Some Film B&W's

[GeneW]

It's been awhile since I had any film results to post. Last week I caught up to the three rolls I'd started before I visited the hospital. Here are three frames I liked:

Metallica (Bessa R3A, Nokton 40/1.4, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50)


Stream (Nikon FM10, Nikon 135/2.8E, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50)


Wet Bench (Nikon FM10, Nikon 50/1.8E, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50)


Gene

[PeterW]

Nice, Gene, specially the second and third.

Every time you post pictures like these they make me both envious and annoyed. Envious because after 60 years of picture taking I still can't 'see' pictures the way you do, and annoyed because I try and somehow they just don't hit the button.

I guess I've been an opportunist street-type candid picture shooter for too many years, always looking for action, incident and character, and just not noticing the pictures that can be made from simple things, and seeing the possibilities in them in the right lighting.

Keep posting.

PeterW

[Michael Fraley]

I like them all for the composition, the quality of the light, and the range of tones... good work Gene!

[mickeyobe]

Gene,

Your ability to make something special out of nothing at all constantly amazes me.

Mickey

[GeneW]

Peter, Michael, Mickey, thank you so much. Peter, I'm not much of a people photographer (too shy) so I look for photos elsewhere.

Gene

[Deleted]

Gene:

I'm with you. Even when I was a newspaper photographer I didn't like sticking my lens into peoples' personal lives--even when they were out in public and/or legitimate news. I like to find photos where most people don't look (but you are a lot better at it than I am).

Wayne

[mickeyobe]

I too am a chicken when it comes to grabbing pictures of strangers.

I was at the annual Nathan Phillips Square Art Show yesterday. Among the over 500 artists represented there were some very attractive booths and displays and objects that I wanted to photograph. I felt compelled to ask permission of the artist. I was only refused once.

Today I mailed photos to those artists who said yes with a thank you note and my permission to use the photos any way they wished.

I feel if I take something I must give something in return.

Mickey

[GeneW]

Wayne, Mickey, it makes me feel better to know I'm not the only one who feels reluctant to take pics of strangers. Like you, Mickey, I usually ask first and shoot if they say yes.

Gene

[Deleted]

A lot of photographers today seem to have the attitude that anytime a person steps off their property they are fair game. I don't agree with that philosophy. I do think it a person is at a concert or community event the give up much of their right to privacy. But I have a problem with shooting without permission when a person is doing every day chores -- where being out in public is a necessity, not an option.

It's interesting what's happening in the U.K. right now (not exactly the same thing as we are talking about but still interesting. I read somewhere that there is something like one surveillance camera for every 8 people in the country. But there is a big uproar with some people over there because Google is doing what it has done in some U.S. towns--mapping every street photographically. I guess the difference is the surveillance camera shot only are seen by authorities whereas Google shots can be seen by anyone with a computer.

[PeterW]

As I understand it, the law in the UK at the moment is that if someone is on private property, taking a photograph of them is an invasion of privacy for which there are penalties. There are also areas, such as the immediate vicinity of the Law Courts in London, where photography is not permitted. In the Royal Parks, hand-held photography is freely allowed, but you have to apply for a permit if you want to use a tripod or if the picture is to be used for commercial purposes.

Generally, though, if a person is in a public place, or a place where the public is normally admitted, they cannot legally object to a photograph of them being taken, or a general scene in which they are included. Nor to that picture being published.

However, there are laws which make it an offence to use such a photograph in a way that could cause the person to be ‘an object of ridicule’ or bring them into contempt, or any other defamatory way.

Fairly recently, by-laws have been introduced in some towns which make it an offence to take pictures of children in a public place, other than members of your family or the children of friends. This was started by a ‘scare speech’ by London’s mayor Ken Livingstone who said that in his opinion some pictures taken of children in public places were being used for pornographic purposes.

Some of my candid people pictures are taken in the street, but the majority are taken at events such as markets, car boot sales, old vehicle rallies, preserved steam railways and so on which is where I find the most interesting action and characters. Most of the time there are so many cameras about that people ignore them.

I don’t, as some people do, use a long focus lens to avoid being spotted. That does strike me as being a bit sneaky. Most of the time I use the normal 50mm lens or a short zoom used between 35mm and 70mm.

A few people notice that I’ve taken a picture of them, but so far no-one has objected. I usually smile and say ‘thank you’. The only comments I have had were requests to buy a print. I always tell them no, but I will gladly send them one if they give me an address or, if they prefer, an email address where I can send them a copy they can download and print. If I promise this I ALWAYS do so.

But I’m very wary nowadays of including children in a picture.

PeterW

[nikonbob]

Gene

As always you see things that I would miss and your eye is as good as ever. No, you are not alone in being too shy to photograph people. I am in the same boat. I don't mind if I am in someone else's photo if I am not the main subject, just background noise. Just because I may have the right to photograph someone in public doesn't mean I should be compelled to do so.

Bob

[Wahoo]

Jul 15, 2008 10:25:10 GMT -5 GeneW said:

It makes me feel better to know I'm not the only one who feels reluctant to take pics of strangers.

Gene, It doesn't particuarly bother me but I got few funny looks when I asked for a picture of this young womens boots.




. . . and I did ask these Goths in Whitby.

[Wahoo]

Chris Lillystone (I think) Raleigh Banana 1988 - Canon AE-1 100mm SSC

[renaldo]

Mr. Gene,

Your pic noted as "metallica" was of immediate interest to me, as I recently purchase a new gas grill that is mostly stainless steel. And have been reading the instructions on the "proper way" to clean and polish it...ie., observing and following the grain. And the grain surely is standing out in your image.

And the bench with rain drops...Oo,oo!!! An exquisite and typical example of your extrordinary work. I love it...if one is allowed to love inanimate things that it...lol


Mr. Peter,

As an old hand at "street photography" I can say a lot of it is changing for the photographer today. Some of this is in way people just plain "change with the guard" and, I personally believe some of it is in response to all the hip and media about perverts and terrorists. Thus your well taken stance against photographing children.

But the images can still be made. Yes, in some instances, the method might be considered by some as sneakiness, but depending on the specifics, I consider it merely adjusting what one needs to do to accomplish his/her intent. I will routinely use a 24-120mm lens and do not feel I am being sneaky. It allows me the freedom I need to get true casual shots, not infringe on a persons comfortable sense of space and still be discreet. None of these images are ever intended for, or used for commercial purposes. If so, a model release is the game.

Now...using a 1000mm lens, hiding and wearing clothing that makes one blend right into the...oh my golly...where is he or she!!

And YES...PR, friendliness and a little consideration go a long way. Afterall, I am sure none of us want even one 'bad' photog spoiling things for the rest of us.


Mr. Daniel,

Now you have some neat "street" shots there. Was there a festival or some special celebration?

That is one thing I like about shooting in Chicago, IL, USA...and of course those of you in larger cities would note such even more...a wide, variety of people...a photographers haven.

[PeterW]

Nice street pictures, Daniel.

It won't be all that long before Goths are history, along with double-breasted 'drape' suits with wide lapels (reveres) coming down to the waist worn with shirts having a cutaway collar and a tie with a huge Windsor knot, Teddy Boys with drainpipe trousers, a high-buttoned suit jacket and shoes with two-inch thick crepe soles, Mods, Rockers, paratrooper type boots and the various other teenage/young twenties passing fashions.

Today in the street I saw a guy in his late twenties I'd guess, very sun tanned, with a Mohican haircut dyed blue and red, a nose ring, three of four earrings in each ear and so many tattoos up his arms you could hardly see the natural skin colour. I'm told by my eldest grandson, aged 23, that this style is very outmoded nowadays.

It belongs, he says, in the era of ankle-length black leather top coats (he had one as a teenager) and black leather motorcycle jackets smothered in silver studs, worn with ragged and faded jeans. You still see a few of the latter at motorcycle rallies, and a bushy beard seems to be obligatory.

Most of the people wearing these rather way-out fashions seem to enjoy having their picture taken. They dress to create an 'image', and if someone takes a photograph it means their image has been 'noticed'.

Unfortunately I didn't have a camera with me today.

PeterW