I like this shot a lot. Shan't bothered with all the technical details, for there are way more qualified photographers here to give more concrete advice. To me, I love all the imperfections that the rest have pointed out... the dark shadow cast on the face of the eater, the underexposed foreground, and the overall soft look. Indeed, to one who seek perfection in photography, these are critical points that will affect one's satisfactory level to the final product. However, if we could all abandon the technicalities away for a moment, can we still put into words why this picture is nice?
I can't be certain, but I think a lot of people feel that this is a special picture, regardless of the technical inefficiency that the picture posted. This picture may be special because of the subject, because of the scene or because of the composition and wonderful play of lines. However, to most, it's difficult to express one's feeling in words (just like one can't really express how lovely a song or a poem really is) and rather than resorting to the "nice" comment, most try hard to make technical comments, that are on the safe and the more tangible side.
I shall give some vague attempt in my thoughts of the pictures. This may be vague, for I find it hard to express my feeling in words too. Nonetheless I shall try...
Firstly, the line and the overall composition makes the immediate subject clear: the person who is eating (notice how the line cut the frame cleanly, leading from the background to the subject or vice versa). Hence, the shot is lovely in that the simple subject is clearly presented without too much difficulty to the viewer. Simple subject are the loveliest! :heart:
But then, what about the shadow blocking the face? Is the person eating happy? sad? mad? angry? What is he thinking anyway? These would be questions that would run through most mind... and it's wonderful in itself, for it substain interest in the frame. To me, it added mystique to the person. By not revealing the person's face, what one is seeing is no longer a particular individual. Instead, without the facial feature, we would associate a more general things to define the person, or to see the person to define a certain social role (e.g. a policeman without a face will represent the whole safeguard of the country, and not an individual policeman). In this case, the guy who is eating isn't one particular individual, but anyone who dresses like him in the country, possibly someone who is what? lower-middle class individual? Again, this is wonderful, for it gives a broad commentary to what kind of circumstances a person of that class status dine at. That's depth.
Wait! It doesn't end here. A hand stretching across the right side of the frame forms a subtle interaction with the main subject. What is the hand doing? Is it serving food to the subject? Is it ignoring the subject, and getting food for oneself? Would one assume that the hand originate from someone similar to that of the subject? And if the hand is to serve oneself, what kind of dining atmosphere would this be? Again, this is a wonderful addition to enhance a lovely scene.
There's so much more I can go on about this frame, like the interaction between the dark foreground and the bright background, the overall softness of the frame, yada yada. But I shan't. For the more I say, the less interesting a frame would become. One ought to enjoy a picture in anyway one ought to, and not dictated by commentary or whatnot.
But what I wanted to stress is this. The picture is lovely for it manage to substain interest with simple theme, in spite of the technical inefficiency. So, do try and throw away technicalities sometime and enjoy picture as how they were meant to be. There's no perfection at the end of the day anyway, for even the most "perfect" picture is flawed one way or another...