[Leica] IMGS - Below the National Gallery

[rbaron at concentric.net (Robert D. Baron)]

Thanks for your comments, Ted, I agree. It was close, but as they say 
around here, that only counts when throwing horseshoes.

You are right:  I was standing near the unfolding scene with a 28mm lens 
on my M8.  I didn't feel comfortable barging over to get a close up.  It 
would have destroyed the dynamic (and perhaps my reputation if the adult 
got concerned and called for help).  Even wide open, with the 28mm I 
could not throw the background adequately out of focus.  My back was 
hurting and I didn't crouch down as I should have. I tried various crops 
but there is too much distraction in the scene.

Here, btw, is the full frame before cropping:

http://leica-users.org/v36/msg04036.html

Phillipe, I did try it in b&w but it didn't feel right to me.  I think 
the color is what would have made it a good shot if I could have got the 
rest of it right.

Fortunately, as Ted points out, there will be another time.

Practice practice practice!

--Bob

===On 24 November 2007 Ted Grant wrote:

> Bob Baron offered wisely:
> 
>>>.  I've tried several crops of this shot, including the  
> 
>> following, but I'm not sure the image has enough 'punch' (whatever  
> 
>> that is) to be a long time keeper:
> 
>> 
> 
>> http://www.bobbaron.com/DC_Oct07/W_L1004200KidsLineV2.jpg
> <http://www.bobbaron.com/DC_Oct07/W_L1004200KidsLineV2.jpg%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c
>> <<<<<<
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> You are absolutely right!
> 
>  
> 
>>> but I'm not sure the image has enough 'punch' (whatever  
> 
> *       that is) to be a long time keeper:<<<<
> 
>  
> 
> It's close but sure doesn't win! It's not a keeper by any means. Actually
> this type of photograph creates ten times or more effort screwing around
> with it trying to make something out of it than it's worth. You're correct,
> "there isn't any punch to it." Oh one can isolate segments with our eyes
> looking at the photo and see the little girl on her tippy toes, the facial
> expressions but not large enough to really make a significant photograph of
> what's there. Because of the clutter.
> 
>  
> 
> You saw the right moment, that's always the most important part. The making
> it work comes from being in the right spot or the ability to move to a 
> shoot
> position and angle to capture what motivated you. But you weren't in the
> best position because of the distracting and physical aspects.  
> 
>  
> 
> There's a neat picture potential here if:
> 
>  
> 
> 1: the cable wasn't across the frame, the young lady to centre right is
> holding onto.
> 
>  
> 
> 2: you bent your knees to a much lower angle (( Oh and how that hurts 
> trying
> to get back up!)) :-) 
> 
>  
> 
> 3: Used a longer lens to capture only the two girls on the left in a
> vertical composition and their face to face re-action which can be seen. 
> And
> the tippy toes! WOW!  That little bit of physical expression is part of her
> anticipation at receiving an ice cream cone and of course comes from having
> looked at all the different ice creams. 
> 
>  
> 
> A small but important part of the motivation to take the picture in the
> first place. 
> 
>  
> 
> Never mind Bob the most important part of all? You saw the moment, it was
> just unfortunate you couldn't get into the ideal shoot spot! :-(
> 
>  
> 
> This kind of situation falls into the category of . "It's much better to
> have seen the moment, than never to have seen at all!" Simply because if 
> you
> don't see the moments in the first place you'll never shoot anything but
> exposures of useless moments. And we all know you see very well, execute
> very well and know when to "punch the button at the right time." From your
> previous postings
> 
>  
> 
> Just right this off as "just one of those things! " And for heaven sake
> don't feel bad because you are not alone! Quite frankly if I had a dollar
> for every moment like this I've shot in my many years I would be a very 
> rich
> man! :-) Better luck next time.
> 
>  
> 
> ted
> 
>  
> 
>