A street performer finished for the day

[mugge]

I liked the way the street performer is so absorbed in packing up.

[mugge]

Corrected image

[rpcrowe]

Unusual viewpoint but, I like it. Gives the impression of the world passing him by without noticing him...

[mugge]

Unusual viewpoint but, I like it. Gives the impression of the world passing him by without noticing him...

That is right, Richard, I know you should have a subject in mind - I do not want a subject in this image because the street performer is 'invisible,' like so many people are.

[Manfred M]

Ole - I like the concept, but have a bit of an issue with the execution.

The street performer, according to your title, is the subject, but he is such a minor part of the composition, he really gets lost in the crowd. What about a tighter crop that brings him into more prominence and keeping some of the legs of the people walking in the shot. The very right part of the image is definitely superfluous to the composition and you can get rid of some of the legs on the left too.

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, I like the idea as well, although you've pointed out your intended subject I believe the composition is more about the shapes and lines, the tilted frame also creates this visual.

[mugge]

This would be my take on 'the street performer.' I do not think he should be central in the image. He is important only as a part of the whole picture.

A street performer finished for the day by Ole Hansen, on Flickr

[Manfred M]

Ole - what strikes me about this image is that you did not have a clear purpose or clear idea of where you wanted to go with this when you pressed the shutter release as you have made substantive changes to it three times already.

In general, if you are not definitive in terms of where you want to go with the shot, then you likely don't have a strong image.

The subject or point of interest should be apparent to the viewer the moment he or she looks at the shot. If that is not the case, the shot is unlikely to work well.

[mugge]

Manfred, I had a clear purpose. The first change was simply a little bit of lighting issue and the second was a bit of cropping from the right, not from the left because I, rightly or not, never have subscribed to the idea that there must be a center of interest. The whole image is the center of interest.
Cheers Ole

[Manfred M]

rightly or not, never have subscribed to the idea that there must be a center of interest. The whole image is the center of interest.

In general, that is one "rule" that is extremely important to get a strong image.

Just about the only time it is not required is if there are visual cues that guide the viewer through the image. That technique generally only works in landscapes or abstract images. It can work in bodyscapes as these work very much like abstract images and landscapes in terms of how the form flows. Even in those shots, one often needs a point that captures and draws the viewer into the image.

[Round Tuit]

I think that I am with Ole on this one with respect to the centre of interest. The large number of legs is enough to get my attention. Then, I start to explore and find the performer and several other interesting minor scenarios partially hiding in the background. The shadows of the front most pair of legs also point directly to the performer.

[RBSinTo]

Ole,
I agree with Manfred.
The original image has too many elements which rather than resulting in a visual feast are simply a number of distractions.
For me, Manfred's crop eliminates many of them and makes the image stronger.
Robert

[zen]

I like Manfred's crop on this one. Simplified! I.e., fewer elements to draw the eye's attention away from the stated subject!

Zen

[smcrews]

We all have different opinions on what works and what doesn't. I am a believer that photography rules can be broken. If we all follow the same rules we end up all having similar generic photos. What matters is if you are happy with the results Ole. Personally I like what I believe your original concept is with this shot. My advice is to keep breaking the "rules" and stand out from the norm. When they work it makes for far more interesting photography.

[Manfred M]

I am a believer that photography rules can be broken.

So am I, but to break the rules one has to understand why the rules work and their limits.

If we all follow the same rules we end up all having similar generic photos.

That certainly does not reflect my experience. Put three or four highly experienced photographers at the same location and have them all shoot the same subject. Each one will show you different images and all will be strong images. What makes these images different is that each of the photographers will interpret the subject differently and approach the technical aspects of the scene differently. They will organize the material in the frame in their own unique way and will give the image a different mood or feeling to it.

One needs to understand how to craft a strong image and while I personally dislike the word "rules" and I especially dislike the expression "rules of composition", these words / phrases are part of the core concepts that photographers use to explain what works and does not work with a specific image.

What matters is if you are happy with the results Ole.

That I totally agree with.

But that does not mean it is a good image; it just means that you like it. If I look at all the images I see on social media with lots of "Likes", one could assume the photographer will be pleased, even though most people might not think it is a particularly good image. In fact, I would say most images shown on social media would not rate as being "good images" from an aesthetic standpoint.

My advice is to keep breaking the "rules" and stand out from the norm. When they work it makes for far more interesting photography.

Unfortunately, in my experience, this is not a particularly good approach to creating strong images. One has to learn how to create a good image before one can make a great image. We can all get a "lucky shot" now and again, but in my experience good photographers consistently create good images. They also understand why their image works or why it doesn't.

Breaking the rules just for the sake of breaking them rarely gets a photographer moving in the right direction.

In my experience there are three main phases that a photographer goes through:

Step 1. My images are not as good as I would like. I'm going to have to learn the "rules of composition" to create strong images.

Step 2. I have learned the "rules of composition" and while my rules are better than they were, they still are not as good as I would like them to be. Creating a strong and compelling image is much more than trying to follow a standard recipe.

Step 3. I understand what makes a good image. It is a combination of the technical choices I have made in creating the image in the camera, the way that I have arranged the material in the frame (composition, use of space and eliminating distracting elements) and the emotional impact my image has on the viewer. Some of the "rules of composition" can help me get there some of the time, but in general they play a fairly minor role in creating a strong image.

[DanK]

IMHO, it's fine to break rules--in fact, I don't like to call them rules--as long as there is a good reason to. Most often, that entails knowing why people often follow the rule and then deciding on another way to meet that goal. To use an example that I have used before, many of the wonderful impressionist landscapes on exhibit in the Clark Institute in Williamstown, MA don't follow the "rule of thirds," but they do accomplish what the rule of thirds is often used to accomplish.

This image doesn't work for me. It's very busy, and my eye doesn't know where it is supposed to go. #7 is better because the big distraction of the woman's heel on the right has been removed. Even then, however, I find my eye flitting from place to place and rarely ending up at the performer, who is small, lower in contrast than many of the disembodied legs, and out of focus. Without the caption, I am not certain I would have realized that the photo is about a performer.

I have seen some successful images that lack a main subject or focal point, but they are usually not about people--they are generally abstract photos.

[joebranko]

This is a very interesting thread! I've learnt more from this than I could have learned from reading on this topic in a book or magazine. Thanks Ole for posting this.

[RBSinTo]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, having already given my dissenting opinion of Ole's originally posted photo, I offer for your consideration "Landscape with the fall of Icarus" by Flemish Renaissance painter Pieter Bruegel the Elder:

Robert