faces in time Time's Almost Up

This photo, one of five which took about 20 to 40 seconds to shoot,

is of a sidewalk citizen of San Francisco, during a recent two-hour

photo tour of the city. Your ratings and critiques are invited and

most welcome. (If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit

a helpful and constructive comment/Please share your superior

knowledge to help improve my photography.) Thanks! Enjoy! (and be

thankful that you're not living on the street like him) John

John, this is amazing control of DOF. Very well done. The only suggestion I could make would be - perhaps a very light fill flash to throw some more light into the eyes. Although, fill flash is often not possible on a street walkaround. All in all, great shot.

This guy was just inches away from me, or a foot or so, in any case, minimum focusing distance just for his face. This photo was taken with a long (telephoto) zoom, and focus was on his face.

 

I have another with focus on his hand, which is almost equally as good, but one finger is a little cut off so it won't be put up for critique.

 

The sinewy hand also made an interesting capture, with the face out of focus. Interesting effect.

 

I took five photos of this guy in about 40 seconds, before he could react and turn away.

 

You might look in my 'faces' folder for one of him turning away, for a completely different look, and then in 'comments' under that, but a B&W version of that photo, for quite another look.

 

I think it probably is even better in B & W, except the 'red' of the parking meter in that photo doesn't show through.

 

And yeah, fill flash, especially from shooting from inside a car is impossible as the auto 'headliner' and window frame would cut off the flash, if I used one of my SB800 flashes, and it certainly would 'spook' guys like this, don't you think?

 

And I kind of like the mystery in his face, and unless a 'fill flash' were set on absolute minimum fill (which may be impossible with such a closeup), one would end up 'filling' his face so much it would destroy the composition (it would put a sparkle in his eyem, but is a 'sparkle' in the eye what you are looking for in a photo as this?)

 

I think the darkness adds rather than detracts from the image. (And if a fill flash were used, it would meaning a stopped-down aperture, and destroy the depth of field. That is because the power of modern flashes, even set to match the aperture, would still have too much 'flash' and thereby overpower the camera's ability to work at full aperture, literally overwashing a subject in light, I think.)

 

But the depth of field is essential, as you note, also to my mind.

 

John

Again a very good photo John.

So natural, i really like it.

(if my english was better, i could give better

comments:)

Ellen.

This is one of the more 'iffy' photos in my folder, in part because of the out-of-focus hand. I had enough light for lots of depth of field, but no time to adjust my iso/asa and the aperture setting, so this is what you get.

 

I actually put this one up to see the reaction; I'm glad you like it. Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

I think, that is what i like, its spontaneous.

To me it is often more important what atmosphere

a photo has. (more important as the 'perfect'

photo. )

I do have photo's i dont post on photonet,but i like them a lot, because of the intention i made them with.(if you can still follow my english.....)

Anyway, what i like, maybe others dont like :)

You cant please anyone, so keep taking those nice pictures John!

 

 

 

oh oh, i made a mistake i think. I didnt mean

everyone ,but everybody.

You cannot please everybody.

English is not sooooo easy :)

Ellen.

It's interesting this photo has attracted 14 ratings, yet the viewership after a full run is less than 1700 views.

 

That is a disconnect -- it suggests that artistically this photo is successful, or at least worthy of note, but that it is not 'popular', perhaps because of the subject matter.

 

Addendum, Nov. 1: Interestingly enough, this photo is next to the photo 'Little Celeste' of a young girl that has attracted only 8 ratings, but has over 18,000 views today, and mounting. That photo is less commented on, also, and despite its low ranking (fair ratings only) and thus low placement on the TRP search engine, which ranks in terms primarily of 'ratings' for aesthetics, comments, and originality, that photo has done extremely well, and is bound soon to be one of my most-viewed photos. Interesting . . .

 

John Crosley (reflecting)