'The Businessman'

This is 'the businessman', during his work day. Your ratings, critiques

and remarks are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very

critically or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; thank you in advance for sharing your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Enjoy! John

This is taken during very light snow; light lines against man's coat are from very light falling snow during longer exposure.

john

John (Crosley)

Great view

Best regards

Xavier Corcobado

xcorcobado.blogspot.com

Thank you Xavier.

john

John (Crosley)

Great tonality. This photo is very graphic. Best regards. Bravo John.

Gilles, welcome.  I don't think I've seen your name here before.  You very accurately describe this photo, for which I thank you.

It's a favorite of mine, for which I fear it may be unheralded.

But as the ages old TV cop said 'That's the name of that tune'  (the one who was alleged to have killed his wife in real life'.)

(me, I'm a pacifist.)

I just take photos.

Thanks Gilles.

john

john (Crosley)

I like how it looks this bw and main subject,what I think is that he is too in center of this image,just my opinion is that a part of left side can be cut because the right one comes with a very good perpsctive,I am not sure about the result just an idea,all my best.

I'm glad you like this.

Yes, this man is in the center; in fact, his back is one-third from the left side and his front one-third from the right side -- so he's exactly in the center.

But perspective must be taken into account.  The vanishing point, right, seems to add additional distance there, and if one counts distance from his back, the right frame edge is 2/3 of the way from the starting place (man's back).

Interestingly, you may not have noticed that the 2:3 aspect ratio of this photo appears distorted somewhat by the reflection on the building column tiles to his rear, which reflect building(s) in the farther distance to his rear.

That reflectivity extends the 'reach' and visibility of what we viewers see beyond otherwise what the left frame boundary would limit us to, and increases the complexity of this photo -- the reflection makes an interesting device, a form of 'semi-reflective mirror' showing us what lies 'beyond' and 'farther away' placing him more in 'context'.

Those reflective tiles are one of the main reasons this photo is far more complex than it seems at first instance,  and same with the man's bulk which (depending on where you start counting from) places him either one-third or two-thirds from each frame edge (both, actually).

Notice also the not-so-prominent repetition of 'threes' in this photo in the three ornamental building columns of this elaborate portico.  He 'anchors' one of these columns, the first, with his bulk, and seems to become 'one with it, in my view.

Or, maybe this is just a photo not to be analyzed, but enjoyed (or not). as one likes).

Not all photos have to undergo such detailed analysis, but this one can withstand it if called for.

Maybe, Radu, this will help you decide better which you prefer, or whether you cling to the idea the left should be trimmed, for that would mean trimming right to the reflective building tile and the ornamental column and leaving nothing 'empty' around it to highlight and frame it. 

Would you want that?

I am not sure I would.

I prefer it the way it is, personally, but that's why they make chocolate and vanilla (and sometimes strawberry).

Thanks Radu.

john

John (Crosley) 

Appreciate John this discussion,I saw the perspective you say,the three columns, and this with main subject is what i like,is normal to have different point of view and to be not all with same ideas.Chocolate and vanilla are both very good so hope to have occasion to discuss next time,all my best.

You are quite welcome here always.  The level of critique and discussion here is on a very high level, which is critique at its best.  I encourage that, and am so glad you came by and contributed.

Do come back and critique other photos (or this one too).

Thanks so much.

john

John (Crosley)

A point not made was the issue of 'texture' and 'pattern', and those two terms seem a pro pos.

Look at the pattern of reflective tiles on the column, left, then look at the -- apparently different arrangement of tiles on the next column down the line -- for an apparent difference in  what I might call 'texture' or 'pattern'.

From our point of view, maybe because of angle of view only, the tiles on the second column do not appear to be reflective.

In addition, since it is snowing and there is 'salt' on the pavement, the snow is melting (no salt and it would have stuck -- it was cold enough), and the pavement itself is reflective, for an additional dimension.

This photo is vastly more complex on analysis than may appear at first glance, I feel, and only on analysis are these 'levels of complexity' revealed; I certainly had not done this analysis prior to posting -- I have a 'gestaltist' (overall) viewpoint when I examine such things at first, generally, though not always.

john

John (Crosley)

I see a man on a cell phone.

Hi John!!

This one makes me want to speak :-)

First of all the one thing that hit me right away was the sleek feel the photo has that some de-noising tool was used. I may be wrong. Although it may be a camera goodie I must say that I kinda need the feel of that grain :-) (the 400 one ;-) )

Secondly I want to see his expression, his face...remember that cigar guy in that old photo of yours with the smoke getting in his face while smiling weirdly (unforgettable)! Something like that!

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2551132

I might be emotionally stuck (in a photographic sense) in an era I havent even lived but I guess I like it - for the chocolate flavour of it hehe

A forever fan of yours :-)

Thank you!

For the meaning of the shot the different persons are as important..! :)

I know what you mean when you say the appearance of a de-noising tool, but being a daylight shot, good light, favorable ISO, there was no need for de-noising tool.  None was used.  Those things create 'smoothness' by taking pixels farther away from each other and joining them, disregarding random 'noise' pixels, achieving a 'smooth' appearance which you seem to see, mistakenly, here.

This is partially a study in reflectivity; why else show the backside of the man?  It's also about relative masses and tonalities.

We do long to see his face, and your mention of the tobacco/cigar/liquor store owner with the stogie is particularly appropriate, but those are a bygone age.  Men in Ukraine cannot afford stogies and they are out of date anyway except perhaps for the very, very well-heeled and certainly NEVER on the street.

His face also might have been a disappointment - perhaps not.  I think maybe you might take into account part of the strength of this photo as being your wondering to see what his face does look like; it draws you into the photo, and if you're left unfulfilled, you do refer to the rest of my work.

Reflectivity does abound from the reflective tiles on the columns to the snowy/slushy/watery sidewalk/plaza on which he walks -- adding to a level of complexity AND tonality.

I'm sad if this leaves you wanting more; perhaps it's just a potato chip of a photo, and you need a whole bag?

Well, there's elsewhere to look, as you have aptly pointed out.

But within its four squares it ain't bad.

Thank you so much over time for your support and your honesty and thoroughness in critiquing.

john

John (Crosley)

Sometimes you write semi-cryptically, and usually I now have little problem understanding you.

However, this comment is a challenge.

Perhaps you mean that these variosu people in this photo who are scattered, front to back, are a strength?

First the man subject, cell phone in hand, then the man walking through the corridor between columns, the man on the plaza, left, farther away, and finally someone far right, hardly identifiable.

Those subjects, one reason I chose this photo from several, help draw the viewer's eye into the photo.  In fact, I took this particular photo because of such richness in depth, which I found unusual and fortunate.

Olaf, did I get it right, or did I misinterpret.?

You are the one with the answer to the question.

I know that your comment has sincere and serious meaning; they always do, and the only question here is one of my understanding.

Pardon me if I seem dense today.

john

John (Crosley)