'Suspended . . . Forever'

I took this some time ago, and thought, 'interesting; because he's

suspended like this, but still mundane, because it's a somewhat

common crowd scene, and he's a performer. But each time I look at

he's STILL SUSPENDED and will be like that forever. Cartier-Bresson

gave up drawing and painting when he realized that a photograph could

freeze a moment in time forever, and he 'took to the streets'. This is

one moment, frozen in time. So far as we viewers are concerned, this

man is frozen through eternity in this position. 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 photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Hello Jhon, after a not-so-short silence. A nice street moment is frozen.The man's hand and legs are blurred,not as distinct as the crowd behind.Will it not be better to keep him sharply at focus,though I admit it may not be that easy, keeping the background crowd a bit blurred? I want to know your opinion,please.

Please give the tecnical details.

Regards,

Susmit

As I write, this I don't have access to EXIF data to tell you precise exposure time, etc., but the man IS in as SHARP FOCUS, as the background, BUT, he is blurred because of a slower shutter speed, caused by a smaller aperture, set that way to keep them all in acceptable focus front to back but at the expense of the slow shutter speed - maybe 1/100th to a little faster or maybe even slower -- it's possible somewhere in there, I think, based on considerable experience and based on his distance from me (this is a crop) and the lateness of the afternoon, shading the brightness as I remember it.

There was a trade off with this particular camera and lens combination, but 'blur' is what you're mentioning or noticing, NOT out-of-focus problems at all, and instead is subject movement, indicating this man's motion.

If I had to do it over again, I suppose I might have (if I had a camera that could do it without excess 'noise' such as a Nikon D3 or D700, have chosen a higher ISO, and been able to choose a higher shutter speed and really FREEZE him with no trace of subject motion.

Photography is 'trial and error, and I had no clear 'vision' of what this photo would be until I saw it on review and posted it this morning when I captioned it.

Otherwise I might have taken it differently, or tried to get a different, lower noise at higher camera ISO (not really easily possible) and so to set a higher shutter speed to really 'freeze' this guy and keep ALL in focus, as here.

Best to you, Susmit. Good question. I hope I've answered it thoroughly and satisfactorily..

John (Crosley)

is the unplanned intersection of pavement expansion lines beneath and behind this guy, which from the camera's viewpoint are directly behind him, as well as the white/yellow line which parallels the expansion line as it goes down Venice Beach Walk.

These lines intersect roughly at the point of his feet, which aids in drawing attention to this man's athletic actions, and of course, one can draw imaginary 'stare lines' from the eyes of each crowd member to him, and project their view to him also.

In essence this is a study both in symmetry (or partial symmetry) which is somewhat contrarian considering this is an 'action' shot, and he is thus 'suspended for all time' in this position at least in this photograph, and it is also a study in the use of lines.

There is the curved arc of his body, which is a 'C' curve - one of the most interesting lines in photography - a line which causes the eye often to follow it and which engages the eye.

In addition, as noted above, there are the intersecting pavement expansion crack lines (and the stripe) which come together just behind his feet,as well as the imaginary lines one can envision by extending the stare of each crowd member to this man and his antic.

In essence (but alas, not in short), this photo has more compositional elements going for it, than I first could explain.

I try to choose photos to display and post that are 'interesting' (for as I noted several years ago, 'to post uninteresting photos may be the greatest sin of all').

But underlying 'interesting photos' often is good composition as well as interesting subjects. Subjects who are interesting often do not do so well if they are not captured in some interesting way. Here, this guy I think I captured in an interesting way and only would have improved the capture if I had turned to a higher ISO so I could capture him sharper (less blurred) from forward motion.

However, I am not even sure about that. It may be that his blurriness from motion may be an attribute rather than a failing. I cannot know for sure, and never will know -- it is a matter of personal opinion only now, and subject only to speculation.

John (Crosley)

Return to this photo at any of those times, and no matter when, so long as it's posted, this guy will still be in this position.

He'll be here forever.

No matter how much you will it, or re-look at the photo, he ain't changing his position.

Come on back in a while and remember to look, OK?

It'll prove the point.

john

John (Crosley)

Which way did he jump from, or did he jump at all?

Did he jump from his hands?

His feet?

Was he dropped from on high?

Did he jump up simultaneously from hands and legs?

john

John (Crosley)