No Need to Rob Peter to Pay Paul (No One Depicted Has Any Money)

No Need to' Rob Peter to Pay Paul' -- No one depicted here has any

money or even any hope of any. They asked for their photos to be

taken, liked their photos very much, and then became mixed up and

somehow thought they were entitled to be paid for being 'subjects' ,but

just couldn't make the logical leap to why they were entitled to be paid

and became tongue-tied. Such is life at times for the 'street

photographer'. 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

Great shot, and boy do they seem to fit the story you have outlined to a T. While they have such great expressive faces and make the photo on their own, it is even better with the text you supplied- I love the closeness of the man on the left- most excellent!

Mark

Very nicely done and an interesting relation between these two characters. You did pay them for this right?

I'm reacting negatively to your story. I'm much less concerned about the lot in the life of the street photographer in this instance than of the street people he photographs. I doubt they became "confused." Likely they wanted their photos taken, saw that you were good at it, figured you could afford it, and then figured they could make some money for having given you the opportunity to make a good picture with their likenesses. Paying them was certainly not legally mandated. But you have gained -- perhaps not financially but surely in artistic, creative, or simply photographic satisfaction -- from the use of their images. The thought that they might get paid for that does not seem out of the question to me, whether they originally volunteered or not. Their recognition of you as a street photographer who does not contract with most of his subjects is kind of beside the point here. It's their world you've made an accounting of with your photo and, no matter who you think you are, they look at you the way they want to. Even though they asked for their photos to be taken, your taking their photo takes something from or of them. Asking you for what you can give to them in return doesn't seem outrageous. Knowing their circumstances as you've described them, financially destitute and hopeless, makes it anything but outrageous. It makes their request quite understandable and reasonable.

Yes, these guys were just sunning themselves and enjoying 'ol sol' when I happened by and they wanted to look at my cameras and somehow 'feel important'. Money was the last thing on their mind. They were pretty 'toasted' to use American vernacular for being more than a little drunken.

 

I felt comfortable enough to get close to them, but with my camera only, as people who drink a lot in this particular country also can easily be carriers of Tuberculosis, which easily can be fatal or at least can impair one's lifestyle for a substantial period.

 

In any case, these guys were friendly, and the 'touch' was just as confused as it could be -- coming after I had already begun walking away. They just apparently wanted some reason for me to turn around and pay them some more attention. Seems they get little attention in their inebriated state.

 

I'm an equal opportunity photographer so long as there's not too much danger, and the photo was worthwhile, something they endorsed wholeheartedly.

 

Thanks for the appreciative comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Of course, I don't pay for photos of poor people; this country and city have so many poor people I'd be drained (and technically I'm disabled and 'poor' myself) so that I'd have no money if i walked a block or so.

 

If I see a truly destitute case and have someone walking with me; someone with diabetic sores on her legs and truly deserving, I do not pay that person, even if there is a great photo to be taken or NOT taken. I tell my companion that photo or no photo how much to give them and it is not dependant on their being a photo or not; it's strictly out of my generosity and out of my humaneness. I do NOT pay for 'street' photos or I'd have a group following me. As it is, there are certain persons who recognize me as I move through certain cities and it sometimes destroys spontaneity that produces good street photos (other times of course it helps generate good photos by allowing certain closeness that cannot otherwise be achieved).

 

Believe it or not, the glory of being paid attention to is greater for these guys than having a coin or a paper bill tossed their way (and being thrown an insult back because they feel they should be paid Playboy model wages).

 

In any case, just because these guys, this particular day were drunk and sitting on the street does not mean they were not gainfully employed -- they were well enough dressed and well fed. No money in this country does not mean destitute.

 

There are truly destitute people, and they do get some money from me; but nobody sees it because I pay by proxy (I don't want to get a reputation as a lax touch).

 

I hope you see my point. A street shooter has to be detached and to be known and seen handing out money is not good for that detachment.

 

John (Crosley)

Please read the comment replies I made above.

 

You spin quite a comment, but it does not relate to reality much and relies on speculation upon speculation.

 

The facts are above.

 

I'm disabled and pretty poor; don't confuse my travels and my cameras with wealth or the ability to remunerate these guys with money or anything else.

 

And they were only in it for the attention anyway -- money only came up to try to get me to return after I began to walk again, as an inducement for more of my kind attention.

 

I hope you re-read this in its entirety, as it obviates your well-intentioned, but misdirected comment.

 

John (Crosley)

I have no superior photographic knowledge over you or most anyone. I do hold that a photo should stand on its own and not come with a story appended to help it along. Your story is not important to the photo. Go to galleries and museums and see for yourself. Let me figure out what I think is going on. After saying all of that :-) it is a good/interesting photo. John, I do not wish to offend you but read the comments above mine, They focus more on your story, paid or not paid etc, than focus on the quality of the photo. That should not be. In my mind you hurt your photo and I do not remember you usually doing this.

Thanks for noticing that the photo really has its own good qualities. I'm a writer as well as a photographer, so the temptation to spin a tale to add some interest occasionally does overtake me.

 

Yet in the end, it is to focus (if you'll excuse the term) on the photo and its subjects.

 

Here the subjects really made for quite a photo; if you can imagine from your own experience just how close I was to these strangers with my very wide angle lens -- and just from passing them on the street and being beckoned to them because they were attracted to my cameras.

 

I judged them to be of little danger as they were sitting, a little 'toasted' not apparently malevolent, and possibly good photo subjects, so I obliged, much to the consternation of my companion who had a problem seeing that I might stop for bums (bumshes).

 

When you get this close to such guys, you always run the risk that they'll grasp a camera, a strap or even try to give you a sip of the daily concoction, or even try to give you an alcoholic (and possibly tubercular) embrace, so you have to be on your toes to get such a photo, but I judged it worth it.

 

And yes, Meir, the photo, is one of my better portraits, in part because it was taken with exposure right on, and because as a color photo, when I desaturated it, it had enough range I was able to enhance the contrast, so it could take on special contrast qualities as I worked it a little.

 

I decided it would make an excellent portrait, no matter the wealth of these two guys.

 

It just portrayed them, and in an interesting manner with pretty good composition.

 

See the imaginary line drawn from the lower left to the upper right -- e.g. from the open shirt through the beard and nose of the larger (foremost) man's face through the higher and farther back smaller man's face?

 

To me that is a compositional element that helps lift this photo to a higher level, and the range of tones, especially the dark tones also help set this photo apart, as well as the 'foreground/background' element of the two heads.

 

And, Meir, you never offend, even if you appear to scold. No offense taken, when you point out a good quality of a photo or how I might have fouled things up with my own hubris.

 

However, it also is good to note that part of a photo is in its 'impact' and sometimes its 'impact' is in its 'story'.

 

These men obviously are not well off and probably are bums, so rather than avoid the fact, I focused (there's that word again) on that, and confronted the issue head on.

 

It provoked discussion, but that only served to generate interest in the photo, I think.

 

If the photo had not been worthy enough on its own, the discussion probably never would have taken place; that it did take place probably was an indicator of some inherent 'power' in the photo I think. Is that possible?

 

You just never know when you're gonna get a good photo. One minute I'm walking along, and another minute two bums are making comments to me about photoapparat (cameras) and in a second or two I have a camera in their face and show them their photo to their great amusement ('KLASS!' they remarked in Russian, showing great appreciation, for the color version, and not even getting to see this better black and white version).

 

'Street' shooting requires a whole different set of skills than landscaping -- including the gumption to stick a camera and lens in the faces of guys like these while walking along, when most people would cross to the other side of the street. 0

 

I do some of my 'street' work clandestinely and other I do quite baldly and 'in your face' out 'in the open', as here.

 

Thanks, Meir, for trying to keep me honest.

 

I do hope to get to those museums or galleries, too.

 

(though probably not with this photo . . . )

 

John (Crosley)

suggesting that these two guys are watching a caged observer. The tones are good but - imho - whites remained in the camera or on the street :-)) Thank you, Giuseppe

An interesting viewpoint -- perhaps I am the caged ones and they are the 'free' ones -- freed from life's constraints.

 

Perhaps that why so many of those we regard as 'bums' who populate the streets of San Francisco refuse to take advantage of 'free' housing and other 'care' offered them but instead choose to populate the streets -- they'd rather have their 'freedom.

 

So, perhaps it is I, who as noted above may not be so many steps from a station in life as these souls, (save my cameras and my ability to travel internationally), who is the 'caged one' and these who are the observers.

 

Remember the denizens of the science fiction Thralfamador who were disembodied because they'd outgrown their needs for bodies -- and consisted solely of disembodied brains (and souls one presumes) in the novel Slachthauf Feunf (Slaughterhouse Five) by Kurt Vonnegut. The soldier (and I think later, insurance salesman 'Billy' is taken there with the then fetching Valerie Perrine to mate in the Thralfamadorean zoo to the 'oohs' and 'aahs' of the disembodied observers.

 

(and at the time it was filmed one couldn't imagine a better 'mate' than the fetching 'Valerie Perrine')

 

Well, perhaps these guys know something I don't know, even though it's been 20 years since I put down my 'cases' (not brief cases as they were too small for the enormous work I brought home or to court), and took off my ties and suits).

 

Perhaps they can see through my exterior into the part of me that maybe they think should be sitting beside them, getting red-faced under the hot afternoon sun with more than a bit of liquor (except that no one alive has ever seen me drunk . . . . at least on liquor).

 

As to the whites, I liked the way the skin tones came out on this -- a little almost metallic, but then you may be right about the whites being left out. I don't use a histogram to 'equalize' my whites -- or spread out the 'levels' exactly. I often use shadow/highlight filter to adjust things 'to taste' after I have played with things, but I can always use a good critique.

 

Perhaps I'll try to bring out a little more 'white' in it, and see if I still like it as much. Somehow, it seemed to call for something a little darker and more 'sinister' despite their 'good nature'.

 

Maybe that's why I 'stepped on' the whites a little. . . . . ?

 

Thanks for the observant critique.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

I'm a careful reader and a good listener. My opinions may differ from yours not because I don't read your comments carefully but because I have a different perspective and sensibility from you.

 

Your words are not a distraction to me. Our stories and comments often put our work into context. I don't claim to know you. You may very well be a different guy from the one I sense coming across in your writing. The internet is a strange place to try and get acquainted with someone. All I have to go on are your pictures and your words. I've been a fan of your work for some time and am surprised by what I've read here. The picture (pun intended) of you I've gotten here is not the one I've gotten previously from your photos. Perhaps it is just a matter of written communication not being quite effective, I don't know. But your words and story here plague me.

 

What I hear is not that you have confronted these two or the issue "head on." You have confronted them, in your own words, as "bums," as "destitute cases," as "such guys," as "guys like these," all words of generality, not specificity. You've shown much more interest in yourself and your role as photographer than in their feelings or humanity. That's not the kind of detachment that works for all street photographers.

I know you are distraught (plagued is the word you use) over the colloquy above, but I want you to put it into perspective.

 

I'm walking along, two guys make a chance comment in Russian about 'photoapparat' and apparently to get my attention. They are somewhat drunk but not behaving badly and they are interested in having some attention paid to them.

 

In such cases, what I often do, rather than speaking to them, as my Russian is very poor, is to show them what the camera does, and to indicate that I can show them by taking a photo or two, which I did. I indicated through words (bad Russian) and some gestures that I would take their photo and they could see my 'photoapparat' and judge for themselves.

 

I took two or three quick photos -- really just in a matter of five to seven seconds total.

 

I turned the camera around. Both men said a Russian word of praise 'Klass' -- which means pretty much in English what it sounds like -- classy. Then with my companion down the street already and beckoning me to stay away from bums who might be dangerous, I began to move on, and already had moved on.

 

Clearly the only motivation of these guys was not money from me, but to get attention. Photographic gear of a professional variety often draws a great deal of attention and envy from onlookers and passersby, and these guys were little different.

 

They were NOT panhandlers, and I did NOT treat them with disrespect. In fact, in their recent life I probably treated them with more respect from someone of more respect than almost anyone else has treated them probably in recent memory.

 

Rather than disrespect, I showed them immense respect.

 

Yes, they are bums (Russian is bumshe - two syllables). Yes, I treated them with respect. Yes, I flattered them with taking a good photo of them that respected them and their physical features and embodiment.

 

I did not TAKE anything from them. I shared with them.

 

You may take my remarks as flip, but frankly I don't and can't give anybody whom I take a photo of who's destitute any money as I have precious little myself -- just enough to get by. If I gave money to such persons who are not destitute (these guys are well nourished by the way), then I would be ill nourished and have no roof over my head -- it's that simple, AND I would be unable to take sympathichne (sympathetic in Russian) photos of this sort and you would be deprived of the opportunity of viewing guys like these through my eyes.

 

So, for a fraction of a minute, I showed these guys GREAT RESPECT, even though no one else would show them any respect, and most would cross the street or walk a big circle around them to avoid them.

 

I didn't.

 

Simple as that.

 

I approached them - and frankly guys like this, because they drink and don't always nourish themselves and sometimes don't take good care of themselves get horrible diseases. And people who drink have habits that are difficult from a hygiene standpoint, such as hugging inappropriately, etc., all of which are definitely going to transmit diseases. I once had a client, when I was an attorney, who was a derelict -- a drunk ,and I invited him to my house for a meal and to review his case.

 

He returned the favor (with his case of tuberculosis) by wolfing down a nice steak, then having a 'cafe coronary' (choking on his steak so he started to choke to death) and when I gave him a Heimlich Maneuver from the front, he discharged his stomach contents (remember he had TB) all over my face, mouth, eyes, and clothes.

 

I worried for years, I'd get tuberculosis, and as Elton John would tell you and WHO officials would tell you, Ukraine is a wellspring of such infectious diseases (as well as AIDS (these guys are not likely carriers of "AIDS' though, nor are they likely transmitters to me, as I don't indulge in such behaviors that are likely to get me that disease).

 

But having TB stomach contents emptied over my body and face one time was enough to make me 'gun shy' about alcoholics and what they can do to my health. I escaped that time with my health intact, but it only takes one time, and with TB, certain strains of that disease can kill almost certainly.

 

99% of photographers of photographers would have avoided these two characters; I approached them, took their photo, and respected them in doing so. I didn't back away or show any disrespect -- au contraire.

 

I'm probably the guy you thought i was, but you have gotten caught up in the colloquy.

 

No one on street is owed any money.

 

If I see someone truly destitute, it doesn't matter that I have or am about to take their photo or not; I'll arrange for my companion to give them money. I'm pretty visible and if people see me and expect money, it destroys the photography, but I also do give to the truly destitute (these guys are truly NOT destitute -- they can afford liquor and are not emaciated, and the temperature was comfortable, and as well, I have a true feeling they were not homeless).)

 

I have many times given money to the truly destitute, and I just don't trumpet it.

 

(and I am medically disabled, which I don't write about, and I could whine about it, but I just don't, and no one pays me one cent for my disability at present.)

 

There's also a certain respect over NOT accepting handouts which you may not recognize. To BEG for a living is ultimately degrading; in Kiev the true beggars lie prostrate across a sidewalk with a cup -- many do so for a living.

 

(And if a person is truly destitute, even the beggars will share their booty with the truly destitute person -- and that's the person I give my money to -- what little I have).

 

NOT giving these men (who thought of money only as an afterthought to get attention) was actually an act of respect, however hard that may be to understand.

 

Maybe you hadda have been there.

 

But enough about ethics and morality of street photography -- compare my ethics to that of 'WEEGEE' for instance -- who would place a hat on a corpse to get a better photo and used flash freely no matter how much disruption it caused.

 

I'm cut from a different bolt of cloth.

 

Until you've been out on the streets worldwide, I urge you to withhold judgment.

 

I recall a 'war photographer' I once knew who went to war with ideas of being a 'peace photographer' but a wire service.

 

He came back to the US under psychiatric care because the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong kept shooting at him because they didn't understand that a guy from the US carrying a camera actually may have sympathized with them.

 

They just kept shooting at him, lobbing mortars at him, and generally misunderstanding his 'peaceful' intentions.

 

Last I heard, he was still popping tranquilizers, but that was quite a long time ago.

 

Lesson, you got to be a little tough to go to the front lines -- and can't make yourself a 'mark'. People will mistake your good intentions and 'take advantage' of you, and soon you'll be assaulted and/or robbed.

 

You can make tons of friends on the 'street' but you gotta be on guard almost all the time; the street can turn ugly at almost any time. As you're walking with expensive cameras, poking them around and hanging around, you're a potential 'mark', especially in strange cities in strange districts.

 

Survival depends on the ability to think clearly and keeping emotional distance.

 

Ask any doctor about keeping 'emotional distance' -- it's what keeps them sane. It's what keeps the 'street photographer' safe.

 

Please think about it.

 

Seriously.

 

John (Crosley)

John, Thank you for comments on my comments and of course I see the geometry and the wide angle lens. I see the eyes. I do enjoy your discussions.

At last.

 

Discussion about this photo.

 

Not a bad photo at all, either, is it?

 

If it were bad, it wouldn't have supported such a long thread, I think.

 

Thank you for acknowledging the technical points I made, above, to you.

 

John (Crosley)