Please rate this photo by the 'rules' -- not how you personally feel about tattoos, just as you might rate a 'snake' photo or a spider photo.

Thanks,

John

I like this picture a lot. I like that you have the people in the background staring at the man. Makes for a very good resulting picture. Nice work!!

John, interesting and thought provoking image. the thing that intrigues me about this is the question of what drives a person to do such a thing to themselves. i once saw a young lady in walmart with teal hair, multiple piercings, and tattoos. she would have been a very beautiful woman if not for all of the self mulitation. interesting and thought provoking image.

And notice he's NOT staring at the camera, but caught up in something else -- a true 'candid' shot. He has no idea that at that moment he's being photographed. (Later the story will unfold, but not now.)

Thanks for the helpful comment; I have more than a few shots of this guy, and editing the proper one for first presentation was an interesting task.

John

Interesting because of all the tattoos! I hear some people get addicted to the ink.

How do you like the D200 and lens?

It was my idea, in posting this, to provoke some thought, and certainly to show that I a capable of producing something more than one-dimensional. I post a lot of images that are a lot less complicated because I like them, but always can post a lot more complex images in the 'street genre' of which this is just one. I can turn it 'on' and 'off' pretty much at will, and depending on which of my lenses is on my camera and where my mind is at.

I knew when I saw this on my digital screen (LCD) that this was the one I would post, actually, though I took a very large number of this friendly guy, any one of which would have garnered a lot of interest, but this was the most thought-provoking one, I think.

Do you think this has a chance of becoming a 'classic' of mine?

John

This guy is a little 'famous' I think for his tattoos I would imagine, but I've only been here a day and a half, so what do I know. I make no plans -- not even a hotel reservation -- I just wander about and hopefully take interesting photos -- no plans at all -- just meander . . . sort of . . . and make friends (including this guy for sure).

Well, the D200 is a pretty wonderful camera -- I have two, and one was defective but Nikon fixed it with no problems at all -- it was one of the first (which is why I bought the second, one broke just before I went on a 2-month trip) -- to go along with my D2Xs, bought earlier. They're nearly the equal, though not quite -- but moreso in some areas, including sensor range, I think. They'll auto focus on things you cannot see -- I auto-focused on Bryce Canyon features under moonlight and got usable photos with 2 or 3 minute exposures (though I could have used a sturdier tripod and a cable release since it has a 30 sec. maximum shutter timer, and I left my 10-pin release at home, not anticipating).

The D200 CCD's use more battery than the D2X champs, but still more than worthy, however plan on changing them more often when you use VR lenses

I have nine -- count 'em -- nine batteries in case I travel where there's no electricity.

CCDs by their nature are less energy efficient than a CMOS which the D2X uses, and I have mine set for on one of the less natural settings for color (more vivid) which I can overcome by editing in Photoshop using a slider to desaturate some -- Setting high saturation is not possible with the D2X -- the D200 is capable of boosting color or not in two levels (vivid and more vivid) and has other settings, which the D2X cannot match, though it will NOT try to 'emulate' various film profiles (you can do that with post-processing software though).

The D200 also will take B&W captures from the start as an option, but why miss a pure 'color' capture if it presents itself when you're shooting B&W so even if it's going to end up B&W I shoot color and use channel mixer, rather than shoot B&W originally; I also could just use 'desaturate' in Photoshop. (this was made with Channel Mixer, but otherwise is unmanipulated except for contrast/brightness and a minor crop -- and a grab shot at that.)

The lens is one of my oldest of the modern bunch -- though a V.R. lens -- I took it for 'street' shooting -- it lacks the wide angle settings for a digital APS size sensor that I wished -- though it has the 'reach' at 120 mm that I need.

I use the second camera with the 70~200 E.D. V.R. carefully hidden under my jacket, barrel pointing down so it barely shows and have my hands on the first camera both when it's under my jacket or showing -- people continually warn me ('This is BUENOS AIRES', they say, and I reply, 'I've walked through Russia and Ukraine', but I do hear them.)

I would prefer the 18~200 V.R II E.D., but haven't got my hands on one yet. By the way, I have battery packs for both D200s, but took them off after hearing all the warnings -- they were heavy, but more to the point, it made the cameras much more conspicious and bulky for 'street' shooting in an environment people claimed was hostile. (But I am constantly changing pace, looking around, reversing direction, listening for footsteps (not paranoid, either -- just good sense. I used to tutor in Harlem in the '60s when white was the 'enemy'; I'm white, and the kids really had never seen a white person -- and the addicts and criminals felt gravely threatened by 'whitey' in their neighborhood, so I have some 'street smarts'.

Hope that helps you on the D200 and lens info you asked for.

I ordered a plate of lamb at a very high price ($10) and got enough for four people on a platter 18" long -- it's in my refrigerator for the next two days -- lamb, vegetables, salad, potatoes. (Is that potatoes with an 'e' -- go ask Dan Quayle, please?)

And I'm going to look this guy up again. I have a set of three SB800 flashes with me and 3 lightstands, and I may 'studio shoot' him.

Thanks Sarah.

John

Wonderful street shot! I keep looking at the man in the suit, looking at the man with the tatoos. Then I wonder- would it really have taken much for the tatooed man's life to have taken a different turn? Change some critical moments of his life, & he may have been the one going to work in a suit. Do the same with the man in the suit, and might he have become the "freak"?

It's all a point of view, you see . . .

To the tattooed man . . . I think the man in the suit is the 'freak' . . . and I with my cameras maybe also (although a welcome one to this friendly guy).

I used to be the guy in the suit, but always friendly to the 'freaks' because I was never so much different from them or so far removed -- you put your finger on it . . . there, but maybe for some moment or some training or a differrnt turn in life might have gone you or I.

But I think the tattoooed guy is quite happy -- he's an exhibitionist, I judge, and he's exhibiting.

He's a living work of art -- his tattoos are not just a mish-mosh put on one by one over time haphazardly like some drunken seaman, either; they coordinate and were carefully thought out, like some woman's outfit from haute couture.

In fact, this is the 'haute couture' of tattoos.

How do you like that for a point of view?

It's all on how you look at it? (Just as you suggested. ;-)) )

John (Crosley)

Look at his left (as you view him) forehead. He's got a prominent bump -- a mole, a tumor or a cyst -- it's also tattooed.

In fact, although I did NOT personally inspect ALL of him, he says he's tattooed 100 per cent, and I suppose that means everything.

Reminds me of the movie, The Piano, in which one of the British sailors takes on Maori tribe ways -- complete with traditional New Zealand Maori tribal tattoos -- quite an interesting (and frightening to those of us who are not used to it) -- sight.

The Maoris used tattoos, I think, to frighten their enemies, and I think this guy does it for attention, and also to carve a business niche for himself. I think he's in the tattoo business, and who better to go to than someone who believes in his wares (and wears his wares)?

John (Crosley)

Edit, different crop, shadow detail/background de-emphasized slightly for emphasis on foreground

This edit has a slightly different crop, and clears some technical difficulties with the first post.

It also 'selects' the man, and 'brightens' the background, then takes some of the contrast from the background, as to emphasize more the tatooed man, foreground.

(it also alters the shadow/highlight detail in the man, somewhat, and I'm interested in your feedback. I almost never Photoshop my images, but I think this one is 'worth it' and is a 'keeper', so I value your feedback and am willing to make further attempts based on what comments I get.)

John (Crosley)

Edit with Less Shadow on Neck; Background Still De-Emphasized

Comments also on this edit, with background still de-emphasized, but less shadow on the tattoo guy.

John (Crosley)

John, just my 2 cents but I think your first revision is the best of the three. Really brings out and emphasizes the tatooed man (not that you could possible overlook him).

I have to replace the posted image for 'technical difficulties' -- I had attempted some cloning I forgot about, and it left artifacts that I simply did not notice until I blew it up (and mistakenly said it was 'unmanipulated' since I thought I had cropped out his glove, but accidentally posted a version in which his hand/glove were attempted to be 'cloned' but very badly.

Otherwise, it succeeds, and I will attempt to repost (replace the post) with something true to the original post, but without the artifacts (or the cloning attempt) (or cloned, but successfully so), then repost the posted image in a comment, noting the exchange -- which is a fair thing to do, and which I've done once before --- noting it high up in comments in an amendment, so no one's 'thrown off' by the exchange of images or the ratings, and so the ratings engine and viewers and comments are not 'thrown off' which is what the Administration fears will happen if images get exchanged willy-nilly.

It should rarely happen, but this is one circumstance where it is called for and I intend on doing it; forgive me in advance. ;-)) Always ask forgiveness, never for permission is the motto of one priest whose work I admire.

Thanks for your feedback, Jack.

John (Crosley)

I'm a bit in late : ) Firstly and even if your english is really difficult for me (that's not a default at all, that's make me improving), I want to say that your comments are really interesting. As I said, you're a great writer and I'm really happy discovering you in this PN's crowd. Be sure that's not praise.

This B&W is as impressive as the coloured one. Maybe even more cause my imagination has to work to recoloured him... I wish I saw this one first!

He's a fascinating guy. Not cause I'd like to look like him (a tatoo or two wouldn't make me frightened nevertheless) but cause he looks true, natural, etc. Hehe... "natural", what a strange world...
He doesn't seem to play a character, he made some choices, pretty difficult ones I guess. He seems (I use many time "seems" cause I can only imagine) proud of his way without beeing offensive. He's an alien in the city but he doesn't care, he needs to be an alien: others exist around cause HE is here.

Regarding the different versions you posted, I don't know which one is the best. Maybe I have a preference for the main one, the one on the top.
Composition in very good, there's a great focus on him but also on the surroundings. The man behind him adds an interesting depth cause he looks towards the tatooed man. The woman just in the third plan is also at the good place. These three people make a catching point and around them, there's the city, there's the anonymous crowd.
As I see this photo, I feel like 1)the man in the background: looking at the tatooed man 2)like the woman on the left edge and the man on the right one: just someone anonymous more and walking in the street.

Well... you succeed to make me writing something quite long! : )) Cheers John, I keep my eyes WIDE opened on what you share with us ; )

I don't know if you know the work of Olivier M. but I think his portfolio is worth the visit.
He's got a great eye and share good street shots. His last travel serie is very interesting.

I looked at his portfolio, and though not so impressed with his Tanzania work, was very impresed with his documentary and 'portrait' work, which was quite wonderful -- and he obviously spends a great deal of time polishing each image in Photoshop (which I obviously do NOT do). I just take 'em and post 'em, and when I do go to print 'em they'll get a great deal more work, as I can see them blown up very large and see all their warts.

My very best for thinking of me, Yann.

John (Crosley)

Did anybody notice next to the pedestrian's head to small 'blowouts' -- bright circular spots that give the appearance of the little 'bubbles' that in cartoons are the 'bubble' connectors that lead to 'thought balloons' which show what a cartoon (or photo figure) supposedly is thinking. They differ from a 'speech balloon' because a speech balloon is connected with the speaking figure by direct lines -- the thought ballon by 'bubbles' which by convention indicated unspoken 'speech' -- or thought.

Thus, by happenstance, it's as though this photo has incorporated some 'bubbles' one would expect to lead to 'thought balloons'

Funny about the little things that show up on closer examination . . . .

(They're on his right side as you view the man with the tie, walking, left center.)

John (Crosley)

( Critique... :-) - kind of future request for these oportunities/situations)

this one could well be shot with a 28mm - Leica (?M6?) with Tri-X 400 that you know very well :-) You seem close enough and the person doesnt mind being photographed as its obviously an exhibisionist thing a majority of some people have... I maybe wrong about the person havent read the story...

The DOF would be better and would have more of people's faces in a better focused area, also with a wider frame...We would have more visual information to have for personal...visibile pleasure... :-)

I already bought my first Tri-x and I'm waiting to start half analog (just shooting - others do the chemical work in the beggining). I clearly understand the difficulties of street shooting at 28mm but google "Winogrand Video" and see some tricks he did back then :-) Funny guy...

It's a very recent add in the Internet so you might not have seen it, just wanted to tell you about it...

I hope I helped at something for the future if not I'll just try to understand the past ;-)

You are right that a wide angle (Leica or not) would add much depth of field to such a photograph and that this was taken with a zoom tele, but it was taken thusly for ability to isolate the subject and blur the background reactions -- essentially to hide the photographer (a Leica helps hide the photographer too, but then I'm a big guy and hanging around this guy with a camera makes me plenty visible).

So, I stood some distance from him, focused on him, and then when people passed by, and likely situations constructed, fired away. I got many good ones, and the best (all but a few) are posted now.

While your 'solution' technically is most correct (Leica or Nikon, whatever and Leica for stealth), it doesn't take into account passersby reaction to my presence -- for their reaction might then not be to tattoo guy as I call him, but also to him and me or me alone . . . which would destroy the intent of the photographs.

So, I'll have to think on that; essentially, put my thinking cap on. . . . and maybe just switch to higher ISO and a brighter day (this was in building shadows in late afternoon) for a greater depth of field and use a shorter tele and hide myself better. I am sure I'll use him again, God willing and the creek don't rise. (and I can find him, which I think I can.)

I always appreciate constructive criticism -- keep the ideas coming, Billy. You never know when one will change my entire approach to shooting, at least certain kinds of shots (some have had that effect).

Best wishes,

John (Crosley)