Really???

[RBSinTo]

Taken earlier this year at Nathan Phillip's Square in front of our New city Hall here in downtown Toronto.
There is an elevated, covered stage in the square and as I passed it I noticed a couple standing on the steps engaged in an intense and animated conversation. Sensing an opportunity, I watched them through the camera and when their expressions seemed right, grabbed this shot.
Converted to black and white in Photoshop.
motorized Nikon F3P
Tamron SP 35~105 2.8 AIS manual focus
Fuji 100 ISO colour slide
2.8 @ 1/500th

[Shadowman]

Nice capture of the lines.

[RBSinTo]

Nice capture of the lines.

John,
Not sure I understand your comment.
The lines are irrelevant to the story being told, so why even bring them up?
Robert

[Donald]

"The lines are irrelevant to the story being told, so why even bring them up?"

They're a bit obvious to really be ignored. If it's the frame it's part of the picture. You cannot have two lines crossing the main subjects in the image and ask us to ignore them. If you don't wanted them commented upon, then they shouldn't be there.

[RBSinTo]

"The lines are irrelevant to the story being told, so why even bring them up?"

They're a bit obvious to really be ignored. If it's the frame it's part of the picture. You cannot have two lines crossing the main subjects in the image and ask us to ignore them. If you don't wanted them commented upon, then they shouldn't be there.

Donald,
I guess its all about what interests you in the shot.
My eyes are immediately drawn to the faces and expressions of the subjects and what is around them is secondary, which is why I didn't bother to spend a ton of time getting rid of the railings, the vertical edges of the glass (which run up the man's leg), and the various other lines that run behind the subjects. I thought about doing just that, but felt the subject's expressions would be more important to the viewer. Perhaps here I was wrong.
Robert

[Manfred M]

Robert - you and I must look at images slightly differently.

Like Donald, the first thing I noticed were the various lines, especially the diagonal ones that are from the stair railings as well as the ones running through the subject's heads. The faces are quite secondary to this image. I suspect the difference in point of view is that you have the 'history" of taking the shot and interaction between the two in your head, but all we have as a frame of reference is the image in front of us.

[RBSinTo]

Robert - you and I must look at images slightly differently.

Like Donald, the first thing I noticed were the various lines, especially the diagonal ones that are from the stair railings as well as the ones running through the subject's heads. The faces are quite secondary to this image. I suspect the difference in point of view is that you have the 'history" of taking the shot and interaction between the two in your head, but all we have as a frame of reference is the image in front of us.

Manfred,
I agree with your assessment of my having an history or emotional attachment to the shot, and yes, based on your comment, we obviously do look at images differently. But I must also note that of the five sites where this was posted, there have been discussion and comments at four, and only here has there been a fixation with the lines rather than the interplay between the subjects. All the other discussion has been conjecture about their relationship and the conversation, which was my intention when shooting it and posting it.
This was a grab, and as such I neither had the opportunity nor the desire to move the subjects to cleaner surroundings.
Nevertheless, thanks for commenting.
Robert

[xpatUSA]

. . I noticed a couple standing on the steps engaged in an intense and animated conversation. Sensing an opportunity, I watched them through the camera and when their expressions seemed right, grabbed this shot.

I like the guy's expression, somewhat over-enthusiastic, backed by the waving hands and the intrusion of one foot into her space. Must be a salesman!

Countered by her backwards-leaning stance, crossed-arms protection, raised eyebrows and down-turned lips.

Lines, what lines . . ?

[DanK]

Robert,

I have to agree with Donald and Manfred: I find the lines very distracting. As one would expect, I noticed the brightest one first, but IMHO, the one that detracts the most is the diagonal running into the woman's face. The fact that her face and the wall behind it are almost exactly the same tone makes this problem more severe; what stands out is the light edge, which contrasts with both.

I don't believe in rigidly following rules, but they don't come out of nowhere, and there is a reason why people say that in most cases, lines should lead one into the point of interest, not distract one from it.

You wrote:

But I must also note that of the five sites where this was posted, there have been discussion and comments at four, and only here has there been a fixation with the lines rather than the interplay between the subjects.

I don't know what your experience has been, and I don't know what these other sites are. However, one of the reasons why this is the primary site on which I now post photos is that it is only one of two often generates solid, constructive comments for me.

Dan

[Tronhard]

Perhaps an alternative title:
"Why did you put my pants in the dryer on high? Didn't you realize they'd shrink!!"

[RBSinTo]

Ted /Dan / Trev,
Thanks for commenting.
Ted,
Your comments mirror why I took the shot.
Dan,
One of the greatest challenges with candid photography is the constant difficulty to merge interesting subject situations with wonderful, backgrounds, and unfortunately that is not always possible under the dynamic circumstances that this kind of photography is done. In my case I'll always choose the former over the latter as it is a story that I'm trying to tell, rather than portraying beauty.
Out of curiosity, I always check the work of other photographers, especially when their opinions are very different from mine, and I did so with your pictures.
Your work is beautiful and very precise, and much of it is of static subjects where there is not the same urgency to grab the shot before it disappears forever, so your comments on lines and rules make a great deal of sense. But the urgency of candid work to get the scene, situation, expression often mean that compromises must be made, and I did so here to get what I still feel is a good shot.
And the other sites?
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/really.308118/
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.p...ic,6932.0.html
http://www.photochimps.com/pp/showph...really&cat=500
The fourth site doesn't have a comment, only a "like".
Trev,
Many is the alternate title that has come to mind, but most are not printable.
Robert

[DanK]

Robert,

You're right: most of my photography is the sort that gives me time to think (because I don't do very well when I don't have that time.) The one exception is that I do a lot of candids of people I know, mostly kids, and these don't provide much time to think. They don't show up on my Smugmug site because I never post photos of kids in publicly accessible places. So, I am not a complete stranger to the problem of backgrounds in candid shots, but it isn't my bread and butter.

In any case, I wasn't disparaging your image, just explaining why it doesn't work for me.

Dan

[RBSinTo]

Robert,

You're right: most of my photography is the sort that gives me time to think (because I don't do very well when I don't have that time.) The one exception is that I do a lot of candids of people I know, mostly kids, and these don't provide much time to think. They don't show up on my Smugmug site because I never post photos of kids in publicly accessible places. So, I am not a complete stranger to the problem of backgrounds in candid shots, but it isn't my bread and butter.

In any case, I wasn't disparaging your image, just explaining why it doesn't work for me.

Dan

Dan,
No problem.
I'm glad you took the time to comment.
Robert

[lovelife65]

I smiled when I saw the photo. Given your description of how you watched and waited for the right moment, that means to me you connected. You had involvement. I’m a big fan of Andreas Feininger.
Without emotional connection and impact, I believe he would say the photograph is a failure.
Of course I don’t have the trained expert eye to notice something like he lines first ... I saw the expressions and body language first. Amateur I am, but thanks for the smile this brought about.

[RBSinTo]

I smiled when I saw the photo. Given your description of how you watched and waited for the right moment, that means to me you connected. You had involvement. I’m a big fan of Andreas Feininger.
Without emotional connection and impact, I believe he would say the photograph is a failure.
Of course I don’t have the trained expert eye to notice something like he lines first ... I saw the expressions and body language first. Amateur I am, but thanks for the smile this brought about.

Sharon,
Thanks for the kind words.
We seem to be kindred spirits when it comes to this kind of photography. My eyes are always drawn to the subjects first, and the background is usually secondary. And in this particular case it is their facial expressions and body language that for me make the image in spite of the lines.
Robert