'Watch Your Back When Photographing!'

It is good advice, especially when photographing 'street' to 'Watch Your

Back When Photographing'. See, for instance, the posted photo AND

its BACKGROUND. Your ratings, critiques and observations are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; thank you in advance for

sharing your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Enjoy! John

This photo may be seen as a visual example of 'dramatic irony'.  That occurs when the principal actor (usually on stage or in books),  is unaware of something significant that the audience knows.

For instance, in books that start with the ending, then 'fill in the prior story' we are confronted immediately with 'dramatic iron' because we already know the end.

If, in a book or drama it is revealed unknown to the principal actor (or even another, minor actor) that another has animosity or other strong feelings that are significant but are not revealed to that person, and that is part of the 'story' then that is another example of where 'dramatic irony' comes into play. 

Imagine a man who in one scene tells a friend or others that 'he'll do anything necessary, including murder' to achieve an end with the protagonist, but that is not revealed to the protagonist who may imagine that other actor a 'friend'.  Voilà, dramatic irony throughout.

This woman photographer was unaware as she framed and snapped of what was going on behind her.

john

John (Crosley)

A really beautiful shot with a very nice title, John!

Best regards from NL,

Ruud.

When reviewing captures from early this Spring, I came upon this capture, with the guy behind in too much darkness.

I hadn't realized its potential.

A little adjustment (not manipulation) with shadow/highlight filter, and here it is.

I was amazed that I got his hands both in without cutting either off, his arms showing well enough to understand what he was doing, and his face just in the perfect part of the photo with a GREAT expression.

It pays (for me at least) to review, and re-review old photos.  I haven't done that to 1/10th of them out of a half million and I keep finding stuff like this and even much better. 

Several of my most viewed shots recently had previously been unrecognized and came from a re-review of past captures -- and I have a little better skill with Photoshopping, so some of the previously unshowable ones now can be made to look presentable, and those are often ones I thought had 'great potential' but just were outside my minimal Photoshopping skills (plus I can barely use my right hand to hold a mouse anyway, and for other fine motor skills - too painful and partially paralyzed in a way that can't be seen or noticed - thankfully.)

I was really stunned after just a minimal workup on this one, because as presently worked up it is full of 'irony' (dramatic) and humor.

Thanks for the recognition.

john

John (Crosley)

It may seem with a photo like this that is was posed or planned.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The young woman was photographing me, thinking that I was interesting with two or three cameras around my neck, and of course she had a sparkling Pentax.

Her friend came around her, and with my 12~24 mm Nikkor (very wide angle lens) I was able to 'nail' this one.  It is not cropped one whit and is just as it was shot (with the background brightened, not even using a 'selection tool' -- just shadow/highlight.

Also, even with a 12-24 mm, wide open at f4, this man shows wonderfully blurred, a bokeh I had not known in my 12~24 before.

I'll re-look at the EXIF info to make sure I am 100% correct, as this seems unusual to me, but when I worked it up, I'm sure I was it was taken with a 12~24 or within that focal length range (on a crop sensor camera, I think, but I was carrying a D700 at the time so I'll recheck.

Best regards from wherever I am to the NL.

john

John (Crosley)

Ruud, Correction:  I  thought the blurred background looked too unlike that of a photo taken with a 12~24 mm which was on my other camera (or one of them).

This was taken with a 24~120 at full extension (my mistake). It also was shot at ISO 2500, but see the wonderful colors.  Stunning for a high ISO shot under artificial light, too, indoors. 

Look at the action, stopped because of a usable high iso on that camera.

Previously with a telephoto indoors, one would have either to compromise and get poor image quality (IQ), or get the man, behind, blurred, even with a D300 which is not so bad at higher ISO but just can't match a D700.

Sorry for the mixup but I caught it before the 'editing' window closed to save another comment from being posted.

john

John (Crosley)

You like street ph. and you do it very well. I think, while you are capturing the girl, the man entered into your frame suddenly. Am I right? So he is not in focus and not in frame as a whole. Otherwise it would serve your "heading" more. Regards.

While I understand your critique and what it is you are saying, I disagree.

You are correct that I was photographing this woman.

The scene was full of laughter and fun; she photographed me; I photographed her photographing me.

We, (I, she and her friend + another man) were there and aware of each other.

As she photographed me, amid this merriment, a friend (rear) arose to be in the photo, and he is properly depicted.

Generally when one is 'fooling around' like this, it just never 'works out'.  The man would be captured wrong, one or the other or both arms would be cut off, or part of his face would be cut off by her head or the frame in an important part.

This did not happen.

I personally feel that there is no improvement to this photo possible under the circumstances.

I think what you are trying to say is that the man is 'blurry' and somehow that is a deficit to you.

For me, the opposite, his blurriness comes from him being far from the plane of focus, and it emphasizes that he is some distance away.   Moreover his blurriness from being somewhat out of focus (at a distance) causes the viewer to take time to realize (1) he is there, and (2) to recognize that he is part of the photo.

A casual observer, without more, might pass this photo by (a I did when he was presented more dark) as just being a photo of the woman taking a photo.

As enhanced here, it takes on greater meaning.

I would not change his positioning or sharpness for anything.

I very much like this photo, and sorry that part of it disappoints you.  Perhaps after reading this you can have another look and tell me how you feel now?

This does not invalidate your impression; it is honest and real and not to be denigrated at all, as I respect it and you for letting me know.

Thanks for contributing; it is helpful to have such a viewpoint told to me, and I am marking your contribution as 'helpful'.

john

John (Crosley)

I am convinced by your explanation, but partly. You are right: not being in DOF adds value to image that being as a street ph. Otherwise it might seen as an arranged comp. So it would not emphasize enough the situation.

The man should be in frame as the woman are: So it would not give the impression of "captured by mistake".

By the way, do you live in Ukraine?

Best regards.

Hasan

I am glad you are 'partially convinced' by what I wrote above.

You write somehow the man should be in the same frame as the woman.

To my mind, even partially obscured, he is.  And his partial visual obscurity to my mind even adds to the strength of the capture . . . . to have him whole body or even most of his upper body in the frame would be an entirely other photo; maybe yours,  but not mine.

Frankly, I wouldn't change a thing; I'm not saying this is the best photo in the world, but I think now it's the 'best photo that could be obtained under the circumstance, bar none'.

I invite, however, other comments, even if they disagree with mine.

Hasan Kahin, I find it interesting you ask 'where I live?' as that is a matter that may have special legal, social and other significance.

I am in Ukraine, sometimes a lot,from time to time, but my exact residence, if I even have one, or where I claim domicile, residency, am physically at any one time, etc., is a matter for me only.

You may make surmises that may or may not be correct from your observation, but they may very well be incorrect, as sometimes appearances can be deceiving (other times, not).

Sorry to be mysterious, but this is a matter of precise legal significance that is unrelated to this photo, this forum, or Photo.net in general, let alone anybody but myself, as i have the sole knowledge of that question. 

I know that may sound mysterious still,, but it is precise, it is legal, it is correct, and the answer remains a matter for me to talk about with authority, and no one else in the world.

Again, sorry if this somehow seems offensive or defensive, but I reveal on this service much of my life, but other parts of my life, I keep to myself . . . . and for that I have privacy.

I hope you do understand and respect that and understand that is a question for my knowledge and expertise solely, and not to be discussed in this forum.

john

John (Crosley)

Sorry John, if I bothered you by that Q. It was just a sole curiosity. Since I got the impression that you are from US. Of course someone may live anywhere he likes. And living different regions of world should be great experince.

Take care. Hasan

I think some brief and nonspecific explanation is in order.

My 'residency' has enormous significance for one or many purposes, and my 'stating it here, would be an act of indiscretion on my part.

Various persons/entities have a stake in proving or disproving my 'residency' and where it actually is, so if the question had come from a long-term member, such as member Ruud Albers, who has my trust, while I would not have answered his question, I would have NO suspicion about motives.

Since you joined less than a month ago, the seemingly 'idle' question of where I live (reside) may  be a simple question as you state, or it may have  been a stalking horse, for someone with interest in making me reveal my residency, a matter which has a large variety of legal significances, and is a matter to be determined by me (with counsel) and it may even vary depending on the law applied, as laws even in the USA legally can conflict on issue such as at least domicile.

E.G., two states successfully have claimed and received inheritance taxes on an individual's estate based on the claim of each state that the individual was an exclusive domiciliary of State One according to allegations of State One and an exclusive domiciliary of State Two, according to State Two's allegations (as I recall) and in the end states took 100% of their claimed inheritance tax from the deceased individual under his claimed 'exclusive' domicile in 'State One and State Two.

Well, you might ask, how can a person be an exclusive (sole) domiciliary of two states and his estate subject to 2 x 100% of inheritance taxes for two States.

The issue went to the US Supreme Court which upheld the claims of both states to claim their inheritance taxes 100% without apportionment, based on the apparently conflicting claims.  The opinion appears to fall outside of reason and common sense and turn the word 'exclusive' (sole) domicile on its head, but the US Supreme Court said that was OK.  Residence is not always domicile, either, and it is a legal matter.

Since you joined September 23, and it is possible various persons want to have me commit to one 'residence' or another' or just any residency for their own selfish reasons, such a question from a brand new member bears extra scrutiny . . . . no matter how innocently it may have been posed.

So, to the extent it was just idle curiosity, you can take heart that I am not a Ukrainian citizen  but a US citizen . . . and that I frequently have spent time in Ukraine to photograph.

As to 'residency' questions that is another matter which coming from a brand new member, is suspect and by my answers to you I wish to signal to others who may wish to use this site or forum to seek answers to such questions, they will NOT be answered.

Now, as I suspect is almost certainly the case, your question was entirely innocently framed, I do seriously apologize.  Sometimes in doing innocent things we trip over mines in a minefield, however unknowingly.

I know you are scratching your head about this and prior answers, but every once in a while people with 'agendas' 'innocently' post questions such as yours and consequences of an 'idle' answer can unwittingly  be enormous and harmful.

Ukraine is an independent country with (like every country) interest and control over who is and who is not a 'resident'.  You may not have considered that; but I as an American try to obey all laws, and not run afoul of any.

An ill thought out answer (casual answer) to your question, could have unintended and adverse consequences.

In any case, I am at home photographing in LA's Farmers Market or Venice Beach as I am in Ukraine (check my portfolio) -- both have been photographed within the last sixty days and routinely over the past year as well as other countries besides Ukraine and the USA -- e.g., Austria, Germany, Canada, and so forth.

Please do not let this one 'trigger' question and my response prevent you from commenting on my photographs; I invite comments whether or not I agree with them, as the thoughtful answers I try to provide are provoked by such questions and help me to learn not only about my photography as an art, but how it is viewed by others.

A great advantage of Photo.net is to get honest opinions about one's photos, and if you look carefully, I get LOTS of critiques.  Not all of them are critiques I agree with, but I try to treat all with equanimity and good grace, for they give me a chance to learn and that has large value to me.

Best wishes and welcome here anytime.

john

John (Crosley)

A pleasant shot. It reminds me what my daughter does to me all the time, other than putting her hand over the lens at the critical moment..grrr.. Cool shot.

I'm very proud of how this photo has turned out, especially since (rarely) it shows 'street' so well in color.

However, it is NOT a color dependent photo; it looks extremely good in B&W, also, and perhaps makes the graphical or compositional point better in black and white (there no red cap of hers to draw in the eye -- red, you know, has special powers to attract view that has not been explored.)

I also hate it to find a hand in front of my lens; almost always smart ass kids thinking they're funny!  Hah Hah.  That's when I turn to expletives, but for me those kids never are related.

Thanks for an interesting (and flattering) post.

john

John (Crosley)