I suppose you could assert that it's not a random scene, but it was not planned. The woman just appeared where i happened to be, when I happened to be there with a camera. That's pretty random, especially considering it's a place I rarely frequent. Choosing to take the picture was influenced by the fact that my order hadn't arrived, that the woman sat where she did, that the light was OK, and so on. All in all, a very random happenstance.
You bet there's a lot of the photographer in the photograph. That's often - perhaps always - the case when photographing people in certain situations. From what attracts one to a scene to the final print, much of what you see is the photographer's psyche and personality. A good photograph should show some of the photographer as well as showing the subject. Working with people is an emotional experience - it ain't all technical. And please don't take this the wrong way, but photographs that show inanimate objects, like cars, and sunflowers, and mail boxes, rarely show much about what's going on inside the photographer's mind. In this case, and in most of the people photographs I make, I'm a big part of the final image ... and when I'm not, the photograph often doesn't work very well. Are you saying that it's a "bad" thing that there's some of the photographer in the photograph? shel John Francis wrote: > Not really. The picture didn't just happen - it's not a random scene. > There's a lot more of the photographer in the picture than of the viewer.
