One of my very first steps towards catching a scene rather than a single detail of something. It is visible that such photos demand a much much higher degree of composition work than the flat close-ups that are so very popular nowadays. Perhaps the much harder work that such images demand is exactly one of the reasons for the popularity of flat close-ups. Here for example I messed up several things: The half lamp and the pole at the left, or the timing that didn't allow the three main persons to stand in some better position and relation to each other. (I'm sure you'll find more mistakes.)
Still the old man is OK there, and still the image says something - it is not dumb and sterile like a close-up of a facade. And that's why I post it too. Any comments would be very welcome.
Hmmm, the lamp is a visual indicator of what is here and what is there in the depth, Linda. It would enhance the distance, if it would be more cisible. But I am glad if you like it still.
I didn't talk about close-ups as "dump". I find them boring, not dump. I also said that calling them by their name excludes using words like "composition". But not all characterisation is at the same time also qualification, and zero composition is not good and also not bad. It is only zero composition. I only see one thing in full focus, and it says no story at all. It has its benefits but it gets boring if you see 3000 macros of flowers a day.
About value... it depends! What value do we mean? The value of simply looking at a macro is undoubtfully there. I already admitted that I can do that too, much like watching ET. But value in the sense of photographic skills and learning from that? That's a joke, isn't it? Anybody can master that with a bit of care in a few days. Especially the fraction of self-awarded queens of romance that waste a whole life with their sweet and hollow impressions of romance. (But only the few will have the care, I admit! ;-))
But hyperfocus, introducing the third dimension, making clear that it was a real world with a real depth, allowing the spectator to see everywhere instead of only seeing some flat inches of depth... that's blood, sweat, and tears most of the time. And some day you get an image that simply smashes you down! And that's photography to me, not the empty pseudo-philosophy of looking at the colors and the limited textures of some close-up.
Much like having smoked too much light tobacco and then you get a real leaf of Virginia, and that's perhaps the first real pipe! ;-)
Oh well, excuse me, it is late and I am tired. ideal for extrapolating thoughts into messages, ey?
Thank you very much for the nice and detailed comment, Dave!
The trolleys played a great role indeed, as you said, for the introduction of color splashes, but also for some additional hint toward the overall motion of the city.
I'm not bothered by the half lamp, or the people because that is not what this image is about, and while they're there they're not of much importance in the image, maybe it would be better to say they don't call my attention. And one does have to decide what to include and exclude, and what really matters. Your goal here was depth, and you achieved that very well. Good light and exposure, nice clarity, very good sharpness and details throughout the image Nick..you did a great job with this.
On another note, just because you don't like flat images, or the close-up of a facade, doesn't mean that they're dumb, or sterile, or don't have value. And just because you say that doesn't mean I have to comment on it....:)
0 
