Redwood Run Beefcake

[snousle]

All these are candid shots of strangers, taken with the 500 mm reflector telephoto. For many of them, I'm using a "shoot through" method, where I appear to be taking photos of exciting things like burnouts or girls in wet teeshirts, but instead I'm actually capturing the expressions of men as they watch such things. I consider this a form of wildlife photography, if you'll pardon the pun, and approach it accordingly. Most of these were taken from about 100 feet back.

This series has pleased me very much. This is probably the best, most sustained set of portraits I've managed to get. Some aren't as crisp as I'd like, but focusing this thing accurately is so difficult that what you see here has taken a lot of practice.

These photos feel like being there. The light, the sense of space, the confusion and awe - that's what it's really like. It's an intensely beautiful experience. I hate to sound like such a hound dog all the time, but the men of northern California are just stupefyingly gorgeous creatures, and capturing that beauty seems like an artistic imperative.























I've long felt that I've been skirting the edge of reasonable photographic etiquitte. After trying several approaches, I work totally in the open, not sneaking around or anything, and the big lens makes me stick out in what is generally a crowd-watching crowd. Everybody can see I'm taking pictures. But the field of view is only about as big as the full moon, so it's not at all obvious to onlookers exactly where it's pointing. The subject can see the flash of the mirror when the camera's pointed straight at him, though I'm not sure how many of them notice. And I don't linger - if I can't get a photo within a few seconds, I move on.

Reading about the subject on the net suggests that I'm about as far away from being an asshole as a photographer can be. The thing is, these photos can be really intimate. The camera captures fleeting expressions that aren't so visible in real life. You'd be amazed at how many men look like they're about to burst into tears. It makes me wonder whether the camera is misleading, or whether it is so penetrating as to uncover a more truthful representation of the subject's emotional state. I consider these photos to be private things and would never show them to anyone.

When it gets down to it, I think it's in no way disrespectful to point out that someone is hot. And I bet some of these guys don't hear that very often. This is not entirely a theoretical concern, because the north counties are small places and there is every reason to believe that some day someone in these photos will be all pissed off when they discover that they've got gay boys getting all hot and sweaty over them. But you know, that's just too freaking bad. Don't hate us because you're beautiful.

Comments

[bbearseviltwin.livejournal.com]

they are hot men, and I can't blame you for looking, or taking pictures

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

They are damned sexy.

Sure would be nice if Chris Roma and the Pantheon gang could grab some of these guys for a Real Men DVD.

[beastbriskett.livejournal.com]

These are marvelous portraits, Tony! Your method of shooting in plain sight surely works. The moments are so unguarded and pure.

Thanks for sharing what you experienced with us!

[broduke2000.livejournal.com]

Tony, thanks so much for shooting that wet boy! As I get a little more sick, I really appreciate people who have an eye out for me.

If you run across any more of that dude, or a larger one, please e-mail me.

Again, Thanks!

These photos can be really intimate

[ursine1.livejournal.com]

I agree. They show the real character of the person, rather than the "posed for a picture" look that reveals little.

Good work Tony!

Chuck

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Taking the picture is one thing, publishing it is a different issue. You know you're exposing yourself to lawsuits in the US, right?

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Stay tuned... ;-)

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Is posting to a blog "publishing" or are you referring to commercial use? I was under the impression that crowds at public events were fair game. The only thing I do is aim differently from the other five hundred people with cameras.

[h0gwash.livejournal.com]

Note to self: must get biggest zoom lens possible.

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure of that - there are websites that have teams of photographers out at Sturgis Bike Week in the major towns, and even along key routes, taking pictures of anyone and everyone, either on foot or on bike and then "publish" tons of them to the web.

Many of these photos are "identifiable" in that - like Tony's photos - one or two people are recognizable and clearly the focus of the shot. I'm no lawyer, obviously - but I have trouble imagining they'd stay around for years - or sink so much money into getting the photos - if this were a seriously risky undertaking.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

From here: As you no doubt know, a release would not be necessary at all if the use is for editorial purposes, such as a newspaper story or magazine article about a subject. Here, photos of recognizable people and things (copyrighted and trademarked items) taken in public for editorial publication is called "fair use."

One of this site's examples is from the Folsom St. Fair. LOL.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Yes a blog counts as publishing, at least in most north american jurisdictions. Any time you put text/images in a place where anyone can look at them, it is publishing. It is less clear when access is in some way restricted, like for instance a friends filter. It is also publishing if people can copy and reproduce the images you provide, and then post them somewhere else where anyone can access them - in that case you are responsible for the re-use unless you can show that you have taken sufficient measures to prevent said "theft". Also if you take a look at US release forms you will see they usually specifically detail the context in which the image may or may not be used, whether the image may be altered / cropped / distorted, and whether the model has right of approval.

Re public events - It's a grey area, I think it largely depends on whether the person can demonstrate that "defamation" has taken place. But please do consult with someone who knows the local laws. There is probably a local photographer's association and they often provide this kind of information free on their website.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Obviously I'm no lawyer either, I think it would be good to find a professional opinion :)

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

hm where does the link go? for obvious reasons I'm always interested in more info on this topic.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Ooops, that link is here.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

...Detachable penis!

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Wow that is a great site! It agrees with most everything I've read on the topic.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

if you're interested in the issue you should check out the site Tony linked to below, it's great

[kevynjacobs.livejournal.com]

Woof!

[beastbriskett.livejournal.com]

I have lens envy.

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

Reading about the subject on the net suggests that I'm about as far away from being an asshole as a photographer can be.

that's because you respect your photographic subjects.
The photos you have shared are intimate in their own way, and woofy too. Nicely done.