# The Modern American Cafe



## fjrabon (Nov 30, 2012)

P1010495 (1) by franklinrabon, on Flickr

Thoughts?

Edited to recs below


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 30, 2012)

I like it!  

For the sake of CC only, I may have removed the swordblades sticking into the dude's shoulder =)


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 30, 2012)

For the sake of purity, this was shot, edited and posted all while in said McDonald's.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Nov 30, 2012)

Like it!

Try the removal suggestion. If not still good!


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 30, 2012)

yeah, I guess those lines weren't as noticeable in the original color version and then they were brought out in the BW conversion.  

Thanks guys!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2012)

Removing the lines didn't help it much, and may in fact have hurt. If you wanna shoot street and then clone out stuff, then why not just buy a print of this?

nighthawks.jpg


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Removing the lines didn't help it much, and may in fact have hurt. If you wanna shoot street and then clone out stuff, then why not just buy a print of this?
> 
> nighthawks.jpg



I didn't really consider it street, hence why I put it here as opposed to the people gallery.  To me street is more about capturing people, a moment and human emotion.  While there is a person in it, it's not really the point, or at least I didn't think.  The point was more of the place and the everydayness of it.  It's certainly not journalistic in nature, I don't think.  There's way too much contrast and dodging and burning to really be considered journalist street style.

Edit: just clicked on your link and sort of a 'modern americanized' version of a rockwell painting was exactly what I was thinking when I captured it.  ie an unglamorized version of that exact painting for our current condition was exactly my thought, but shot from the inside instead of the outside.

edit: oops, obviously hopper, not rockwell


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 1, 2012)

here was another take (with the 'swords' uncloned)




P1010493 by franklinrabon, on Flickr


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

I think this is terrific.
The guy is in the right spot, looking out into what seems busy but is really nothing.
That damn cup is cropped out - which ruined the original
The detail is diminished so you have essentially a cartoon but we know it is real.

I would suggest three things to try.
Crop it to 4 x 6 because there isn't enough content to support the pano look and that crop cuts off the word OPEN which adds to the effect and tightens things up.
Burn the corners to remove or cut down on the bright area in upper right.
Maybe even a sepia tone.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 2, 2012)

Thanks Lew.

Yeah, I definitely felt that the was the stronger of the two shots.  The original was mostly posted for thoughts on why it fell a bit flat.  Part of me thinks I could have gotten the cup to work in some way, but it probably only would work in the deep recesses of my own head.  

As processed originally it had a very mild two tone sepia/cyan toning and very mild burning of the edges.  I always tend to try to go more subtle.  

The 'cartoony' effect is just from shooting a point and shoot camera in a mcdonalds at night on high ISO at a slower shutter speed than I should really be able to get away with and then cropping it in even further, haha.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Regardless, image great.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm not so sure that the cup "ruined the original"...in fact, from a historical perspective, that McCafe cup actually places the image into its "modern-day" time frame. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? The cup places the photo in the latter half of the first decade of the 21st century...the "McCafe" concept is Mickey D's new marketing campaign to try and siphon dollars and sales awat from Starbucks and allllllll the other coffee shops that have sprung up. With the McCafe cup included we KNOW where this image was shot at, and we can mentally refer to an entire subtext of McDonald's memories, thoughts, stereotypes,impressions, and knowledge; with the identifying cup eliminated, the photo becomes more universal, and less-associated with a specific type of restaurant. Good thing? Bad thing?

I think of this as street, and so to me, the cup HELPS the shot, and is in fact, a very strong, integral part of the original photo. With the cup eliminated, the photo changes markedly. With the word OPEN cropped down to "PEN", and the word LOBBY entirely eliminated, the photo changes again. The original shot, with the man resting his hand on his cheek gives one kind of a feeling...the second photo with his hands clasped in front of his face is another "feeling" entirely.

This is an excellent scene for a study in how compositions can be altered by the process of elimination.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

*'de gustibus non est disputandum'*  (there is no debating about tastes)


----------



## runnah (Dec 2, 2012)

I like it sans cup. The font really contrasted with reast of the image.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 2, 2012)

I think the cup is totally necessary.

It balances the guy, and it changes the image from a ripoff of nighthawks into social commentary that references nighthawks. It makes it very good. The cup also echoes the shapes of the lights, helping tie the whole thing together graphically, and easing the nighthawks reference to a reference alone, instead of a copy.

Leave the lines alone, leave the cup alone. Your first instincts were right, I think.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 2, 2012)

The more I think about them the more I'm of two minds. The no cup shot is clearly the more technically sound shot. I don't think that's even arguable. However, the first shot is a bit more ambitious, which swings me toward it somewhat. It's a more complicated image, trying to reconcile why the cup is there. I think it also helps balance the man a bit better, and allows three lights instead of two, which I think is better in some ways. 

However, I think the question becomes does the viewer 'get' the cup or is it just an ugly thing that takes up space and causes the person to be too small in the framing?  In some sense the cup is ugly and clashes and is a mixed design motif. But that's also part of the point, that McDonald's is sort of an ugly gobbledygook of imagery. 

I also like the sense of depth the cup creates, in that it seems to both bring a connection to the image, in that it seems like you are sitting there, drinking that coffee, looking at that man, while also creating a bit more distance between the viewer and the man as well. 

But much of those thoughts are in MY head and to me it's unclear how much, if any, of that a viewer would see or feel. That's what I meant when I said I really liked the IDEA of that shot, but felt it fell a little flat in reality. Not sure it could have worked the way I thought it might or if my thoughts on the shot were actually impossible to have come across in any photo.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> The more I think about them the more I'm of two minds. The no cup shot is clearly the more technically sound shot. I don't think that's even arguable. However, the first shot is a bit more ambitious, which swings me toward it somewhat. It's a more complicated image, trying to reconcile why the cup is there. I think it also helps balance the man a bit better, and allows three lights instead of two, which I think is better in some ways.
> 
> However, I think the question becomes does the viewer 'get' the cup or is *it just an ugly thing that takes up space and causes the person to be too small in the framing*?  In some sense the cup is ugly and clashes and is a mixed design motif. But that's also part of the point, that McDonald's is sort of an ugly gobbledygook of imagery.
> 
> ...



^^ that


----------



## KenC (Dec 3, 2012)

Without the cup and with the sepia, a la Lew.  I see what you're trying to do with the cup, but I think for that to work, the cup would have to be closer to the rest of the scene.  As it is, you end up incorporating a lot of empty space that contributes nothing and throws off the composition.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 3, 2012)

KenC said:


> Without the cup and with the sepia, a la Lew.  I see what you're trying to do with the cup, but I think for that to work, the cup would have to be closer to the rest of the scene.  As it is, you end up incorporating a lot of empty space that contributes nothing and throws off the composition.



I agree that the cup doesn't totally work.  That being said, part of what I wanted to create with the cup was that feeling of emptiness and distance.  I wanted the viewer to feel inside the picture, just as distant from the man as you would be, looking in a restaurant that is just as empty as it was.  I think the failure isn't so much the distance, emptiness and space, the failure is more that I didn't adequately get the viewer to feel those correctly, instead making it simply look wrong.


----------

