Sparks

[Wandjina]

I was inspired by the conversation surrounding Manfred's images of "The Machinist" so I went out to see what I could find.
This factory has been described as "being in a time warp back to the 1960's." As you can see, safety issues are not paramount.
I did very little processing to the original image.

[escape]

One of the things that bothered me about this image was that the main subject was not sharp enough. I went to your website and viewed the image and it was in focus. The image lost its sharpness when it was posted here. The one on your website is nice and sharp. ( On website, click in general section in lower right to see photo.)

[xpatUSA]

One of the things that bothered me about this image was that the main subject was not sharp enough. I went to your website and viewed the image and it was in focus. The image lost its sharpness when it was posted here. The one on your website is nice and sharp. ( On website, click in general section in lower right to see photo.)

Same can happen on DPR.

[Wandjina]

One of the things that bothered me about this image was that the main subject was not sharp enough. I went to your website and viewed the image and it was in focus. The image lost its sharpness when it was posted here. The one on your website is nice and sharp. ( On website, click in general section in lower right to see photo.)

Thank you for the heads up on the focus of the original image. I have now replaced it with the one from the webpage and I hope it is a little better.

[Manfred M]

Another strong and effective image, Martin. Steel being oxidized in a cutting or grinding process has always been an effective element in shots. You've managed to tame that part of the image well and our eyes do fall on your subject, who is peering straight over his glasses and into the camera.

Needless to say, I like it.

[lovelife65]

Wonderful image capturing the true emotion of the scene. Very well done!

[DanK]

I think this is a superb image on several counts.

I agree that it doesn't need heavy processing, but I think some basic processing would strengthen it even more. For example, I would tone down some of the bright areas in front of the machinist and crop off some of the material behind him. I have to run now and can't do this carefully, but a very quick illustration of the directions I might explore is this:

[RBSinTo]

Another strong and effective image, Martin. Steel being oxidized in a cutting or grinding process has always been an effective element in shots. You've managed to tame that part of the image well and our eyes do fall on your subject, who is peering straight over his glasses and into the camera.

Needless to say, I like it.

I agree with Manfred's comments except that the subject looking at the camera and not concentrating on his task is precisely what I don't like about this shot. To me his pose makes the shot look contrived, rather than a spontaneous slice of time in a day in the life of the worker.
Robert

[Tom Barry]

I agree with Manfred's comments except that the subject looking at the camera and not concentrating on his task is precisely what I don't like about this shot. To me his pose makes the shot look contrived, rather than a spontaneous slice of time in a day in the life of the worker.
Robert

I must agree.

[Manfred M]

I agree with Manfred's comments except that the subject looking at the camera and not concentrating on his task is precisely what I don't like about this shot. To me his pose makes the shot look contrived, rather than a spontaneous slice of time in a day in the life of the worker.
Robert

Robert - from a safety standpoint, I would agree with you, the abrasive saw operator should be paying attention to what he is working on rather than looking at the camera.

The reality of the situation is that that once the work piece has been set up and clamped down, he is working based on the tactile feedback from the saw. He knows from experience how much pressure to apply. It can certainly take several minutes to cut through a piece of steel, so having someone look away or chat with someone nearby is actually not at all unusual, in my experience.

[DanK]

It doesn't look at all contrived to me. It looks like he noticed the photographer and is glancing up. Note that he hasn't angled his head up to be pointed at the photographer. It looks like a (perhaps disgruntled) glance up. Since his hands are not near or approaching the blade, as they would be with something like a carpentry table saw, I suspect he feels free to glance away briefly.

I do dislike the watermark at the bottom left. The colors, particularly the bright red, make it even more distracting than it otherwise would be. IMHO, a watermark, if one uses one at all (I've stopped), should provide identification while being as unobtrusive as possible. I would use a simple sans serif font (I think I have used Tahoma, but there are lots of simple ones), in a small size and white.

I agree with Manfred's comments except that the subject looking at the camera and not concentrating on his task is precisely what I don't like about this shot. To me his pose makes the shot look contrived, rather than a spontaneous slice of time in a day in the life of the worker.
Robert

[Wandjina]

This image is for the "contrivists."
I believe the original image with the eye contact is the better photo.
Manfred is correct in saying the piece of steel was clamped into the friction saw and it was only a glance up at the photographer.
I am sorry about the watermark in the original image. Daniel led me to believe my original image was out of focus and so I quickly grabbed one from my web page, which was watermarked.

[Tom Barry]

For me, this works better, though both are well seen and done.

[RBSinTo]

For me, this works better, though both are well seen and done.

I agree with Tom.
We "contrivists" gotta stick together.
Robet

[DanK]

These two images differ in several ways other than the angle of the subject's eyes that would enter into my choice between them. On the positive side, the lighting is better in the second shot--less of the image is blown out or close to it. On the negative side, it appears to have been shot from closer. There is more apparent wide-angle distortion (I couldn't see the EXIF), and the crop to the left and top is uncomfortably tight for my taste.

[royent]

The second one works best for me too

[Wandjina]

These two images differ in several ways other than the angle of the subject's eyes that would enter into my choice between them. On the positive side, the lighting is better in the second shot--less of the image is blown out or close to it. On the negative side, it appears to have been shot from closer. There is more apparent wide-angle distortion (I couldn't see the EXIF), and the crop to the left and top is uncomfortably tight for my taste.

The two images under discussion were part of 10 images taken successively over 7 seconds with a 24 - 105 lens. The focal length was changed from 55mm to 45mm during the "burst." That may explain the variations noted by Dan. The two images in question were taken 4 seconds apart.

I have included the JPGs from the RAW images with no sharpening, cropping etc.

[Manfred M]

I personally prefer the original image. The PoV and the eye contact with the camera make this image for me; the others just don't have the same impact, in my view. I can definitely see how the image progressed in post.

[Wandjina]

Thank you all for your comments

[Stagecoach]

I personally prefer the original image. The PoV and the eye contact with the camera make this image for me; the others just don't have the same impact, in my view. I can definitely see how the image progressed in post.

I have to agree with Manfred here.

For me it's the eye contact that gives the image a 'quirkiness' and sets it apart from the 'norms'