Well here I go.....I haven't shot much B&W before and would probably like to do more as long as I can stand not to use colour. This pretty new to me a s is the style used here with my subject and compostion.

The shallow aperture (isolation) is my signature used with a lot of my photography, and it's the only thing I kept standard when shooting this picture. I like the fact that the man looks as if he is only playing for himself in his own world. If he had others around him looking and interested, I don't think that I would've even taken the shot. The silence displayed in the photo is almost contradictory to the music he is playing, and that's what I like most about it.

PS: For those interested this is the new Summilux Asph that I got in a trade for the original version. Too me it seems no different. If anything maybe better at f/1.4.

What do you all think? Flame away if need be!

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=617797&size=lg

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002

Answers

I like it too, for the same reason. But even more for the positioning of everything. E.g. the customers sitting out at the side, "looking aside", and the person dead center, out at the back, "but coming up front". I don't know if that's what you're looking for as re critique, but for me everything I see there is exactly what I'd like to shoot too. But If I were there, and shot one minute beforehand -- or one minute later -- things probably wouldn't have looked exactly that way (for me).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), March 07, 2002.

Kristian. I like this shot, but you cut off the poor dear's foot! If your camera were pointed down a tad, then the subject would all be there, creating an interesting form. This may be my own pet peeve, but photography creates two dimensional forms out of a 3d world, and I like to see the whole subject. Another point from a National Geographic photographer: "The background is more important than the subject." I thought this daft when I first read it, but again, in the two dimensional world of photography, it is at least as important. (Luv that 'Lux...)

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 07, 2002.

Kristian,

By angling down a bit you would also have lost the distracting white area at the top, just right of centre. Also, by framing a bit to the right you would have made a stronger composition by eliminating the dead space to his left and would have included more of the local environment, adding more to the isolation you were looking for.

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), March 07, 2002.

Kristian:

Great shot! I personally like cutting off the foot. I do this or things like it, routinely, as it makes the viewer "fill in the blank" so to speak. In my mind, the viewer's imagination is a great part of any great photo. Keep up the good work and please, keep sharing!

Ben

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), March 07, 2002.

Hi, Kristian:

I like your photo, too. And my only observation refers to the foot too.

However it is a good image and the silence / music contradiction is also my selection as a strong point of the image.

Regards, Kristian. Thanks for sharing.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 07, 2002.

I definately agree with tilting the camera down to avoid the bright light centre of the frame, but I am not sure I would've done it to include the feet. I didn't exclude the feet intentionally, but too me this is how I saw the scene and how I recorded it. So really at the time I wasn't concerned with the feet, so I am not really now either. Call it a Eugene Smith style of photography, but this is how I've been brought up in my self taught art.

But to conlclude, it wouldn't have been bad either if i did include the feet. Maybe I should've, as it couldn't have hurt, could it?!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.