Damon DAmato 34 Posted September 10, 2008 >> Looks too sexual to me >> The kid in the middle has a highly inappropriate pose... You people need to read about the concept of "projection" Link to comment
ivaylo_hristov 0 Posted September 17, 2008 O my God, the girl has such a special look on her eyes. Cover her face and see that the image has a totaly different approach to you. Link to comment
ajayan 0 Posted September 21, 2008 I am not competent to comment this photo. Only what I can say is incredible. It make me feel the strenght of photography Link to comment
fotodaniella 0 Posted September 30, 2008 I love so much the fantastic light on this scene, as the tone...great impact ++++ Link to comment
amysn 0 Posted October 12, 2008 Yes, wonderful tones, and wonderful smile by the girl. But, and I hate to be so contrary, but I don't get it. The boys look so posed and unnatural, especially the boy in the middle. I'm sure everyone sees that, but no one commented on it. Is looking posed and acting good? (Not to me.) Anyway, I will give you this - this is a disturbing photo, so perhaps for that reason, it's a strong photo, but to me it's for all the wrong reasons. Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted October 14, 2008 Looks far too posed and contrived to suit me and has a soft core kiddie porn look that I don't care for. Link to comment
amysn 0 Posted October 14, 2008 Steve - I think you nailed it with your comment. Thanks for saying so. - Amy Link to comment
drr 0 Posted October 14, 2008 Could not disagree with steve and amy more. I think political correctness has got the best of them. This is art. Link to comment
amysn 0 Posted October 15, 2008 Roy - I'm curious what to you is art about this? Is it the soft pornish quality? Or perhaps you like that the photo is disturbing, and thus produces emotion? Is it that it is so unnatural? Is that what makes it art? Or, perhaps you don't see it as soft porn or unnatural? Or perhaps natural has nothing to do with it? (To me, a good portrait, should appear natural.) As for me being "PC," that is a simple label that comes off as dismissive of our take on this. If you care to discuss, I am curious. Thanks for the discussion. Link to comment
rdo 0 Posted November 1, 2008 Very nice and intensive B&W work. I like very much how smile your daughter because is very natural and expressive, also the pose of your sons express some character of their personatity, that made of the photo very special. Gut work...! Ricardo Link to comment
yalcin_adali 0 Posted November 3, 2008 Very good exposure,tonality and exposition.They seems very natural..My congrats.. Link to comment
signe 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Personally I think this photo reminds too much of child pornography. The children look like they're trying to be "flirty and sexy" for the camera, but they are only like nine or so, so nobody should be taking such photos of them. I think it's sad that children can barely bathe naked without people being paranoid, but in this picture it actually looks like the children are trying to be sexy rather than just being innocently undressed like children often are. I don't like it. Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted November 7, 2008 That is exactly what I think. Look at that the kid in the middle with that finger. That is a no no in photography. This person either does not pay attention to composition or is really sick. Link to comment
juan carlos rivera 0 Posted November 14, 2008 One of the most beautiful photos I have seen during years. Sincere congrats. Link to comment
frank_livolsi 0 Posted December 19, 2008 I have nothing to offer in terms of cropping, lighting, or other such aspects; but there has been a brief commentary about the suggestiveness of this photo, into which I'd like to throw my two cents. In a nutshell, I’d have to agree with what AS de Beer wrote. I’m left with torn impressions of this photograph. I can sympathize with Signe Robertson in his impression, because there is a very perceptibly -precocious, -adult-themed undertone to this photo—but I think one could hardly fault the photographer for it. What I think nearly vindicates this photo is that it was not strictly posed; the children took their positions by themselves for a shot in front of an old house by the beach. There is a level of innocence, which is unperceived at first, to take into account. I’d say that it dances a little closer to the border between “art” and “pornographic” than perhaps we were prepared for; but because of its original context, I don’t think it falls into that distasteful category. There’s a darker, sexual aspect about it that rarely shows itself as being more than menacingly playful; and while such posing would indeed be inappropriate for children, I think it’s a far cry from “pornographic.” As it is, I’m convinced that the sexuality is unintentional. The photo can be extenuated a bit more when one takes into account the family situations of the children.I can appreciate their hardships, but I can’t help but comment that what I think “do this photo in” are the expressions of the boys—particularly the one on the right. If they’d been smiling brightly (instead of looking so somber) then it could have evoked an emotion more-akin to the cheerfulness and romping innocence of childhood, instead of effectively becoming a petite representation of the iniquitousness of adulthood. I say that while also acknowledging that they are obviously sad for their father’s absence. When I first glanced at this photo, I thought nothing of it; but further examination has brought me to raise a surprised eyebrow. I hope Mrs. Dege will understand that, if I analyzed this photo without knowing anything about its background, the whole mood about it would remind me a little of the naughtier scenes in the movie “Chicago.” I don’t know if I, personally, would have put it online in a public forum. It’s so paradoxical. I really don’t think the children were intending to look as they do at first glance; and the innocent intentions of all parties involved, contrasted against the suggestiveness of the finished product, rather astound me. If I were to sum-up this photo in five words, those five words would be, “a bundle of odd coincidences.” This isn’t a bad photo. If not for the expressions of the boys, I’d give this photo a 9/10. Taking the photo as it is, though, I’d give it a 7.5/10—and that much only because I know that the controversial undertone is coincidental. Link to comment
skersell33 0 Posted December 20, 2008 What a fantastically composed image full of all the attitude of teenagers. Very well executed. -Sherry Link to comment
serocchio 0 Posted December 20, 2008 The picture it's wonderful, not only technically: children are children, but they are growing faster and that is the life! Link to comment
jorge_fernandez3 1 Posted August 11, 2009 This is an amazing image with a superb story and great expressions. The texture is fabulous and the composirtion is really good. Take good care. Warm regards. Link to comment
kombizz 16 Posted October 8, 2009 It is a sharp detail image with good composition. I guess the second boy on te far left needs better lighting as it is little dark to me. Link to comment
aziz_liddawi 0 Posted January 25, 2010 everything is good, but wot about the middle kid finger! Link to comment
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now