kid by the sea

I think it is important to remember that a photograph that has been impeccably made is sometimes all that it is. Most aspire to create images that are impeccably done but that is just the craft side of photography. Knowing how to consistently create a well made image is important, but not the end point.

I don't know that Fred was suggesting that this image was just a snapshot, I don't think he was, but this is the sort of image that is certainly snapshot fodder. What elevates it above the snapshot is that the photographer has introduced some lyricism into the shot and the execution shows effort and focus on what was important to the photographer.

Does this image move up to being art? I am sure there would be varying opinions on this. But for me it doesn't, although I do think it is an extremely nice image of this sort of event--an event which is not really uncommon but maybe not often as nicely captured.

In addition to the incredible fine art images and books I have seen in the last 30+ years, having been a commercial photographer for the last 20, I have received several industry publications on a monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly and annual basis. All of these were filled with extremely well done images but only occasionally would something make me really stop and look and even fewer had me wanting to see more by that photographer. This is where I see this image, as being very well done but just not having that extra something that Fred was alluding to above.

Had this not been the POW, I don't think I would have stopped on it or clicked the arrows that led to other images. In fact, I didn't do the latter on this image even as the POW--I did on the last two POW's immediately because they made me interested in what was behind them. If I was a budding or aspiring lifestyle or child photographer or was looking for one to do a job for me, I certainly may have looked further.

You might be all right Fred, may be I looked at the over all composition of this image differently, the black carve on the top along with the blurred boat on the right side of the frame work ( or could be something else but a boat ) didn’t look to me as being of any great add here, in fact those would disturb the viewers attention and shift them away from the main contents which the photographer wanted to present here, thats the little girl and the water waves.
The colors are false colors, and not of any original nature and by no means such color cast would give any positive result to this image and or to any other image even with different subjects, these are not original colors non creative colors or tones which one would except, photographic wise.
Again dear Fred, you have the full right to look at this POW the way you find it working for you most, and I do respect that also, this is how every one of us see things his way.
I do also appreciate your feed back and wishing you all of the best my friend.

Just to correct this point, please
moment into a photo.
The moment into this image is not the black carve on the top or the right side object but the position of the little girl, the move of her hands and the direction in which her eyes are going into, thats all there because of her mental drive at that moment forcing all of her parts to follow the move of the waves, thats considered the moment captured in this image and thats where the concentration of the viewers shall be addressed to, as there is nothing else in here would been captured as a Moment.

Fred and John, thanks for the explanations. I have a developing sense of what you are describing as a photograph that is worth spending time with. Actually, I had some of this sense even before I tried to write the question because I feel the same about some landscape photographs. They are relatively rare, but clearly a few move me much more than the majority of others, and it may be they have some of the same qualities as those you are describing here.

Still, I personally find it difficult to define and to describe. How do I recognize "passion" in a photograph? How do I recognize "connectedness" in a photograph? "Individuality" I might equate with uniqueness, but I'm not sure. Same with "perspective." The aspects of "transformation" or "transcending" seem to me (possibly) to be a combination of all of the above that really set the photograph apart from the masses, or that have an accumulated combination of qualities that "make it worth spending time with." It's hard for me to know when a photographer has giving himself / herself to something, but I tend to come back to uniqueness and to the emotional reaction I have to a photograph. Again, these are relatively rare, but they do exist in the world of photographs that I've viewed on this site.

This may be difficult to identify or describe because I doubt there is a bright line separating a "snapshot" from a "photo worth spending time with," and the distinction between the two arbitrary categories may differ from individual to individual. The range of photographs within these two endpoints is undoubtedly a continuum, and a particular photograph will lie at different places along that continuum in the eyes of different viewers. It's probably one of the more subjective activities of viewing and judging photographs.

I have a feeling that subject matter may also greatly influence where an individual places a photograph along this presumed continuum from "snapshot" to "a photograph worth spending time with." I think different people are moved by different kinds of photographs, and if one is deeply moved by a photograph, I'd assume they would be more inclined to describe it as a "photograph worth spending time with." I have been profoundly moved by two images associated with the war in Afghanistan, one of a young woman lying face down on her fiance's grave (photographed by John Moore of Getty Images), and the other is a photo of a young girl crouched on the bloodied ground and expressing deep anguish that her family has just been killed by soldiers because the car in which they were riding approached a checkpoint without stopping (photographed by Chris Hondros of Getty Images). I find these to be immensely powerful because 1) they capture very deep emotion, and 2) they encapsulate the tragedy of that war that has been expressed by a number of other photographs, but they do so within a single photograph rather than a collection of lesser photographs. Again, this may be just my subjective reaction, and others viewing the same photographs may not feel as strongly about them, perhaps ultimately due to our different backgrounds and experiences which I think underlie most of the differences among individuals regarding their reactions to photographs and any other representation of aspects of life. HOWEVER, and yes, it's a big however, these photographs were "simply" taken by photographers who happened to be in the right place at the right moment, and each is one of several versions taken by the photographer of the same scene. Are the "passion," "connectedness," "individuality," "perspective," and "transcendence," if you see them present in these photos, simply inherent qualities of the photo or are they something that was consciously sought by and ultimately seen by the photographer and then intentionally photographed because of those qualities? I sense the answer is the former. But that's also the same approach (I believe) taken by Ian in the current POW, which leads me to think that it's ultimately content or subject matter and how that connects with the individual viewer that defines a "photograph that's worth spending time with."

Personally, I want to continue my search for my own understanding and for language that adequately describes this understanding that addresses the qualities of photographs that really move me and that I find worth spending time with. Even though photographs that I want to spend time with are probably emotionally based reactions, I want to find the objective words that can best communicate my point of view to myself and to others, and that's not an easy task. It's also something that I look for in the expressions and writings of others that give me glimpses into their criteria for evaluating and appreciating various kinds of photography.

I'm just a self-taught, non-professional photographer who has spent his career as a scientist and government employee far removed from artistic endeavors. The hill I'm climbing is pretty steep.



Rashed, I understand and respect how you see this and how you view photographic moments.

I have a different sense of moment, one that includes subplots, supporting features, a kind of fullness rather than an isolation of subject and expression. I'm thinking of Beethoven or any music. There is the line and the melody, which are usually the easiest things to latch onto, but it is the overtones, the harmonies, the richness of supporting chords, the counterpoints that really (for me!) create the moment. That's how I see photographs as well, as a fullness and richness, not as an isolated or focused on subject. For me, the curves and shadows and little blinks of light that accompany the subject in the frame often really make or break the moment and are integral parts of it.

_______________________________

Stephen, thanks for your thoughts, which are so nicely expressed and show a curiosity and openness that is admirable.

I would just like to briefly answer one of your questions which I think could eventually shed some light on much of your current wonderings, especially about photographic intent (as opposed to viewer input). You ask "How do I recognize 'connectedness' in a photograph?" One specific and visual way I try to be photographically connected is to be conscious of my angle of shooting. I have a very different feeling (as photographer and as viewer) whether I'm pointing my camera down at something or up at something. It doesn't always work exactly the same way, but patterns do develop. Obviously it will depend on other elements that are at work as well. But that is just one example of how "connectedness" becomes actually visible and can intentionally be sought by the photographer and translate through to a viewer. My guess is that you would discover some more or less universal ways of showing an intimate connection and will also discover some more individual and personal ways you can connect photographically and actually purposely show it, should you desire. All I can say is, try it. Pick a subject and try to prove to yourself that you can make a more and a less photographic and visual connection to it. See what you come up with. Then go for a visualization of passion. Along with knowing that you can get light to read a certain way (not blown out but not too dull) and along with knowing that you can focus in a certain place and blur the background, see if you can actually devise some nuts and bolts ways to be put more and less passion into your photos in a very specific visual way. Is red light warmer and blue light colder? Is there some element of passion present or potentially present in that? Is a tango more overtly passionate than a fox trot? Are there photographic tangos and photographic fox trots, even available when the same subject is photographed differently? What would that difference look like? Could you photograph that difference intentionally?

I had to say something about this shot.  I can almost hear the bubbles she is hearing. Reminds me that this is what life is about.

Stephen, I am not totally convinced that there is an objective way to relate how an image "transcends". But as a bottom line for me (did I say this somewhere already) is "does the image have a life of its own". Does it ask me questions, does it tell me something new, does it make me think when I look at it--every time I look at it. In essence, is there something there that continually engages me in some way or does it just become like wallpaper after the initial hit and so I don't feel a need to pay attention to it anymore.

Part of what I think makes an image "live" like this is what is included in the frame--the elements and then how do those elements relate and finally, how is the work presented--technique. On the surface, this seems obvious criteria for any image at any level, but it is all of these things when the combination is masterfully completed that contribute to allowing an image to move beyond just being a good photograph. Even what might appear as bad technique can move an image out of the ordinary if it is done skillfully and in such a way as it informs or complements the image. Sometimes the intangible that pushes it over the edge is what is outside the frame, the context of the image.

I think if you were to sit down and write out all the things that strike you on those images that hold your attention over time and others that are well done but you could take or leave, you might start to find some commonality in images that hold your interest or engage you over time. Personally, I don't think there is any one list of criteria, but I think there would be certain things that pop up more often with those that hold you versus those that don't.

A photo like this is magical, you have to have some luck but also a lot of skill to know what, how, when to get a shot like this..... Really Nice!

Here is a question: Would you give this photograph a second look if it was not "Photo of the Week" but was pasted into Aunt Dixie's Family Foto Album?
I'm am trying to look at this photograph as an editor. Would I publish it? My conclusion is that I would not. Here's why.

The color and contrast is dreadful. But on top of that it is boring. There is nothing interesting about a hunched over child whose hair is rendered practically a solid black and whose face you can hardly see.

Also, look closely at the out of focus section above the girl's head. What you see is a series of annoying horizontal streaks. Usually I do not care about the out of focus areas of a photograph (I am avoiding the semi-mystical Japanese expression) but I do in this one. Those streaks are distracting. Period.

I suppose this could be somehow improved in Photoshop, but that isn't my business. I am obligated to deal with what is in front of me.

A lot of people assume that pictures of children are ipso facto cute and interesting. I don't. Childhood is not cute. And it is not all that interesting either. (This is why children can't wait to grown up, unless there is something wrong with them. ) Since I have an unsentimental view of childhood, I absolutely detest more photographs of children. Having said this, I find this photograph more sympathetic that most kiddy photos. But I still do not like it.

Thanks to the PN-elf for the nice nod, and to all for their thoughtful typing.
This is a simple candid shot I took while working as a kids photographer. We got to the beach and the girl ran down to the ocean and I followed. I was on a long prime so I couldn't 'zoom with my feet', I grabbed 4 shots in 5 seconds and this was the one I liked best. (I prefer the composition of #2 & #4, but for me #3 has the best moment.)
I played around with processing and gave it this treatment. The examples I posted above are pretty much straight out of the camera. (Or B&W maybe?) I used this shot to update the front page of my site and cropped out most of the distracting stuff. That's about it.
There are three things I look for in this type of shot: light, geometry/composition and 'the moment'. My favorite kid shots are mostly about a childhood moment, like this or this. (But sometimes nice light will suffice, like this, this or this.)
I do candid photography for a living, I work in lots of countries and am shooting at literally hundreds of new locations every year, so there is no way I can control what is happening in background. I find that using the fastest lenses wide open minimizes the distractions of busy backgrounds and concentrates attention on the subject. Ultimately all I care about is what my clients think, and this is the sort of image I am hired to make.
Again, thanks for your comments.

Oh dear me! First line of second paragraph should read, "The color and contrast are dreadful.

I understand that my English might sound funny, but I start laughing when people get talking about light, contrast, tones and colors, at a time where their their images most of them luck these elements.
We say “ as long as your house been made of Glass, do not go throwing stones at other people houses”

I know there is much diversity among members of this photography site, and I'm trying to be respectful of that diversity and even learn from it. But it's beyond my comprehension, literally, to read that "childhood is not cute" nor is it very interesting.

I experienced five years of radiation and chemotherapy treatments for cancer beginning right after my own son was born. Despite the severe effects of the treatments (like treating a porcelain statue with a sledgehammer, as my doctor put it) and multiple hospitalizations during that time, I look back on those years as some of the happiest, most interesting, and most rewarding years of my life, simply because I watched and helped my son discover the world. What a wonderful time that was! Ian's photograph embodies that spirit of initial discovery of the world I saw in my son and that brought me so much joy during the years of his childhood (oh, yeah, and during the medical treatments too). He's 35 now, but the happy memories of those wonderful years are still strongly felt.

Perhaps "not cute nor interesting" is a valid point of view of someone who was abused, or who experienced crushing childhood poverty, or who experienced war as the Afghan girl I described in an earlier post. I'm trying to imagine, but it's largely beyond me in the context of Ian's photo.

I actually have no problem with the background in your photo. But I have a response to your statement. Photographers of every stripe every day have no controls over their backgrounds (unless they are setup in a studio). But they have almost complete control over how they use and shoot their backgrounds, what they include in the frame and from what angle. That's the art of making a photograph . . . working with what you've got. Responsibility for what we do is not limited to photographers. It's human.

___________________________________

Of course, this is your right and I think anyone who works for clients does well to care very much what their clients think. I find that many of my clients have much lower photographic standards than me. So, while I want to please them (and usually do), I take it a step further. I also have my own photographic and creative standards which usually exceed what pleases my clients. I find other photographers' critiques helpful, even on matters where my clients are already pleased. It makes me a better photographer. Only pleasing my clients would never make me a better photographer (except in the rare cases where my clients know something about good photographs).

Wow, that's really too bad Alex. I wish you could see the wonders of childhood. The curiosity, the adventure, the innocence - no responsibilities, no worries, no bills, no stress. To this little girl, here entire world in that moment is just her and a beach in need of exploring. If I could let go of all thoughts of "these tasks needs to get done, those bills needs to get paid..." and instead just go out and explore the world, I would do it in a heartbeat. To me, this photo speaks of exactly that, so I would absolutely display it.

As to what Alex says, I would say those things about *most* photos of children, not children themselves. I think cuteness in photos gets boring really fast, unlike the cuteness in children. That's why I suggested (or will suggest now) that what makes a good moment doesn't always make a good photo. Most cute pictures of children leave me cold, I couldn't care less. Most cute children, on the other hand, are a joy to watch. What the difference is could (and should) be discussed endlessly. To me, that difference is one of the great challenges and mysteries of photos. The PN top-rated-photos mostly shows that a lot of photographers and viewers don't know the difference. A great moment (or a cute child) has to somehow be transformed into a great photo. It doesn't just happen with the snap of a shutter . . . usually.

I don't know if people like Alex are just living a miserable existence or they are just plain envious of other photographers who receive the recognition that they do not. Most who contribute to this site are talented critics who have much to offer in terms of techniques and ideas. These talented critics will offer criticism that is educated, analytical and helpful to other artists. When I read Alex's post I only see anger, bitterness, disrespect and misery. Your post is 100% nonconstructive and is nothing more than a careless spewing of your jaded negative opinions.

Rick, do you have any thoughts to contribute to the discussion about this weeks potw or did you merely drop by to insult another persons contribution?
Your suggestion regarding Alex's opinion being negative is laughable at best given that your posting is entirely negative. Your comment is one continuous unsubstantiated personal attack. Whether you agree with him or not, Alex addressed the photograph and added to the discussion. Your own contribution goes beyond being useless and actually detracts from the discussion.

I agree with Gorden, every one of us having his own opinion about the POW, thats called a contribution, there was no need at all to address such comment against Alex.
We might never agreed with each other here but always respected what comes as being personnel opinion and the way every one of us see and evaluate the image, nothing personnel at all here.

Gordon, I contributed my thoughts on this discussion on April 26. Thank you for asking.
You must have missed 1/2 of my post where I was complimentary to photo.net contributors overall.
Alex wrote: "Childhood is not cute. And it is not all that interesting either. (This is why children can't wait to grown up, unless there is something wrong with them. )"
I don't consider this kind of comment even remotely constructive. And in fact, I find it obnoxious and insulting. Alex expressed his opinion, I offered mine, and you yours. I stand by my position.

I have to admit that I have just picked myself up off the floor, I was laughing so hard. I am trying to figure out if Gordon was in the role of the "Pot" or the "Kettle" when he made his comment. Seems he did nothing different that he accused Rick of doing......except that Rick had made a comment on the image.

Gordon, where's your analysis of this image? ...since you brought it up... :))

Rick,

I failed to notice your name on your previous comment ( although I do recall having read it) and was referencing your most recent post. I stand corrected and offer an apology for stating that you had offered no evaluation of the potw. I do however stand by my position that launching into a personal attach on someone because the have an alternate take on an image is "obnoxious " .

John don't be too quick to get up off the floor... you look good down there :-)

I can easily get past what Alex, Rick, and Gordon have said.

I can't however, let slide what Rashed says:

Rashed, almost every week you make a personal attack on those who may not like a photo of the week that you like. You consistently repeat your mantra about those people's photos not being any good who disagree with your critiques. You do it so regularly that it's become a staple of this forum. To now hear you chide someone else for getting personal would be laughable if it weren't so incredibly hypocritical and pathetic. Below is just one example. Anyone who wants to read more can go to pretty much any photo of the week for the last few months.

You copied it all right, but there is no personnel names been mentioned here, I was always referring to some people who never liked any of the POW selected.
Even with this one, I did not address directly names, I stay to where I started and I do mean it, there are some here whom still at the less than beginning with their skill of photography, yet they talk more than what they can produce, most of what they say are copied from the net and posted here.
There fore Fred, I did defend Alex but I did not refer that to any person directly and indeed I respect every one else but I do not have to agree with every one opinion wise, at the same time I concentrate on my photography and I give it a lot of my time while some can only talk and talk and at the end of the day they fail even to handle their camera correctly, thats if they do have a decent camera, or possibly a camera bought from a grocery shop for couple of quads, no more and they never allowed even that camera to see the light out side their door steps.

All of the best my friend Fred.

That you don't use names doesn't mean you're not making personal attacks. It just means you won't confront specifically the person against whom you're making these charges of incompetent photographing. Yours are personal attacks (even without names) because, as in the quote above, you don't address the POW or even the specific critiques made about the POW. You simply address the critiquers and claim that they don't have good enough credentials to be making such critiques. That's a personal attack. We often, here, disagree with others' critiques and will say so, and we back it up with our own opinions about the POW. But you go right after the critiquer himself, personally, about his own work. Calling people addicted to the Internet (which has nothing to do with photography) is a personal attack. It's not an opinion about a photograph.