Untitled

this is another cookie cutter scene of a military culture from which the photographer is a loyal member, and it seems, one with a one sided vision befitting a propagandist. It is the privilege of the photographer to frame the world as if a sycophantic witnesses if he so chooses to cater to a safe market, but the grand tradition of war reportage that lasts in the imagination of viewers, that impacts and matters over time, is one that challenges and questions the madness of the endeavor. Or something. All else is lightweight and maudlin and soon forgotten.

peace

Exactly. When I made my original comment, I knew there was a phrase or adjective I was looking for, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. "Cookie cutter" pretty much nails it, though.

I'm not sure "cookie cutter" is such a bad thing when it comes to documentary work. Familiarity often reaches people. Sure, there is great documentary work that is on the cutting edge of style and vision. But I think there's also solid documentary work that simply captures what's there and presents its content clearly and in a way people can relate to. Sometimes, actually meeting rather than exceeding expectations can be a good way to communicate. In my own documentary work, I try to blend tried and true kinds of images with what I consider to be a little more personal and creative work. But some of the work, IMO, just needs to be accurate and good, not original. That's why I think this kind of shot has potential. It feels straightforward to me and has a simplicity that works. It would be greatly helped by a series that completed the narrative.

As to the subject matter, there's obviously some controversy about that, which is probably a good thing. Any photographer presenting stuff risks the ire of some and the admiration of others. It's tricky for me. Let's take Reifenstahl as the extreme example of propagandistic documentary. And, of course, less extreme are any of our photos, which could all be seen as some sort of propaganda or coming from some sort of agenda, my own included. I think every good photographer may want some controversy, otherwise we'd all just go for the most benign subjects and portrayals. Real life is complicated, as are reactions. And so, horrible a story as it tells and shameful a role in history as Ms. Reifenstahl must take, she was a consummate artist and I am able to see her work as on some levels transcending the subject matter. It is still tied to the subject and always will be and that will always conflict me. But not enough for me to dismiss it. And, no, I don't think Russell's work is either at the aesthetic level of Riefenstahl's nor anywhere on the same planet of objectionableness.

I'm pretty non-militaristic and would even consider myself anti-military to a great extent. That's about the wars we fight and not so much about the people who go into battle. I'm conflicted about those who volunteer and wind up in immoral or ill-advised wars, and yet I hate to blame the guys on the ground and prefer keeping my anger directed toward the louses in Congress and the Oval Office who send them on these dubious missions.

Much as I abhor and denounce Riefenstahl's beliefs it is perhaps due to her unquestioning devotion to what she was doing and portraying that her brilliance as a filmmaker comes out. This is what passion is and we can like it or not. Like I said, I'm conflicted about exactly where to draw the lines and exactly what to expect at all times. I don't know that it is always up to a photographer to do the questioning, as it is up to the audience as well. I look at Russell's images and my own questions come to mind and I am not persuaded by him to think one way or another about the content of his photos. It will not make me more or less open to what the militaries of the world do, both good and bad. It presents to me an honest mindset and someone who is photographing something important to himself and something he can claim a level of intimacy with. As I look through many PN portfolios, I often ask myself why more people are not photographing their passions and are instead choosing subjects which almost seem to be chosen as if by default. I don't have that reaction to Russell's work and, on that level, I can appreciate what he's up to, even if I am somewhat skeptical and even put off by some of what I see. Russell doesn't need to tell me how to react. I can do that for myself. Having a father who served honorably in WWII and is still hanging on, I can understand what honor and bonds there are among military people, even if I find myself often in a very different place, looking in from the outside, and not always liking what I see.

I would agree with John A on this. Very average image to me. Looks like it was taken in an arena with blue seats. I think you have to stretch to think of this as something more than two people embracing in an arena and a child crying while holding an American flag. There could be many things that caused the embrace and crying. There is nothing in the image to really define the moment, no matter how hard I try to read something into this. Could be the childs favorite wrestler just lost the match - the parents are ecstatic because they don't have to come to any more wrestling matches anymore. I don't know - and the image doesn't tell me. I see nothing here at all.

As a photo it doesn't do much for me, a snapshot I would say, and an uncomfortable composition, and we have no idea why he's crying, doubtfully out of patriotism, but possible I guess. He could have a headache. Just being honest. This photog has other work that I find a lot more interesting.

I should add that I think other reviewers are way off base. I doubt the photographer took this photo with the intent that it be a profound expression of patriotism, an iconic image, or anything more than it is. It was just a photograph until elevated by the photo.net editorial staff to become the subject of discussion here. I think such a melodramatic and overwrought criticism such as that as that by Carlos is not uncalled for necessary, but is way out of perspective. You're projecting all manner of intent when as far we know it is merely something the photographer saw and shot, which, like many of us, is his job.

Let me phrase it another way, Fred. Like you, I looked at the photographer's other work here on p.net. I do that for every POTW.

I suppose a lot of the photographer's work could be classified as documentary. But looking at it, especially the folders titled Defenders, Eye of the Storm, and Iraq...there's a "sameness" there for me. The majority of the shots seem to be perfectly lighted, perfectly exposed, and there's a staged look to a lot of them. They have the look of having been set up, rather than caught in the spur of the moment. They don't look like true documentary photos to me. Using this one as an example...it just doesn't look real to me. It looks more like one of those "A Few Good Men..." recruiting posters. Or this one. There's nothing going on. The soldier's finger isn't even on the trigger. It's a posed shot.

I'm not saying the photographer's work isn't valid, and I can't fault the quality of the work (overall). What I am saying is that the impact isn't there for me with this POTW and a lot of the photographer's other work. It lacks the visual force and immediacy that we see in documentary work of other soldiers in other wars.

Bottom line? It doesn't work for me (an overused phrase). I'd rather see a grainy blurred (or not blurred) black and white shot with a 35mm or 4x5 than this.

I have a bit of a different vein that I might add with regards to this idea, at least at its most basic, the "cookie cutter".

Whereas I agree that sometimes a "familiar" type of image can communicate quickly, I would also point out just how many times "familiar" images are panned around here. Landscapes come to mind for one, where there are often entrenched camps in the POTW threads. The problem underlying the discussions isn't about landscape photography itself but about images that are too familiar and too easy--everyone does them.

That is the problem with shots like this--and maybe even the raining of war and revolution images we seem to get bombarded with. I look at the NYTimes lens blog quite a bit. My conclusion is that they could be running the same images over and over that show Syrian, Egyptian, Libyan etc unrest and fighting--and just mixing them up between the different conflicts. I have gotten to the point that I feel somewhat numb to them! The problem is just the sameness, sort of like there is a formula for what is shown. This is probably why I liked the story one photographer did of a platoon with his iPhone and the Hipstamatic App. The images just seemed a bit more fresh and alive--he got crucified by the "purists" who thought the images were too "modified" by the process--the look was the look and the images themselves were not worked, no different really than black and white would have been as to the "modification". (I thought they were fresh and alive not because of the App and iPhone, but because these maybe fostered a "different" way of working.)

This whole idea of making the easy image (predictable and expected) and the number of years people have been photographing the same things is exactly the reason photography, in the art world, has been going in directions that are undecipherable to so many--and deemed irrelevant by many who enjoy the medium. How many times do we have to look at the "same" images to get it? Personal enjoyment of the medium is a different issue altogether than what I am referring to here.

Anyway, I am not trying to suggest that these things, the effects of war and honoring our troops, don't need to be brought to people's attention, I just hope we find more effective and compelling ways to do it in the future. One start would be just to be sure that the images presented are compelling and of the highest quality, edit out the ordinary ones.

I like compelling, high quality documentary work as much as the next guy. I'm trying to emphasize, though, a different aspect of some documentary work. It's based on the word "document" and sometimes its relevance is just that. Never mind style, never mind interest, never mind emotional compulsion. A documentary photo can be significant as proof. Pictures from the WWII concentration camps are important for what they prove and convey. They can be of the poorest quality, shot from the most mundane angles, with no sense of photographic originality or creativity. I may not want to see them in a museum (not all photography is art or meant to be art or is about being art), may not want a coffee table book of them in my living room, but I am grateful for their existence. The importance of some documentary photos is just that they ARE.

This, of course, does not touch upon what Russell's goal may be in making his photos, but I felt it necessary to amplify my earlier comments about cookie-cutter not always being a negative.

Let's say Russell wants to make a scrap book of his experiences with the military. It will be something for his friends and family. It is very much a document. Easy access will be important. Compelling photographic style will not be. I am so thankful that I have my parents photos of them and their family and friends from the 30s and 40s. The style those photos have is not a photographic style and my interest in them is not mainly a "photographic" interest (although in some cases, it surely is). The style is the style of the times, of the dress, of the architecture, makeup, etc. And the interest is in history and people, which comes through regardless and sometimes because of the very straight-forward and cookie cutter style. Sure, your parents' old photos and my parents' old photos from the same era might well be very similar. To an outsider, one might easily substitute one for another. But to an insider, it's the content and not the style and not the form that wants to deliver itself.

The point is, Russell was there and that may be what matters to him and to others who view his photos. A lot of documentary photos have mostly an evidentiary purpose. Why do so many take the same vacation snaps as everyone else? Not because they are original. But because they, themselves, were there.

It seems to me that people are ganging up on Mr. Klika because he posted one rather ordinary picture of some sort of military ritual amidst a sea of rather beautiful ones on the same theme, and people neither want to see either ordinary (or beautiful) pictures on this theme.

Maybe it's not in his nature to take pictures of horrific war scenes, and maybe it would be his photographic nature to try to make them beautiful if he did; then again, maybe he's simply never been in battle or photographed its carnage. I guess there may be some legitimacy to the criticism that war should not be made beautiful.

That being said, I think everyone who hasn't been to his personal website ought to take a trip over there and see the pictures there.

I think people are ganging up due to the (likely incorrect) notion that the photog was being saccharin or playing into stereotypes with his choice of subject and treatment. I would instead put that onus on photo.net for choosing it as potw.

What if you cut the photo across at the center. The boy with his flag seen first, uniform on the parent next for context, then the eye goes to the embrace? Would that crop be considered less of a clichéd story?

Lack of context in which this photograph was taken makes it really difficult to understand or relate to. The question: why little Johny is crying? - is impossible to answer without additional info from a title or short description. As others have pointed out it can be a trivial or a tragic scene. To me it is strange that this photo is left untitled. Shouldn't documentary photograph be presented with details about who, where and when or even what is going on? On the other hand maybe if we knew what is going on in this picture we would not be discussing it.

Is this war propaganda or anti obesity propaganda?

Bad joke aside, the photograph is aestethically dull and the potential of the photo to work as an interesting documentary piece of work is lost without a name or a little bit of context.

Photo.net chose this photograph as POTW. Photo.net invites photographers to critique the photograph...to "address its strengths, its weaknesses."

So why are negative critiques perceived as "ganging up on the photographer"? People are doing what they're supposed to do, which is critique the photo.

Ganging up? Baloney.

I perhaps was speaking a little loosely when I said that people were ganging up on Mr. Klika, but I would be interested in knowing if people's opinions of his photography change if they look at his work on his personal (i.e., non-Photo Net) website.

For instance, if you want to see a grainy black and white image, go to photo no. 20 in the Afghanistan no. 2 portfolio.

I was wondering if anyone can explain to me how Mr. Klika gets such a rich, luxuriant look to many of his other B&W photos on this website. Could it have something to do with post-processing software ?

Martin, I think Russell's personal web site, as opposed to his PN portfolio, shows a well conceived body of work with more artistic intention than some of what I saw in his portfolio. In some instances, I think "grainy b/w" work is overrated. It's the expected vehicle for pathos and I think can often be trite. Within Russell's body of work, the photo you mention works quite nicely and is moving. But a demand from an audience for grainy b/w work because someone is shooting military documentary subject matter seems somewhat strange to me, predictable in itself, especially in light of a discussion of Russell's work as cookie cutter. Grainy b/w documentary work eliciting dramatic pathos is a little bit cookie cutter in itself, though as I say it works for me in the photo you pointed to.

The POTW photo chosen stands out all the more in distinct contrast in tone, style, and approach to what's on the web site. It is more of a snapshot. Frankly, I'd think there is definitely a place for the POTW type of approach in Russell's work as well. It has a lighter touch and there's an immediacy to it that seems worth pursuing.

mr. Klika is a professional photographer, and if you don't know that by now all you need do is take a look at the man’s profile and work and you’ll see a body of work from a man with a forthright point of view, and a point of view that sells to clients such as Time, Newsweek, NY and LA Times, World Literature Today, American Photo, French Photo and Soldier of Fortune, etc… He is also obviously a tough hombre to boot, one able and capable of assuming his choices, how he sees the world and presents it to others!
Yet here you stand treating the man as if a fragile child ganged over by bullies… WTF’ wrong with you? Listen up: however you see Mr. Klika’ work, as unoriginal cookie cutter sentimentality or a grand powerful expression of whatever, he don’t need your condescending BS. Enough with the silliness already.

Folks,

While I realize that subject matter is as crucial to critique as any technique or aesthetic choice, I would encourage you to be mindful of the line between OT forum debating and POTW image discussion. It's one of those lines that is different for everyone, but I'm hoping that by asking people to be aware of it, we can keep the POTW conversation on track as being about the image itself as much as possible.

If you are of a mind to debate politics, the OT Forum is available and there are always people willing to butt heads with you over any topic you think is important.

Martin,
How a black and white photograph looks has always had everything to do with how the photographer works the image after it is shot. I don't see anything as being software specific there, but the capabilities of the tools used and the person's own ability to effectively use what is available, is all that is generally needed. I think one of the areas of photography that has been lost with the immediacy of digital is that the "capture" is generally just the starting point. Good photographs take a lot of work to realize after the exposure is made.

Not knowing anything about the circumstances of the image, I was affected by the little flag holding boy and also got some information from the uniformed hugger. It made me interested to know its story. In that much I found it effective and moving. I like it, even as a stand alone image. It makes you think and I noticed I looked at it just a bit longer than I do most images.

@John A. I personally feel very strongly that the opposite is true. Good photographs need not require any more than 15 or 30 seconds of post, or any at all, even off the cuff, on-the-go documentary work in mixed light. I have thousands of images that hold their own very well straight out of the camera. I think 95% of the process of creating a photograph is done by the time you press the shutter. That's just me though, and it's not a judgement of you or your philosophy in any way. I think different photographers have different approaches and that's a good thing.

Steve, I wouldn't argue that one can easily make images that come out of the camera that can often "hold their own". We see this all the time, even most snapshots do this. But that isn't what I am talking about and not everyone has the interest or awareness of what it takes to move an image past that point.

That said, I do think that, even beyond being adequate, good and maybe even great images can be made in the right light and circumstances that little has to be done with them in post for them to be fully realized. I don't think it is generally the norm outside of the studio or in full commercial production.

But in this case, I was directing my comments specifically towards black and white work and the art of great black and white work has always been how one interprets the information that is gotten on the film/capture. Color and such can't carry or dazzle, the image has to be composed well but then has to be worked in the darkroom--wet or digital--to really get the image to stand out. In most cases, 30 seconds isn't going to cut it except to give you an idea of what you might have to work with.

My own comment to people who ask is that 100% of the work is done in the camera while the other 100% is done in post. Great images are ones that are fully realized and that can only happen when complete attention and skill are employed on both ends. That can certainly be a shot made from the hip that comes out perfectly without any major post work but that just isn't the norm or even the goal.

Certainly, people have different ways of working but more than not that reflects in the final product.

Amazing Capture , Powerful Image
I first viewed this Image last Thursday Oct 11th, I woke up on Saturday a.m. at 3.15am and thought of this Shot
For me , We can only presume the Boy is upset to see his Dad heading overseas !!!
The only thing wrong with this Shot is that it should 26000 views instead of 6600