The waiter - a candid.

[Ron Evers]

Oly 45/1.8, on OMD E-M5, ISO 200, f2.0, 1/80s.


View attachment 29234


I love this lens.

 

[tirediron]

Nice capture Ron.

 

[emdiemci]

Great looking picture. Why do you love that lens just curious.

 

[Rick58]

Nice shot

 

[Ron Evers]

Great looking picture. Why do you love that lens just curious.

Very sharp, snaps to focus on my OM-D & fast @ f1.8.

I have vintage lenses with manual focus of similar or better speed & IQ but it is a treat to use an auto focus for candids.

 

[QobraKhan]

This candid kinda tells a story, maybe even if there was a black and white version, it would tell even more, it suggests a man happy to do his job, and has been doing it for a long time, and even though stressful at times he endures.

Or maybe I am just crazy either way great pic.

 

[gw2424]

I occasionally shoot with a OM 50 1.8 and 28 3.5 on my T3i. I love those lenses!

 

[Ron Evers]

This candid kinda tells a story, maybe even if there was a black and white version, it would tell even more, it suggests a man happy to do his job, and has been doing it for a long time, and even though stressful at times he endures.

Or maybe I am just crazy either way great pic.

I find your comments interesting. We first visited this resort in 2009 & my wife named this waiter the Bantam Rooster due to his small stature & officious character. When we arrived Dec. 2012 he recognized us as did much of the serving staff. My wife says I am unforgettable.

Aside: the manager of the serving staff told us that he retains the best staff in the slow season, in which we were on this trip but in the busy season in 09.

I took several pics of the staff but none quite as candid as I got here.

 

[QobraKhan]

I find your comments interesting. We first visited this resort in 2009 & my wife named this waiter the Bantam Rooster due to his small stature & officious character. When we arrived Dec. 2012 he recognized us as did much of the serving staff. My wife says I am unforgettable.

Aside: the manager of the serving staff told us that he retains the best staff in the slow season, in which we were on this trip but in the busy season in 09.

I took several pics of the staff but none quite as candid as I got here.

Thank you...I think..haha

 

[manaheim]

I don't get how this is a great picture at all.

The lighting seems a bit harsh on his face... the "pose" seems kinda meh... the background is ugly and distracting... it looks like not much more than a snapshot of some random dude staring off into who knows where.

Is this just "we all love Ron and don't want to say anything not nice"? I mean, I get that... Ron's awesome... but come on.

 

[ManualMode]

I don't get how this is a great picture at all.

The lighting seems a bit harsh on his face... the "pose" seems kinda meh... the background is ugly and distracting... it looks like not much more than a snapshot of some random dude staring off into who knows where.

Is this just "we all love Ron and don't want to say anything not nice"? I mean, I get that... Ron's awesome... but come on.

Agreed.

 

[Ron Evers]

I don't get how this is a great picture at all.

The lighting seems a bit harsh on his face... the "pose" seems kinda meh... the background is ugly and distracting... it looks like not much more than a snapshot of some random dude staring off into who knows where.

Is this just "we all love Ron and don't want to say anything not nice"? I mean, I get that... Ron's awesome... but come on.

Agreed.

Do you not get the "candid" part?

 

[manaheim]

Well, this probably gets into my whole beef with "street photography" as well. "Candid" means "unposed/unplanned/unexpected", but unposed, unplanned and unexpected does not excuse other compositional or technical issues. If the shot is uninteresting or poorly executed, it is such regardless of how much planning you put into it. The same goes for street photography... shooting someone on the street doesn't automatically excuse you from putting together a quality image.

Candid images and street photography are wonderful... I love them, but I don't bother with them unless there is something worth showing.

This shot is also a candid...

But I wouldn't ever put it up for display unless I felt it was a well-constructed photograph.

EDIT: By the way, Ron... I mean no disrespect and I do not mean to hurt your feelings. However, I don't like it when we softball people around here because I don't think it does anyone any good, and I do think that in general people love you (and rightly so) and will tend to be overly gentle with you just because you're an awesome guy and great to have around the forums. You're not the only one in this spot, but there are precious few of you. In posting this, I'm only trying to pull the conversation around back to where I think it should be... which is being honest and direct. (or, of course, to have people tell me if I'm totally off base in my own interpretation, at which point I'll learn something... which is also great.)

 

[The_Traveler]

I don't get how this is a great picture at all.

The lighting seems a bit harsh on his face... the "pose" seems kinda meh... the background is ugly and distracting... it looks like not much more than a snapshot of some random dude staring off into who knows where.

Is this just "we all love Ron and don't want to say anything not nice"? I mean, I get that... Ron's awesome... but come on.

Agreed.

Do you not get the "candid" part?

I don't think that defining something as a 'candid'; means that any faults must be ignored.
A candid should show us something interesting or funny or something that makes up for the technical faults or weaknesses in composition that the image has.

What does this picture show us to balance off its deficiencies?

 

[ManualMode]

Again, I totally agree.
Usually if I have nothing nice to say, I don't say anything at all. In this case, since it's being challenged:

Sure it's "candid" but that's just the conditions in which you shoot? It's like challenging yourself to find something great in a world that is beyond your control.
I'm sure there is a long and personal back story that connects you with this image deeply, but as a casual viewer, I get nothing.
That could easily not be a big deal if the expression, lighting, composition, texture, or some other story element gave me something to connect with.

In this case I see a snapshot of a man from a doubly-unflattering angle, with harsh/poor lighting.
His expression is not in anyway connected with any of the standard emotions a human can express facially (fear, anger, sadness, surprise, etc.).
The background is enough detail to be negatively distracting, but not enough to place the man in a setting. I shouldn't need a title to tell me that.
He could be a bell-hop, circus performer, waiter, carnival performer, etc, etc.

I don't mean any offence, but I remember when I found this forum, telling my wife: "I finally found a forum where people aren't just patting each other on the backs".
There are way too many forums where people are complimented into complacency for sub-par images. No one learns anything because everyone feels they're already great.
I hope that never happens here. When I post a picture, I hope for someone to point out negatives so that I can keep them in mind for next time.. isn't that one of the biggest challenges; Avoiding mistakes?