An interesting comparison of a photo to a work of Edward Hopper

This photo is far from impressive, not even remotely comparable to the Nighthawks. I find it difficult to identify any similarities between the two. I believe this photo serves as evidence to support my argument: art is highly subjective.

I too find it difficult to find a connection between the two, apart from the strong diagonal and the people with their backs to us.

Soo maybe the compositional device is similar, but that is about all.

I agree.

The painter captures an era, an architectural style, the dress of the day and the decor. Plus acres of glass through which we can see the diners.

The photographer on the other hand only captures some people who appear to be waiting for something. The story says an exhibition but there is nothing in the photo to indicate that - could be anything - perhaps a cheap bus terminal with a baseball game on the tv with only one watching it.

Much ado about nothing. I can't see myself being excited if I caught that shot...

Unlike some here, I see some correlations ...

IIRC, I once saw a version of that painting with film stars one of whom was Humphrey Bogart.

The Hopperesque echos are pretty obvious. Dark background devoid of any unnecessary and distracting detail (likewise, stripped down foreground). Strong artificial light illuminating the scene, especially the individuals' faces. They seem lost in their own private worlds despite their physical closeness. Composition dominated by foreshortening from the right edge into the darkened depths of the background. Overall moody effect of waiting, boredom, passing of time...

Photographers being inspired by Hopper is something of a thing. The Hopper house in Nyack, NY has sponsored various exhibits over the years featuring photographs that evoke Hopper's aesthetic. I'd say that most of them are less evocative than the shot featured in The Guardian. Gregory Crewdson is frequently compared to Hopper. See here. And Richard Tuschman has very deliberately leaned on Hopperesque scenes for his staged photographs. See here.

Echos maybe, but distant ones...

Not least, the photo is half a story whereas Nighthawks is the whole. A story of how even isolated and inherently lonely people are drawn together, to the same space, and how even there they can remain isolated. But it's far more than that, it's as though they choose that level of isolation, there are rules, a familiar and comfortable pattern. I don't see any of that in the photo alone, but I do see echos of the composition, just not the dynamic with the people. Again Nighthawks is a complete story, not just half...

Until xpatUSA replied, all of the responses to the OP seemed to find no connection to the painting. That surprised me because - like the photographer himself, apparently - the image immediately reminded me of Nighthawks. That's not to say it's a great photo or has an identical narrative (or depth of narrative). The narrative is not what makes Nighthawks such an iconic painting. Isolation and loneliness in the big city or in the home was already a pretty hackneyed theme when Hopper turned to it. And that same theme shows up all of the time in photography, yet when it does, a connection to Hopper doesn't invariably jump to mind. Rather, it's the sparse illustrator-like execution and elimination of distracting details and emphasized emptiness, the strong lighting and contrast, stark colors and reduced palette that gives the narrative its signature impact. It's that look and not just the isolation theme that makes us connect the dots to Hopper.

Absolutely, I get that. It's hard to miss the visual similarities, and when something reminds you strongly of something else then part of the meaning, or understanding of that other picture is transferred as well. They share visual similarity and so you automatically make a connection with the meanings.

But that's my point, the photo requires the connection you make with "Nighthawks" to give it some depth of meaning whereas the original needs no support act.