btw my friend, did you ask the man if you could photograph him as is your normal mo?

Hey, Mark, thanks for your comment.

This was breakfast this morning. The camera was on a little table tripod. I was using a 2-second self timer not looking through the camera, although he seems to notice, here, that I was taking his photo. Shooting this way with my wife's little point-and-shoot, I didn't have the luxury of putting the subject off center if I wanted him to be in focus (no manual controls).

Also, if you look closely, you may see that the subject was moving slightly--shutter speed 1/5 second.

You may be right about the crop, but I had very little room to crop at all...this is full frame left to right. Any further enlargement, and any apparent subject sharpness deteriorates rapidly.

Thanks again,

pursang, regarding your second comment, no. He was in conversation with a person across the table. He switched his gaze from his companion to the camera during the 2-second self-exposure delay. I didn't anticipate it or ask him to pose. I was emulating you.

Thanks three times.

Wow, this image is even more impressive knowing that he stay so still for a two second exposure! Remarkable. I completely understand about the cropping and enlarging an image like this. If I was there, I would have paid him to stick his tongue out at you while holding a photo of Vernon! hahahaha!

pursang,
Although it pleases me that I confused you, I have to confess. He held still for a 1/5 second exposure after a 2-second self-timer delay.

Your idea about holding a photo of Vernon has given me a great idea. What's the next theme?

@Craig, Carl, uvikidd, Anna, Jack, Rohan...thanks very much for your comments.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to attempt to re-crop this image for my website, following pursang's idea. If you read my comments above, you know that I don't have enough sharpness to crop and enlarge this very much. My rationalization for leaving the two guys in the shot is that their interaction seemed to show the hustle and bustle of a popular breakfast joint where tables are hard to come by on a Sunday morning--but that's all in my head, I think.

The depth of field is entirely created in Photoshop. My wife's little point-and-shoot can't provide a shallow DOF, so I'm getting good at masking.

I would have liked to include more of the man's body, the the table was so full of distracting elements, that I had to crop them out. I cloned out the top of a catsup bottle.

FYI...in case anyone is interested. Here's the photo straight off the memory card, with no cropping, levels, curves or any other adjustments:

http://www.kingdouglas.com/weeklyshot/melios.jpg

King, after reading the comments and looking at this image and the original, I think I prefer the original DOF. I didn't originally comment this image for that reason, the DOF looked completely fabricated in PS and that bothered me. Whereas in the original, I like the movement of the two guys in the background compared to how your subject is looking at you. That said I am not sure how I would solve the problem of *everything* that is going on in the frame, I would just have to experiment and play around with it. Congrats though because you did capture a great expression.

Love this. Fantastic DoF. He really is separated from that colourful backdrop.

King,I really like the original unretouched photo,
you gave the link to.
I can explore his surroundings a little.
This man moves at a different speed than the world around him.

Tracy, Carl,

Thanks for your comments. Tracy...I'm glad you noticed that the DOF was inserted in PS--but don't yoiu think I did a good job of masking? I can't take any credit for capturing his expression, because I clicked the shutter two seconds before he turned his head to look at the camera.

The reason I blurred the background is that, although you can't see it well in the small reproduction on my website, the man is moving just as the two guys behind him are moving. His head is definitely wobbling. In addition to the work I did on trying to make his facial features look sharp, I added the blur to the background so the eye wouldn't have anything really sharp to compare.

I also thought that there was just plain too much information in the scene. I didn't want you guys to be reading the menus, lol.

I'm with Tracy on this one. I didn't comment or rate this shot either...it seemed a bit over the top and manipulated. I really like the original because it's more of a 'scene from life' than a portrait.

King, this is amazing.
Please, count my 25 points in...

@Ana...thanks very much for your comment.

I'm going to have to take another look but I can tell you that I prefer simple compositions to more complex ones. I'll probably end up with a compromise, based on the feedback above, that will be better than what I've posted here.

As an aside, I posted this partly because I thought folks wouldn't recognize it as my style.

@bioLarzen,
Thanks very much. You can see that opinions are divided about this image. However, the ratings are remarkably high: the 9th-highest overall rating I've ever received. It amazes me, frankly.

King, I started to mention that you did a great job on the masking and then omitted it, why, I can't remember. I don't know if adding a slight blur and de-saturating the background a bit along with Mark's cropping suggestions wouldn't be the best solution, well, for my tastes anyway. :-)

Tracy...thanks. That sums up my thinking.

Tracy, Ana, Pursang, et al...

Is this better? Not my final version, but it incorporates your suggestions:

http://www.kingdouglas.com/weeklyshot/melios-2.jpg

I like that much better and if you do de-saturate the back just a shade he will stand more. :-)

Tracy...the background was desaturated noticeably (but you didn't notice :>) ) and the blur was reduced by more than 50%.

So you suggest more desaturation? What about the blur...better? Can you see now that his head was wobbling...the eyes are definitely not sharp.

Thanks!

I still found the saturation too much but the blur was much more natural, and I did notice the "bobble head" but there is not much you can do with that.

not for me. I really do like the original. Minor colour levels could be done, but otherwise, I think it's fine, as is.

@Ana...thanks again. Here is the point at which our opinions simply diverge.

@Everyone,

As all W.S. members know, at some point the artist has to make decisions that are true to his/her vision, style, idosyncrasies, etc.

I don't even like this photograph very much, myself--in any of its versions--and I'm still surprised that it was featured, more so because of the discussion about its shortcomings.

I'm through talking about this, personally, although comments are always welcome, of course.

Thanks everyone.

King:

My opinion is that the image you posted here is superior to the one you gave as a link on your site. I like this one more because of the uniformity of the blur (like a shallow DOF as others have suggested) makes it more focused. In the original, the significant motion of the one fellow's arm so close to the main subject's face is distracting.

So, for me, anyhow, this image is my favored one.

@Lange...thanks!