runaway...

Sam, that's a good point re: the head being down. That aspect was below my level of consciousness, but now that you've pointed it out, it's part of the whole picture that appeals to me. Your comment enabled me to see one more similar element: the arms raised slightly, as if to aid in balance. That's what kids (and adults) do when they are concentrating on balance. This child is obviously (even though we can't see the face) concentrating on following that track -- just because.... just because he's a kid, the track is there, and the world is meant to be explored.

it's indeed a nice little snapshot. Given the fact that so many comments have been made about the vignette I have to agree, it's a bad idea in this particular photo as far as I'm concerned let alone such a heavy one. What surprises me that no one commented on the underexposure because it is slightly underexposed. It is what it is and there is nothing wrong with that although I'm not so sure there is so much that's worthwhile to be discussed here.

Very nice shot and in B&W it soars.
No crop is needed. The child found what is interesting to him amidst the blandness.
But,
Tell that kid to stop fooling around and get to school.
Best Regards,
Jim

Since I was the first one to comment on this image at the time of posting,I would add nothing here BUT TO REVEAL MY CHILDHOOD SECRET ,IF IT WAS ONE,
I have seen myself in that kid photo,when I was four and five years old,I used to walk exactly in the middle of of the old narrow roads of Nineveh (Mosul now),and I follow certain types of tiles on the ground,and during the rain ,I used to walk in the stream line of water that runs in in the middle of the roads,something I always get hard talk from my mother who used to dry all my clothes and my shoes.
in this I am not like Jack Nicholson in his masterpiece As Good As It Gets,he used to follow the clean tiles only.
May anyone kindly comments on the content of the image,or we just satisfy ourselves with lighting ,cropping ..etc. as a photographers ?
I guess all of you mates are well absorbed in and by life and its fabulous manifestations and its behavioural shapes.
thank you Sid for this photo of me.

Dear Sid,

This is an excellent composition. The vignetting effect created an aura around the kid, which I love.

Regards,
Amlan

Great pic:)

The shot is nice but what I find don't work are composition and format. We are looking at a subject that tries the rule of the thirds in an "almost square" and this doesn't work, IMO. Also, I believe that the strength of this picture is the idea and the message(s) it conveys and for that reason I would position the subject in a more central position. Forget the rule of the thirds. The other think doesn't quite work for me is the exposure a bit too dim. If the vignette effect is created by an omnidirectional lighting effect, then the exposure on the subject should have been measured better. This way, the image is too "gray". See my edited version.

Antonio, for me, more contrast ruins the bit of charm this photo has. It's unpretentiousness is its best feature, simplicity, which is why the vignette spoils that to begin with. IMO.

A great pic indeed, Sid. :)
Reading all the critique, lets me to learn better ontoward a thoughtful photography! :) ...
-Siva

Fred
I agree with you on the vignette, don't like them at all. I kept it on my crop to respect the photographer's choice. I didn't increase contrast, just higher the exposure a bit. My monitor is very old and not so luminous and what I see could result much more bright and contrasted on a good screen. I do think that the image is a bit underexposed but not intentionally.

I can hardly add anything new to the conversation. Clever and cute shot!

I think for me that the one thing that sticks out in all these versions of this shot is that there just isn't any need to "refocus" this image. How can there be any question as to where the eye goes? And the sea of gray is really not much more than a puddle!

I might also add that although "underexposure" is assumed here, one might want to contemplate the difference in mood of an image when it is maybe a little less exposed and a little less contrasty versus "a more pleasing" redux. We get used to seeing things this way and maybe only see a difference but have lost the ability to feel the difference.

"I might also add that although 'underexposure' is assumed here, one might want to contemplate the difference in mood of an image when it is maybe a little less exposed and a little less contrasty versus 'a more pleasing' redux. We get used to seeing things this way and maybe only see a difference but have lost the ability to feel the difference." --John

This should be REQUIRED reading! The ubiquitous insistence on sharpness and contrast from PN critics is mind-boggling. It's as if there is one and only one visual/stylistic/emotional arrow in most critic's (and photographers') arsenals. When I look through a portfolio, one of the first things that stands out to me is if the "look" of all the photos is the same (which it often, unfortunately, is), regardless of subject matter. By look, I mean the level of contrast, the type of color palette employed, the amount of saturation, whether there is a variety of perspectives employed, different types of blurring used, etc. Judging by many of the critiques I read, most people prefer a standard way of approaching these matters, which is really unimaginative and usually downright boring.

A beautiful iimage. I like the image as it is, the vignette is not necessary and a bit distracting to me but otherwise the image's strength is in the subject matter, in my limited opinion. I think the exposure and sharpness is ok, if just a tad under.

Thanks for all the comments. The photo is a suprise snapshot. The child was so fascinated from the lines that she forgot everything else and the lines were her only interest. And all this at 20 months. Discusions about vignettes... This is all more or less my personal opinion. And without the vignette? The picture wouldn't have been the same..
I never would have thought, that so many people would have so many opinions and interest. Best regards.
Sid Sefrna

I like the image ! Good!

By Tuscany

Fred and John
It's not that I am a fan of contrast, sharpness and brightness. Not at all. But here I just don't see the mood you are talking about that can justify the underexposure or lack of brightness. The strength of the photo is in the idea and the concept, not in the mood. In my edited version, I wanted to make that more clear. This is an excellent shot, no discussion about that, but we don't have to justify what IMO are defects just because it just got the POW. When I look at it, the second thing that comes up in my mind after the idea the photo expresses is "underexposure", and that doesn't make the shot better.

Sid
Sometimes the most improvised and unexpected shots can bring amazing results. It does look like this scene flashed up your mind and you caught it. Bravo for catching it in time. It is underexposed for me but that's not the point, the shot is excellent. Congrats for this POW.
Fred and John
Ok... After a second look, maybe my version is a little too bright..! But I still think the original is too underexposed! :-)

The shot is very simple but so strong!In this shot,the atmosphere showed as well and this naughty child doing a funny work that every children done it!I like the colour tones and the view point,too much.The details are as well,also.
Best regards(Bobby).

Bobby,

What, in the photograph, leads you to say the child is naughty?

The title, perhaps? If so, this would illustrate 1) why a title needs to be chosen carefully, if it is given a title at all; and 2) viewers shouldn't be unduly influenced by a title assigned by the photographer. A title may give insight as to what the photographer saw in the shot or why he/she took the shot, but that's not a guarantee.

of course, although it isn't assumed but real. In this case correcting for that slight underexposure would render the photo a little less drab or to stay in your line of thought create a more appealing mood. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious. After all, the most important thing in any photo is light and when one handles that not correctly as is the case here in my opinion you end up with a photo that is subpar technically which directly translates in the mood it conveys.

"Underexposure"?

What renders an image underexposed? Is it when there are areas that retain no detail or whites that are depressed to gray? Or is it an opinion?

I am not suggesting one way or the other with this image, but I don't find it problematic as it is. I also don't think it is problematic for some to think it is underexposed. My comment was just that we need to sometimes step back and accept what has been presented. In this image, IMO, whether it is properly exposed or underexposed is very subjective as there are not outstanding issues where we have lost important detail. One might want to suggest it is a bit depressed, but then I again suggest pondering the title--which is our only hint as to the intent here. What one decides is one's own determination, not an absolute--I guess that is all I was trying to point out in this case. This image is not underexposed, unless for you that is your determination and then you can only suggest that as a possibility from your point of view.

which is what I did. It's a technical assesment, nothing more and nothing less.

No need to ask. You know the answer as well as I do.

I like this image, the photographer was well connected with the child way of thinking that he has the ability to walk over the tranche path successfully and without fare, thats makes this image very interesting as it is intermitting exactly a child nature o behavior.
I do not mind or look or rules here, this is a street original capture and not a planned one, the photographer aim of documenting the moments for this child was very much done remarkably and thats what’s matter for a street work.
Bravo, the image is outstanding and deserve being a POW.