The Flower Vendor *

This is 'The Flower Vendor', a street photograph from an unnamed

country. Let me know what you think; your ratings and critiques are

invited and most welcome. (If you rate harshly or very negatively,

please honor me with a constructive comment/Please share your

superior knowledge to help advance my photography.) Thanks! Enjoy!

;-)

 

John

Nice telling shot John. It's a good slice of the old woman's life. That white section at lower left is a bit of a detraction though

Foreground is a bit messy. I would crop it so that it would just include the roses.

I was drawn to this woman because, although old, she found beauty in her own color coordination -- and undoubtedly chosen to contrast and compliment the colors of the flowers she is selling.

 

I agree, that the foreground is somewhat distracting and wish that the white at the lower left had not been there.

 

I'm going to mull over this photo, and look at others I took on film, which I didn't review before posting this, but the quality (of film) is not so high as this and more grainy.

 

Thanks for commenting -- very helpful and reinforces what I was thinking.

 

John

I wish the roses had been taller. I'm a full-frame kind of guy, but sometime a crop is appropriate.

 

The wall background behind her -- out of focus -- seems to work nicely with the color of her coat and her matching scarf.

 

Who knows, I may crop and repost, or just crop and add a link in a comment.

 

I'm pondering.

 

Thanks for your help; it's important to me.

 

John

Other than slight contrast adjustment (very minimal), and sizing for web posting, this image is completely untouched by Photoshop or other image editing program. This photo, I think, is a triumph of what a digital camera can do at its best resolution in late Spring shade -- I know it looks a little like the woman's scarf has been 'selected' at the top for editing or post-processing, but it has not, and any apparent 'artifacts' are simply natural captures.

 

For me, this type of posting is the epitome of photography -- not having to increase contast, boost saturation, select areas that are need burning or dodging, etc. -- just take the image and post it. ;-)

 

Addendum Aug 24, 2005. I know that the woman's outline looks somewhat like she's been 'selected' for Photoshopping, but it's entirely natural, a result of selective depth of field, and possibly some digital camera 'sharpening'.

 

John

Beautiful, to me.

This photo is interesting to me, (as well as beautiful), as it's not the sort of photo I'm known for producing -- yet it's just another photo opportunity that I came across (and I took both film and digital photos of this woman - knowing that she was a good subject. (I may have better somewhere from my film work; I'm not sure).

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

John

My first thought on viewing even the thumbnail was the statues of Mary I'd sit looking at in church on a sunday - she even has a vase of flowers at her feet.

 

A lovely candid moment.

 

All the best, Ellen

Another one of those "decisive moments" well-captured... love the composition and overall warm mood - there is a gentle air to this scene.

 

I am still amazed by your ability to record that sense of atmosphere in your photographs.

 

6/6. Regards,

Ellen, I continue to be amazed by the interesting comments you give; I never would have thought of an image of Mary, but then I was not reared Catholic (a close second -- Episcopal, but it lacked the worship of the Virgin Mary -- and hence I have no interest in reading this year's highest-selling novel which seeks to poke holes in that worship).

 

As noted above, this is NOT the sort of image I am known for producing, but I took a great many digital AND film photos of this lady, looking for the correct capture.

 

And, I decided on the one in which you could NOT see her face, as I was 'captured' by the colors and the way they worked together and thought her face distracting.

 

This definitely is best posted as a 'color photo' and indeed may primarily be 'color dependent' regardless of what some 'critics' say ('there is no 'color dependent' photo').

 

Thanks for your wonderful commnents; I always enjoy them.

 

John

Matt,

 

I'm an older guy and have some talent, but hardly developed; I wish I had 1/10th of the native talent you have and had a full lifetime in front of me to look at with that talent to develop.

 

However, I'm 'shooting' overtime, it would seem (over 450 images taken and posted the last 1.4 years), trying to 'make up for lost time', but you'd actually be amazed how little time I spend taking photographs.

 

At the rate I take and post them, you'd think I was shooting all day, every day, but in truth I only take photos a few minutes here and there, but I DO take a camera with me, wherever.

 

It's been months since I grabbed more than one camera and said 'I'm going to try to take good photos'. What you see posted NOT from overseas, is just what I've driven by and stopped with my everpresent camera(s).

 

You are always welcome here, as you well know.

 

John

I used to wonder, when I would view photos on Photo.net or elsewhere that had a similar quality, just 'how' the photographer had been able to make such a capture.

 

And with color photos, so many times, I felt that such photos were heavily Photoshopped . . . and felt that since I seldom use much Photoshop, I would not be able to produce such a photograph -- I just don't Photoshop heavily at all, and often only to retain an image's 'original' appearance or to rescue an otherwise deficient photo.

 

But this photo is really unenhanced by Photoshop in the color, except for minor contrast adjustments, and certainly the 'saturation' control of Photoshop was NOT used at all -- the colors are entirely natural, and as they looked in reality.

 

What is NOT NATURAL here is the 'look' that the camera captured. The human eye on a bright day has great 'depth of field' and this was taken on such a bright day, though she was in shadow, so my human eye saw her and the background all in sharp detail.

 

The human eye did not see this view as the camera did, and this effect was achieved with the shutter speed set so high that the aperture could be opened to its maximum. Using the largest available aperture is what has set the background out of focus.

 

So, in a way, almost every photograph taken in midday sun or shade with an out of focus background, is not a true depiction of 'reality'.

 

In fact, that is part of the photographer's 'art' -- the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus to narrow the plane of acceptable focus to emphasize a subject.

 

The smaller the digital sensor, compared to the 'size' of the lens, affects the ability to throw the background out of focus or effectively limit acceptable focus to a small plane (as here).

 

Manufacturers are tempted for cost factors, to create small digital sensors, but if they are coupled with lenses developed for regular 35 mm cameras, the ratio of sensor to lens size becomes askew, and the ability of the photographer to isolate the plane of acceptable focus is thereby restricted.

 

That's one reason that so-called 'point and shoot' cameras for the most part can seldom produce results such as this.

 

If a small sensor is used, and a lens of proportionally smaller 'size' is used by the manufacturer, then the camera probably retains the ability to produce such results, but through the lens (TTL) viewfinding is almost essential to producing such results -- as it is necessary for the photographer first to 'view' or 'see' the scene before pressing the shutter release, compared to a rangefinder camera.

 

In fact, the majority of 'street' photos taken with Leicas and similar rangefinder cameras tends to be in sharp focus, foreground to background, because such cameras and the photographers who use them often resort to 'stopping down' the aperture for maximum acceptable sharpness from foreground to background -- and such cameras are fairly difficult to focus quickly with their split-image viewfinders, and sometimes the viewfinder cannot even 'see' the entire photo with some lenses, because a protruding lens sometimes cuts off a portion of the viewfinder scene.

 

This contrasts with single lens reflex cameras which photographers often focus precisely on just a narrow range of acceptable sharpness at maximum aperture as a matter of course. Such lenses easily achieve such views in low-light situations. And, single lens viewfinding almost exclusively is confined to the largest aperture, to allow the photographer the brightest image to 'see' and 'focus' with. (Many autofocus camera focus mechanisms will not even function unless a lens of larger aperture -- say, f5.6 or f8 or above, is used) for the focus phase. All auto exposure SLR cameras focus at 'full' or 'wide open' aperture, then the lens is 'stopped down' mechnically at the instant of shutter release only. (Hence the need for a manual stop-down control so the SLR photographer can 'view' the final range of acceptable focus -- a view not achievable by a rangefinder or point and shoot camera.)

 

Now, SLR camera manufacturers have increased the shutter speeds to 1/8,000 of a second or higher, and often the SLR photographer can throw the background out of focus even in broad daylight, (especially if the film speed is set to its slower speeds).

 

Formerly, a photo such as this, would not have been possible with early single lens reflex cameras, because often their shutter speeds topped out at 1/1000th sec. -- e.g. the Nikon F, Nikkormat (Nikomat), etc., and too much light came through the lens at such at proper shutter speeds attainable by such cameras to allow the photographer to use a 'wide open' aperture in midday out of doors.

 

As a result, early single lens reflex (SLR) cameras were limited in their ability to produce such results, especially when more sensitive (higher number ISO/ASA films) were used.

 

(Some thoughts on why one may see more such photos now, especially from Single Lens Reflex cameras, as opposed to Rangefinder or 'point and shoot' cameras).

 

John (Crosley)

Ellen,

 

I reviewed the film captures and found one that may appeal to your 'religious' instincts and trigger other memories . . .

 

It is attached.

 

John

Ellen H. Here is a 'religious' version you don't have to click on.

 

John '-)

what a talent for observation you have!

 

All the best, Ellen

I humbly hold my hands together so the Almighty might think I have worshipped Him when my Judgment Day comes (assuming He is not seeing into my mind this very minute and at all other times, and knows how false my gesture truly may be.)

 

I like her hands -- and remember seeing hands like that from those praying, as I squirmed in the church pew, knees sore from kneeling, back starting to ache during a long Communion Service, and a little 'aroused' from the sight of all the attractive coeds whose sororities made them attend church every Sunday, dressed their prettiest, sometimes skirts hiked up as they kneeled, and other positional attitudes of great interest to a very young male plunging headlong into pubescence.

 

And, as I squirmed in my various discomforts, I sometime saw hands such as those in the added photo, clenched in prayer atop the pew behind me from those actually communing with God, rather than suffering from musculoskeletal and ligamentous difficulties while other, embarrassing bodily parts were feeling the effect of lots of male hormones.

 

I looked at going to Church those Sundays as 'The Agony and the Ecstasy'.

 

John

A belated 'thank you'. You needn't 'carry water' for anyone, your youthful (I don't even really need to note your youth) energy and talent are so great, and you have your own style and ability to see I wish I could emulate, but can't.

 

I am stuck with my viewpoints and my views -- capturing a wide variety of subjects in a wide variety of ways, but definitely not in ways that are your style. I must be the most eclectic photographer on Photo.net, I think.

 

Today I photographed a hawk perched on a wire overhead, not half so well as you, through the open sunroof of my car, parked in the single lane of a major highway, stopped in a hot day (thankfully with no traffic) with a 500 millimeter lens, and thought of your wonderful capture of a hawk, wings unfolding, about to take off into flight and lamented on how unremarkable my hawk captures were.

 

You have set a very high bar, Matt.

 

John (Crosley)

To congratulate a model and friend (Dasha), shown elsewhere, I stopped where this woman and other vendors were in center, downtown Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, and asked for some roses. I realized then that the woman whom I was asking for some roses from was in actuality this exact woman, a connection I had not made before, since her face is obscured in this capture.

 

The flowers were beautiful, certainly quite expensive by Ukraine standards, were arranged in odd numbers (even numbers connote by superstition, misfortune, and are given at events such as at funerals), and then I realized that this woman couldn't actually distinguish at night how many flowers were in the bunch and had to be helped counting blooms.

 

Perhaps she had macular degeneration/cataract problems or some other problem, untreated, and she probably was on a pension, which probably was set or fixed long ago, so its value had deteriorated greatly. But being on the 'street' in the city center, also is probably good for her/she's at the heart of things -- something she wouldn't be in an American 'institution' such as a retirement community or nursing home.

 

It's a mixed blessing, being so poor; she has fellow (sister) vendors, and people don't bother her or give her trouble, she is a fixture in her town, she apparently doesn't have to battle for a choice street location, but she does have to compete for a sale, and vigorously so. Other women offered to sell for less, and with gusto, but when I recognized this woman, I could NOT stop myself from paying her price AND thanking her profusely -- she's a kind, gentle, graceful woman (who cared enough to color coordinate her smock and scarf one day a year or so ago, (see photo) despite her very advanced age and probably deep poverty -- a woman of style and grace.

 

John (Crosley)