High flying Wilson Crispim


I am shooting heavy now in Rio for my upcoming Beach Games tabloid. High flying Wilson Crispim , 20, is a parkour artist. He was one of my photo students yesterday for underprivileged yet serious photographers. Wilson makes death defying jumps that appear impossible even when witnessing. A for real Superman.

24 Responses to “High flying Wilson Crispim”

  • Great jump!!! Great shot! David typically yours…


    Van Halen!!

  • Dang, David. On rare occasions I see a photo that is so good that I should just put down my cameras and take up basket weaving, because I’ll never reach the bar they set. This is one of them. Great shot.

  • I agree with all of the above. And you do it all the time.

  • Praise, not flattery: This is one of the best silhouette images I’ve ever seen.

    The way the figures on the wall are glued to the right frame-edge goes against the rules and conventions of composition, but the wall and the frame-edge are one and the same, aren’t they? Of course Wilson is the centre of interest (I think), and definitely provides a surrealistic feel; it is the mystery of what’s happening on the right that captures most of my interest.

  • That fellow is way too high. Another cool shot with lots of detail. I like the digits.

  • Yow! Wow! an image to make even your Magnum colleagues envious. Most of the crap that flutters in front of our eyes is forgotten… but this one rises above — pun intended. Formally, a triumph. Emotionally, better still.

  • Gotta say, pretty slick, David, my man…

  • a civilian-mass audience

    I believe I can fly…oh,ohh…!!!

  • So very nice, David. A lesson in composition and shadow management…..

  • David; just out of interest. Is this shot one of those “everything happens at the right time” type of shot? You know; you wait and wait and wait and it all comes together. Or is it a “all the peripheral elements are there and then you ask Wilson to do some jumps to complete the picture? It’s always interesting seeing how a final image comes to be; sorta like why I love looking at contact sheets. You can see the process. Cheers :-)

  • I, too, would be interested in the answer to Ross’s question.

  • Pas moi. Vive le mystère

  • “Vive le mystère” Why?

  • I think I read a quote somewhere to the effect that when you take the magic out of art, all that’s left are cheap tricks. The sleight of hand artist Oscar Zoroaster is an interesting character, but if he didn’t turn into OZ the great and powerful, there really wouldn’t be much of a story, would there?

  • Okay; better not go to any workshops then! :-)

  • Well I wouldn’t mind hearing about this cheap trick…


    the elements were there and Wilson made about 6 high flying jumps…not much planning at all, and i had no idea he could jump like that…seemed impossible actually….when i go back to Rio i am going to do a whole series on the parkour artists…the only problem with these guys is that they do encourage some young kids with little or no skill to try the same thing….serious injury and death have come to some with no knowledge…they see this stuff in movies etc and then try it ..i actually worried that this photo might even lead somebody to make a jump they could not make…i hope not…

    cheers, david

  • Paul, I’m sure everyone knows I didn’t imply that David was using some cheap trick, at least not in the negative meaning of the phrase. Inexpensive techniques, sure. Patience and careful framing. By now I usually have a pretty good idea what’s behind the curtain and with a photo I like usually prefer to look at the picture itself rather than the man twirling the knobs stage right. Of course now that I’ve thought about it this much, and in light of the conversation on the other thread, and as someone shooting lots of moving objects lately, I kind of wonder if it was a one shot or if David was using multiple frames per second. Personally, I do it both ways, depending on how bad I really need a usable shot or simply what kind of mood I’m in. But honestly, in this case, I don’t even want to know. I said it right the first time, and in so many fewer words. Vive le mystère.

  • Cheers for that David! Like I said; it’s always interesting to learn how images come about. When I get enough cash together I want to get Moriyama’s “Labyrinth”; a book totally comprised of contact sheets. Pure bliss!!!! :-)

  • MW

    About your sports shooting, want to pass on a tip you’ve probably discovered on your own already, but just in case.

    Probably the best advice I ever got from a pro sports shooter was to move the autofocus to the back button on the camera (in my case at the time, a Canon). Then you can use auto to focus, and let off it if you know you want to not move the focus for the next (or upcoming) shot. Once you get used to it, it’s a ton faster and more accurate.

    I mention it because I do the same thing with the Fuji, and I think you mentioned focus in the “Photo Tip #1” thread…so with the Fuji (both X100S and X-Pro1) use manual mode, but use the AF button to get focus close/quickly if I need it to…manual focus on the lens barrel as needed (and if there is time).

    Thanks for sharing….that’s the kind of info that is easily (almost automatically) picked up if someone is alongside you while shooting, but impossible to tell from the finished image.

  • Michael, as viewers of the image I can understand how some of us enjoy swimming in the mystery of this image (I do), but as emerging artists it’s equally understandable that we’d want to find out the technique behind it. David has stated a few times that a current interest of his is figuring out the mystery inside a photograph. Any discussion on that subject is of great interest to me, which is why I like the instructional video David has just put up, and why I look forward to more of them in the future. I think a lot of this mystery tends to be wrapped in the technique, although that just one source of mystery…

    It’s always been a mystery to me why the emerging photographers that contribute to BURN prefer discussing the meaning of an image or essay here, but rarely inquire to the technical aspects of the making. There is no problem dissecting a work here based on economics, anthropology, philosophy or psychology, yet there is rarely any give and take on the photographic techniques involved.

    I’m equally inquisitive about all these aspects of the image or essay!

  • Hey Jeff, I totally agree. Was just speaking for myself about the mystery thing, and really only for how I was feeling about that particular picture at that particular moment. I certainly wasn’t in any way telling anyone what they should or shouldn’t ask David or talk about. Learning new technique is good. And on that note, thanks for the tip Andrew B.I used to do it that way, then experimented every which way, got kinda set in new ways and forgot about it. Will definitely revisit.

    It’s a bit of a mystery to me why comments have shriveled to their current state, which Imants link to his old essay and its robust comment section called to mind. It was nice seeing all those insights from so many familiar names that just don’t come round much anymore. I can kind of understand how all of the same old people got tired of saying and reading the same old opinions from each other, but am curious why it’s been so long since there was any new blood. In my time around here, I’ve learned a lot from David, but I’ve learned just about as much from the other commenters. It was much like my old photo classes, which were really just extra long workshops, where the professor would project a slideshow on the screen and we’d all discuss the photos. For emerging photographers, as they say, that kind of study and the debate it engendered was probably more important than any technique. A lot of people are missing a great opportunity to get that for free.

Comments are currently closed.