than anyone but me knows . . . . )

 

Thanks for the comment again.

 

john

John (Crosley)