Shades of grey

Really, really good. Love the playful twist to the left foot of the subject on the right as compared to the solid, no nonsense planting of the boots.
I might prefer it in B&W with some careful management of the grey tones. However, the foreground blue bars are hinted at in the blue jeans, background which gives some purpose to the touch of colour.

I really, really, really want to like this photo. But the near leg being so far outside the DOF in a scene where it is an integral part of the subject bothers me more than a little. It's like a really good pulled pork sandwich that was smothered with too much overly sweet BBQ sauce.

I totally agree with GB about the nearest right knee being so far out of focus. I find it annoyingly distracting.

The right knee really needed to be sharp.

The scene would also have had much more impact on me if the person sitting opposite the two painters was not there (cloned and cropped out). Her foot cutting in front of the painter's leg detracts from subject - shades of grey - even though her shoe has some grey in it.

I was going to reply to GB but then I read the post from Dan. Dan's first.
I think you have totally, totally, missed the point of the photo. Surely it is the contrast between the workboots and the silver grey slipper like shoe that is the essence of the image? I'd be surprised if Daneland's title isn't a reference to Fifty Shades of Grey and I think Daneland expected viewers to make the connection.
Back to the closest knee. The DOF is fine just as it is. This is essentially a monotone image. Daneland has used differential sharpness to ensure the slippers and their relationship to the boots is where the viewer's eye comes to rest. The sharpness increases towards the shoes.
This is street photography. It's an opportunistic grabbed shot.

This is a nice fun image, based obviously on juxtaposition, a useful tool in the photographers toolbox. I think it is a really well seen photograph.

The fact that the picture becomes sharper as we move towards the woman's shoe helps concentrate our attention on the visual game Daneland has played.

Remember this was taken in the low lighting of the underground, where a wide aperture would be needed to get a sharp picture. In this genre, it is all about subject, and the technical tolerance is wide. Just look at a few HCB shots, like the guy jumping over a puddle.

Let's just enjoy, what Daneland saw.

Yes. Both both sets of work boots (as well as the silver shoe) are the subject. Not one pair of work boots -- both.

Not being educated on these matters, I missed the connection.

If the near set of shoes were not work boots, then they would not have been an integral part of the subject, and being outside the DOF would have been a non-issue. However, as they were an integral part of the subject, being outside the DOF was an extreme distraction for me. That it does not bother others, or even seen as a plus by others, is absolutely fine, but it is an aesthetic that I do not share.

Sure, but that doesn't automatically make the photo successful in the eyes of all. It's not that I'm saying the photo is a failure -- I think it's quite good -- but it has a serious technical flaw (with regards to my aesthetics), in the same way that missed focus, motion blur, blown highlights, excessive noise, etc., etc., etc., can adversely affect the success of a photo. But the extent to which the technical flaw adversely affects the photo can vary from no effect at all to completely ruining the photo, depending on the aesthetics of the viewer. In this particular case, the near leg being an integral part of the subject and well outside the DOF was an extreme distraction to an otherwise excellent photo, akin to a beautiful portrait where the near eye is outside the DOF and the far eye is perfectly sharp. But, again, I am only giving my opinion based on my aesthetics -- there are many crazy famous photos that unsuccessful to my eyes.

This is where we disagree. It might also be the essence for Daneland but it doesn't come across to me as the essence of the image for the reason posted earlier.

GB has already explained the DOF "flaw".

You have totally missed the point of the picture. The picture is about the contrast between the woman's elegant shoe, and the painters dirty boots. Without the woman's shoe, the picture is a pointless picture of some guys with dirty boots.

It is not difficult to understand why Daneland took this picture and what story the picture is trying to tell.

My reply is the same as my reply to Mike.

I don’t see what the issue is here. We have different opinions and that is fine.

No, you have not understood what the story this picture is telling.

Tell me.

Why did Daneland make this photograph?
What is the subject, and what story is the picture trying to tell?

If you cannot answer these two simple questions, your opinions are invalid, unless backed up with reasons.

.

Thank you again for your opinion Nigel.

If in your opinion my opinions, reasons and suggestions in my first post are invalid that's fine.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Thanks! The contrast between feminine, glittery shoes and masculine, rugged work boots creates a strong visual juxtaposition, showing both class and gender divides. I think it is an impactful composition

Thanks, but I think you’re overstating the importance of sharpness here. Sharpness is a bourgeois concept, my friend, and I’m a working-class person 😉 But I do agree too much BBQ sauce ruins everything 😂

I’m sorry, but your interpretation of this photo is completely off. What I had in mind was nothing like what you mentioned.

Yes, that's correct. I haven't read the book or watched the film, but I have a rough idea about it. However, I'm not certain if a direct connection can be made between the photo and the book. I noticed different shades of grey, which gave me an idea for the title.

That's all, it is a juxtaposition and technical choice

OK, I really dont think that there is a flaw. You may not like it but please dont call it as flawed.

Thanks