With or without?

[photofan1986]

I would say with the girl but without the hand cart - that seems really distracting to me

I agree about the cart, but there ain't much i can do about that now. :\

--
Frank

Sure, you can





Ok, it's quick and dirty, but some decent PP can help

 

[traveler_101]

without, clearly.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

Agreed. Without.

With disturbs the balance of adult, cart and (?) bicycle in the background.

IMHO, the addition of the little girl turns an interesting, open ended and well balanced photo into an unbalanced, pedestrian, domestic shot.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

Ditto. Doubtless the little girl is cute, but she detracts from the photo.

 

[addlightness]

What sort of story do you wish to convey to your audience?

You see Bob, that's kind of the problem. I'm not too sure. I'm really just interested in whichever one is more interesting. In one, you have a lone man under a bridge, seen in a (possibly) contemplative moment, while in the other, you have a lone man under a bridge......looking at a lone and possibly unsupervised little girl. To some people, the latter could have sinister implications.

So, without regard for what I want, which looks more interesting to you?

 

[BeachBill]

To me, she is a distraction.
However, you can see by the variety of the above responses that opinions vary. Ultimately you must decide which version works best for you and your intent in displaying the photograph. Nicely done.

 

[traveler_101]

Every picture, unless fully annotated and even then, is trying to tell a story of sorts. You know the saying 'A picture paints ...'

The scene is pretty somber IMO, no place for a little girl. As such without her, the somber theme is maintained. With her, there is a clear conflict: scene is somber - good setup; little girl - what!? Again, just my opinions

Well said. The scene is stark, lifeless and oppressive to the eye. It feels distant, the horizontal (fence running across) impairs movement of the eye further into the scene, which keeps us at a distance. It's just as well: the structure is oppressive- clunky, heavy, even lacking in symmetry, totally without grace. The apparently abandoned cart and the aimless character leaning against the pillar are excellent signifiers - the little girl, no.

Now if you could see the little girl's face and had been close enough to really see her expression that might have created a kind of commentary on the scene before us.

 

[Neurad1]

Which is better, the one with or the one without the little girl?





--
Frank

Clearly the one with the little girl. Tells a (potentially creepy) story.

--

Neurad1

Explore Neurad1’s 5,302 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Zephir 750]

As for me, decidedly with...

 

[DrMarkP]

I am in the "without" camp. I can start working up a story when the guy is alone. I find it much more difficult to see a story with her there.

mark

 

[User7796578636]

Very interesting reading peoples differing opinions, seems about a 50/50 spilt.

I definitely prefer without.

 

[DrMarkP]

What sort of story do you wish to convey to your audience?

You see Bob, that's kind of the problem. I'm not too sure. I'm really just interested in whichever one is more interesting. In one, you have a lone man under a bridge, seen in a (possibly) contemplative moment, while in the other, you have a lone man under a bridge......looking at a lone and possibly unsupervised little girl. To some people, the latter could have sinister implications.

So, without regard for what I want, which looks more interesting to you?