Visionaries

Maybe it is because I've viewed the image enough times today to grow familiar, but John's burning in looks imposed and artificial and does not work for me at all.

Good point David.
The photographer does not always focus the lens on the element in the photo on which the photographer wants the viewers attention focused.

In my posts focus was always meant to refer to the sharpest area of the photo which to me looks like the third girls shirt.

In terms of composition I think I would have wanted the focus ( sharpness ) on the middle girl.

I like Shawn's original, because the differenses are more to my liking, and the whole has more nuances than John's example, which looks uniform.

"How do you feel you show situational factors while minimizing the background to the extent you do?" – Fred

Fred, it is the surroundings (the situational factors) that I am usually working on eliminating or minimizing so that they will not be distractions to the smaller portion of the overall scene I want to photograph. I isolate this portion mostly by choice of aperture and cropping, but also by looking for the best camera position before the shot if time permits. Because of the flood of people moving between me and the subjects, I was quite limited in finding a good camera position in this case. I just took the photographs of the girls as they were available to me.

But now back to your question along with another quote from me, "I do not consider myself to be a street photographer ...". I feel that what makes a great street photographer is having the ability to see and capture unique subjects along with the situational factors which improve or make the photograph. On occasions I have found scenes in front of me, all the stars were aligned, and I was able to get a good street photograph. However these are rare occasions because by my nature I am always looking for the isolated views of what I find to be interesting. I have been working on broadening my vision and experiences but it is a slow process for me.

Snapshot or Studio really doesn't matter to me. What I see this a well framed photo, with good use of DOF, though I do wish the girl in the foreground was somewhat sharper. The colors are natural, look at the beautiful color the last girl's cheeks.

Like the original focus point better, sorry. For the reasons stated by Pnina.

A note to all my PN friends:

This photograph was selected as Photo Of the Week (POW) for the week of August 23, 2010. But sometime during the evening and morning of August 26 – 27 my photograph of three young Irish girls was replaced with another photograph by an unknown person(s). I had nothing to do with this and I am appalled that it happened.

I apologize to you all for this happening, and especially for it to have happened with one of my own photographs. I was recently informed by PN administrators that they have determined my account was hacked and the photograph altered by the hackers. Needless to say I am very embarrassed by this and we are working on getting the original image restored.

I don't know if security was breached at the PN side or somewhere nearer my own side, but this should be a lesson to all that the Internet is not as secure as we may like to believe. Keep watch over your own shoulders.

Shawn Shawhan

**ADMIN NOTE**

Howdy folks,

Due to a hacked password, we had some issues with this image being replaced with a nude image. All should be fixed at this point, but please accept my apologies to anyone who was surprised when they clicked to comment on a photo of children and found something else and my apologies to Shawn for the annoyance and embarrassment.

And folks, remember to change those passwords from time to time!

My personal apologies also go out to all who happened to have seen the inappropriate replacement image. Watch your backs, the Internet is not as secure as we'd hope to believe it is.

Glad to see it's back!
I only just began following the POW forum over the past two weeks.
This is my first comment in this forum, and I lack the "professional expertise" that is exchanged here, but I do think this photo is "worthy" of continued conversation.
I find the expression's and their obvious excitement about the event interesting enough to photograph.
Nice Photograph Shawn!

It's a relief to see that this has been resolved. The vandal(s) did not win for long. I would hate to see a curtailment in the length of time of display and discussion of this great shot. To me it goes a long way beyond "cute."

I wish that I knew what the girls were looking at.

--Lannie

I’m really happy to see that the charming visionaries are back. The credit of this photograph is that it can provide emotional pleasure and nostalgic support to the viewers across different cultures. Looking at the emotionally charged faces of the beautiful little girls the viewer finds a visual pleasure, which quickly encompasses the viewer’s psychological existence. Then, after recognizing fully the emotional tone of the perceptual field, the viewer optimistically enjoys his/her own pleasant soft mood filled with tenderness and hope.
Congratulations Shawhan for this POW.

I just noticed that this was shot with the 28-300 IS lens, a real monster at 3.7 lbs. I see from the EXIF data that it was shot at full extension (300mm) at f/5.6 (Shawn's choice, according to earlier comments) , ISO 100, and shutter speed of 1/60 sec. I suppose that I would have set the ISO at 200 or even faster to get a faster shutter speed, although shutter speed was apparently not the prime factor in sharpness and/or focus issues: the aperture selection of f/5.6 was the factor here--and Shawn has already commented on that as well.

I mention all of this because much of the discussion has been about esthetic considerations, but, once one decides to carry around a lens this big for quite a while, other issues come into play--or could come into play. I guess that the remarkable thing is that Shawn was able to carry off the 1/60 sec exposure, although with IS that is not quite the challenge that it sounds--or would not be with a light lens, but this thing is huge. As I have previously mentioned, I rather like the effect at 5.6 in terms of DOF (since the girl in focus is the "star" for me, given her expression), but even Shawn himself was not too happy with the outcome.

I have a Sigma 300 f/2.8 (no IS, VR, or OS), and I have to say that carrying that thing and focusing it (I like to use manual focus) is a great challenge. I miss a lot of shots that way, and so sometimes I do retreat to AF. I have not paid a lot of attention to this particular Canon lens, due to its price and weight, but I see that a lot of shots made this day by Shawn were made with it.

I have no conclusions to draw from any of this, but the lens choice does in this case make me think about gear more than I might for most "street" or "candid" or "snapshot" shots (not a debate I care a lot for). I can see the advantages of a great focal range, but 3.7 pounds for an extended shoot?? In any case, none of the lens' attributes apparently wound up being an issue in the results--except that Shawn was able to get the focal length that he needed when he needed it, for this and for other shots in the folder.

--Lannie

After doing a bit more research on the lens used, I assume that at 300mm the biggest opening one can get is with f/5.6. (The lens is faster, of course, at the wide end: f/3.5 at 28mm.) When Shawn says that he made the mistake of shooting at 5.6, I guess that he means that he should have stopped down to get greater DOF. That might have gotten the DOF that he needed to get all three faces in focus at once (if that is what one wants, and apparently most think that it would have been better with all three faces in focus), but stopping down raises issues of getting enough light on an overcast day for a "fast enough" shutter speed, especially with moving subjects. If Shawn had stopped down more, about the only thing to do would have been to turn up the ISO--not the preferred solution, but a near necessity when the shutter speed starts getting too slow because of not enough light.

It is funny that, when we talk about technical issues on this forum, it is usually about Photoshop or other software/tool/filter/montage decisions, etc. There is typically not much discussion of the basics of exposure, which determines everything else that we do--and wind up getting.

Now that we can dial up higher ISOs without much trouble, I suppose that the exposure issues are not that interesting to most people anymore, but to me they are still critical and merit more attention--especially for those who come to this forum and who are still learning the basics of exposure--or who may have thought that there was not much that one needed to learn anymore. I wonder how many young digital shooters with modern DSLRs even know that there are three exposure variables--much less what they are, or how they affect some pretty basic decisions prior (one hopes!) to shooting.

--Lannie

Yes the lens is heavy but it is my lens of choice for photographing people in candid situations. When people see that I am photographing them they usually tend to pose and smile for the camera and that is the last thing I want. With this lens I can be 30 feet away and still get good pictures of both people and animals. When I hike in the woods and mountains I take my EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens instead.

There were blue skies and white fluffy clouds on the day of this shot, a perfect day for a parade. I have tried photographing parade participants at f/16, ISO 100 but had little success. If I increase the ISO to 400 I am able to get most of my shots in focus but with the addition of some graininess. If I would have had the time to set up for this shot of the girls I would have used between f/8 and f/11, kept the ISO at 100 and then rested my elbows on the roof of the car that I was shooting over. But as I previously stated, if I am photographing single, individual persons then the f/5.6 is perfect for what I'm after.

Thanks, Shawn. I can see the logic of that.

Soon as I can go knock off a convenience store, I'm going to go buy one.

--Lannie

If i have to critique this photo just i can say it can not printed in color due to the different color tone of the skin ( this is between faces and necks of the first and third girl ).

Could you explain why it cannot be printed because of skin tone? I don't understand why that would be an issue.

David B. Kilper
Good morning
Two days ago I have posted my opinion about this cute capture. And now I haven’t change my mind at all about its beauty, but it is a thinking how it will be if Shawn Shawhan wanted to print.. As you know, it is not an easy job to get from the print the same beautiful colors and tones which are shown by the monitor. Indeed this is a challenge and can be dilemma. Here I am talking about my skilled in a home printing of my photos in A4 paper size and without color management.
Today I have examined the photo too and I have seen a different tone and blue color cast in the neck of the two girls, this what flash me back to my difficulty in printing photo has small areas with unnatural color cast.
That is all, I hope I am mistake, and Shawn Shawhan can tell us if he already has printed this photo.

It does seem to be a little bit on the blue side. I think the whiteness under their chins is from the reflected light of the warmups they are wearing. I don't think it's the type of picture I would print out and hang on my wall either. After I read your comment, that reflected light started bothering me more. I don't know if anything could be done on sight though to counter that reflected light without upsetting someone. I think though, that if this image were warmed up a little bit, the lighting would seem more acceptable from my own point of view and tastes. Thank you for clarifying your comment. I see what you mean.

I do not yet own a printer, therefore I have only heard about the horrors of the color differences between monitor and printer. Now that I am retired from my day job, and have more time available, I will soon be updating my computer hardware and I will include a printer. Then I too can enjoy the frustrations that I have only so far heard about regarding printer color management.

I don't really care much for photographing people (unless they are being weird) and therefore I doubt that I would want to print photographs of them either. If I were to print images of people most would be in black and white, which is how I think they look the best. I would not consider printing this image at all, in color or black and white. It is too cute for my tastes.

Ansel Adams wrote in the introduction of his PRINT book…

"a negative is only an intermediate step toward the finished print, and means little as an object in itself. Much effort and control usually go into the making of the negative, not for the negative's own sake, but in order to have the best possible "raw material" for the final printing".

I don’t know if this phrases sound too much in digital photography?.

I don't think it means as much in digital photography. Actually, I don't even think it meant that much in film photography. 99.9% of the people in the world had other people process the film. It used to be that people would take their film to Walgreens and either they were happy with the final prints or not. Now just about anyone can get a bootleg copy of Photoshop and process their digital images today. I think that now, people think, "Oh well, I can fix that at home with Photoshop." Digital manipulation is easy and unfortunately, is done with little thought. People don't realize that by removing something from the photo they run the risk of misrepresenting the person in the photo, and in some cases, even change the cultural context of the objects/people in the photos--among many other digital manipulations. That isn't to say that we don't care. WE care. That's why we are here at Photo.net. But 99.9999999999999% of people who do digital "photography" don't really understand much about the quality of a negative or raw image. I wonder how few people even know what a raw image is--1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 1,000,000? Heck, there are people in the US that think Hawaii is another country.

David, I don't think Ansel wrote that for those that take their images to Walmart. And I don't think that 99.9999% of the people on this photo site are as you describe either while it may be true globally, with all the people with cameras and phones out there making images.

When photoshop was first generally workable and you didn't have to pay $1000 an hour for Scitex work, people did suggest fixing photos, in the commercial world, with photoshop rather than spend the next hour redoing the set for a small glitch--sometimes it was a good thing and sometimes it was ridiculous as you suggest. The tools we have today are a great boon to photography IMO but that certainly doesn't preclude their abuse.

Shawn, my experience with printing images is really rather good, but the early days were certainly a trying experience. The problems were all to do with the technology, but today, there really isn't any reason not to get great output if you invest in the proper technology. The better printers, with the archival inks, a calibrated monitor and the proper use of color profiles when you go to print will yield prints of incredible fidelity. Most of the time, without comparing directly to the monitor, you will think it looks as it does on screen, but you can never have a reflective piece match an illuminated one exactly--nor will prints on different papers look exact, you have to account for the differences in the medium you are viewing.

By the way, I did find it amusing to read the comments here while relating them to the substituted image when it was up, we should do that more often for comic relief!

John, I captured those comment before the elves backed them out. Based on the time-stamps on them I can see that the substituted image was available for viewing for at least 3 1/2 hours. I would like to think the elves are busily tracking down the perpetrator(s) but they are probably overworked as it is, and I doubt they have the best detective tools available to them. I think it would be best if the elves put a lock on images that are selected for POTW. That way the future generations can be assured they are viewing the images that was discussed in the forum.

I apologize if I wasn't clear in my statement before. I was never referring to the 99.9cont% of photo.net, but rather the world as a whole. Ansel was correct in that the negative is just a stepping stone to the final image, and the final image is only as good as the weakest step. The thing is, I think, that people who do digital photography today, whether by cell phone or by el cheapo digital camera, most people don't understand the inherent morality, ethics, and responsibility that comes along with any kind of photography. I think the potential for making good work, provocative work, and socially phenomenal work is more likely today than ever before because of Photoshop etc..., but at the same time, the possibility and probability of people producing images on the other side of the spectrum is far higher. People who would never have had any part of the processing and manipulation before, now do. One thing is for sure though, and that is that digital photography has made photography much more accessible to the masses. Too bad the digital camera manuals don't come with explanations on the ethics of photography.