puddling through

I am delighted to consider and respond to your thoughtful,

intelligent, honest, and appropriately critical comments,

suggestions, and questions; but know that ratings (and visibility)

are irrelevant to me.

the dominant silhouetted walking figure in this reflection shot sets a tone of transient urban anonymity in an otherwise sprightly lit modern urban institutional-looking scene that is set off by the framing of dry ground areas of choppy textures and cool tones surrounding the street puddle in which all the reflected street action is set. the figure is moving along the direction of a massive building backdrop setting of mainly warm tones and repetitive details that quite easily guide the eye through the frame and make his pace seem even quicker. his anonymity is echoed by a smaller silhouetted figure apparently moving in counter direction diagonally across the way. the smaller figure also provides a subtle clue as to scale and helps accentuate the depth made additionally apparent by the gradation of focus in the reflected building details as the eye moves diagonally left to right (note that the etched 'Fulton' appears sharper than 'Market') and ultimately toward a vista of clear blue sky. the image's sense of movement is punctuated by the dominant figure's actual walking feet in natural lock-step on cobblestone with his reconnected reflection in the street puddle.

 

 

being a blind photographer it is certainly refreshing that someone is finally writing essays about their photos...thank you...

Hi Howard. I know very few people who can frame the scene and patiently wait for a person to enter in the exact spot where they are needed to complete the shot. I like the way it flows and attention to every detail is visible. I'd be tempted to get rid of the feet and perhaps crop some off of the left - but it's just nits. Regards,

Newton - I waited a day's time to post that little essay so not seed response from others (which didn't come, then so I did). anyway, another point is that I was not fully aware of the backdrop analysis (except that it looked fairly "clean") before the fact except that the shot's execution relied on my experience and learned instincts. and, of course, what you see is the best one captured of 8-9 attempted.

 

Pawel - your thoughts mirror mine. I had considered to crop the feet but I didn't want to compromise the base and the second figure, but then I also liked the look of the feet semi-disconnected from the reflection by the swath of cobblestone between them. I also considered to crop some of the left but I liked the repetition of the lower (white) canopy (a restaurant operates below that) support framework (vertical and diagonal lines) and did not want to disrupt that.

I would crop different (see above). The legs on the bottom doesn't add too much to me. The bluish ground, especially on the top of the photo, looks a bit too artificial. I would tweak a bit trying to find a different "grey point". In the attachment above I quickly set it on the ground. Better?

...alternative visual takes on this image. however, the warming cast you suggest, Michele, doesn't match the mood of the image I see which tends toward brooding anomie. and as I indicated previously, the crop all but subsumes the secondary figure whose secondary emphasis (I should clone out a bit of the cobblestone interfering with it?) is crucial to the mood.

When I saw this, I too immediately thought "lose the feet". The suggested crop works better in my opinion.

normally I too would look to "lose the feet", but mainly if the reflected feet were in view. however, as illustrated by the crop, the cobblestone base amputates the legs, which then poses another question: why not have included the figure's full reflection (if possible)? but to have done so would have required markedly altering the camera position and therefore the image perspective. and that would have compromised the precise framing of the building structure and its essential contribution to the image's visual flow. finally, look how the secondary figure pretty much disappears as an important working element to the point of distraction at the bottom edge in the cropped version. the lesson here is that rules of thumb are guideline starting points that one should decide to utilize or break in each specific case.

I agree. Lose the feet. Makes it stronger

I become more convinced each time I look that "losing the feet" makes the image look and feel static, and maybe cliche. and if this were not a reflection would anyone really want the subject's main torso amputated that way? I think not.

 

dare to be different... here, the magic is in the feet. they complete the subject's torso because, after all, they're his. walk on, walk on, with... dare to be right.

Great shot! its normally easy to agree with the suggested bottom crop, however.. in this shot i would give my vote for keeping it.. for the reasons the author states... and while the crop might seem "cleaner" i dont feel the balance gets improved much over the original. Well done!

really wanna leave the feets at least rotate it 180 degree.

dominant left to subordinate right is my well considered and experienced preference as this movement heightens the tension in this image. and presenting the reflection as captured (upside down) would be pointless.

carl,i agree about the cropping. i think its a wonderful piece of work. whimsical, somber, set in a particular time and place, rendered wtih great clarity and vibrant but not overwhelming colors. really enjoyable.

Personally, I can see valid arguments on either side of the 'feet issue' (although taking a step back for a moment, I think that Howard should take no small pride in the fact that we're arguing about *feet* rather than any of the more quotidien issues that get thrown around on photo.net). But to me, it comes down to an issue of emphasis and there are to parallel possible readings:

1. Without the crop the photo actually tends (for me at least) towards the humorous and the immediacy of the moment of action captured in great street photography. It is life reflected in photography, and the feet are my cue me to this.
2. With the crop we have something rather different and more mysterious -- I am looking *at* life through the window of photography. The photograph becomes a portal through which I see life passing by. This other possibility makes me into an observer rather than a participant.

What makes this photo work for me is that it's done without any computer wizardry -- someone actually saw the possibility of a world done this way and waited for it to come together to his liking.

So the 'question' posed by the two crops is really one around whether the photographer is an engaged (i.e. street photography) or a dispassionate (i.e. documentary or fine art) observer of life. I think that there are good arguments on both sides and that the 'right' answer depends on who's asking the question...

HTH.

jon

P.S. On a technical basis I can't fault this photograph in the least -- the colours seem bright and remarkably well-balanced for a photo taken in a reflection (this sort of thing usually produces negatives destined for the bin when I try them), the focus looks good (possibly the *barest* smidgen soft on the real feet, but I don't know how you'd manage to get them perfectly in focus when the real subject is something else entirely). Great shot, especially since it provokes me to philosophical flights of fancy. ;)

great discussion. i thought a bit more and realize that my love of (weakness of?) symmetry is a major reason why i would crop out the feet. doing so leaves pavement top and bottom in an aesthetically pleasing way to me; the feet are a bit jarring of that symmetry.

I like the feet disconnet from the rest, expecially comnsidering that they do not show in the reflection. plus the cropping would have been to tight. Very nice, I love it.

Jon - it is understandable that some might conclude the feet to be a newbie?s mistake in cropping (I am showing on PN less than 2 weeks) or simply are startled by seeing upside-down decapitated feet at the frame?s edge. the image was taken with a non-SLR-type digital camera that has capacity to capture enormous depth of field (alas, shallow focus shots are a challenge). here I set the focus on the pavement and let DOF do the rest. and since a stepping foot moves more quickly than its torso, note the soft blur of the forward-most foot. finally, and photographically speaking, an image lacking in capacity to say something more than its dry visual content - the substance of emphasis - is unlikely to be given public viewing by this photographer.

My first impression of this picture was that it got a special effect in PS... and then I saw the feet which put things into perspective, so in my humble opinion the feet served a purpose and kept things real for me. Pictures aren't always what they seem. Very interesting shot!