Factory-girl

Fred, I get your point but it was different than the one I was making, which had more to do with the makeup, not the light. But good point...

For me it's an interesting photo too. What makes it so? Probably ...

- the viewer's up close to the girl

- the juxtaposition of an old factory and a young girl

- the way the girl's moving out of the photo and looking sideways (with a "mona lisa smile") at the viewer

- lighting separating girl from background

- good standard composition principles (thirds, lines, repetition)

Weak points? Maybe it's me but I have the feeling that the highlights and shadows on the girl's face are not quite right somehow. The highlights and shadows on her hair and shirt suggest that the sun is at her back. It seems strange that both sides of her face seem to be equally bright.

Mike

Let me start with the title. It is not "Factory Girl" but "Factory-Girl.”　I sense that the hyphen was meant to be an em dash so that it would read "Factory--Girl."　The em dash would emphasize the ironic juxtaposition of the young girl standing in what used to be the parking lot of the abandoned factory.
The girl and the factory represent opposites: what has been and what will be. But there is a double irony.　The girl is somehow one with the factory. Hence the sepia's vintage look that unites the two.

The whites of the girl's eyes are arresting. The side glance has something sad in it. Her face looks looks prematurely old. She is almost smiling, but her lips register bitterness if anything.
Her abundant hair, carefully braided, suggests she or someone has taken care of her appearance. But did she apply lipstick and rouge?

What does it all mean? There is something terrifying in this photograph.　

All the elements work splendidly in this image. Thumbs up from me.

I like John A and Alex's comments about the face being clownish, and sort of disturbing. I would agree with those comments, and while some may feel this contrast works, I find it leads one away from any real story with the abandoned factory in the background. I know that connection may not have been intended by the creator, but then what is the photo about? Is it that the creator intentionally set it up via the title to throw the viewer into a dilemma with this possible disconnect that was suggested? In some ways I now feel cheated if this was the intent. Call me old fashioned, but I like when a story comes together on further investigation, not more apart. As Alex suggests, there is something a little unsettling, and I am not sure if I like it in the end.

I don't think it's all that deep. She's just a tomboy girl who's going to throw a rock through a window.

I didn't think that kids like this exist anymore, being all cloistered and regimented in houses and on soccer fields by their overprotective moms.

But I knew a few when I was that age. She's got a half pack of Camels in a tin can that she has stashed over there to the side of the factory, under a rock.

My guess is that if you showed this photo to a bunch of kids around her age, and asked them if they thought they could be friends with this little girl, 90% of them would say, "Sure!". To me, the attractiveness, interesting and fun nature of this little girl is captured wonderfully by the photographer, and that's why I would deem this photo a clear success.

I also like it because the photo is a bit enigmatic and she has this kind-of older-than-her-years "I've got a secret" look. WRT the characterization as "terrifying", my guess is that she probably was doing nothing more than playing ball or some other game in the flat, open field of the abandoned factory and no doubt has on occasion explored the factory. Kids love places like that --- just like photographers. ;-)

My guess is that this was a grab shot, not a setup, so I'm not only willing to forgive, but I'm not in the least bothered by details such as her skin texture, whites of her eyes, or the postulated PP lightening. WRT skin texture, my guess is that she probably has freckles and these weren't handled well by the NR or some other processing step. WRT the latter two points, I have a weakness for photographic images that have a wiff of a graphic art treatment and this certainly fits that category. Sure, if it was a set up shot, one could probably nail the above technical "flaws", but I would bet one would be hard pressed to get an expression like the one in this version. The truth be told, if it were my image, I probably would go further in the direction of a flat, simplified 2D graphics art / illustration kind of image, but that's just me.

Finally, w.r.t what she is holding, I brightened that area and magnified it (see attached), and it's obvious that we are seeing part of her shirt. However, to me, it looks like she may be using it to conceal some little kid secret -- again adding to the minor air of mystery.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

The photo doesn't attract me as such and I don't like the character that seems to eminate from the girl portrayed in the picture. I don't see any point in coupling the two elements, Girl-Factory.

I like the exposure & processing. I don't have a problem with the hand area that some seem to have. The girl & the old abandoned factory don't seem to tie together for me. Compositionally, I would prefer her at the left giving her room to "Move" into the photo

Ken, interesting thoughts. I wonder if she were to the left of the frame as you suggest, if her looking back would be as effective. Were she looking straight out of the frame from her current position, I might see your point, but given her looking back at us over her shoulder, I find the positioning works well. And don't you think the processing is part of the reason that the girl and the background don't tie together? It is for me.

I remember  Ruth and  Liz of famous Martin. Liz was factory girl and had cheap make up and dress. Despite her warm personality and fine body she had no future.

Gads, her arm! It looks like burn scars.

While that may change the character and expectations of a photo, and to some extent what we look for, it is not an excuse for everything, certainly not for the kind of exposure or post processing that would burn an arm like that.

I should add that it doesn't look like a grab shot to me, but it doesn't matter much to me whether it is or not. I see it as what it is more than how it was taken.

Have a closer look at the girl's face. Cheeks mottled. Deep circles around her eyes. I say this little girl has seen hell. And I am sure that she is wearing lipstick.

"Gads", and that may in fact be the case. We often assume normal, unaffected people in these shots unless there is obvious indication otherwise. I think we rarely consider that we might just be looking at people who have suffered a tragedy that are just doing normal things, and what else should we expect them to be doing?

In this case, such a situation could explain the makeup and the seemingly odd textures on the arms or elsewhere. In the end, we just have a little girl seemingly happy and a little mischievous and that is maybe all that is important.

And yes, it does say,'factory girl' if one takes into account the background and the girl as one image. Beautiful image!

I do not see any connection between the girl and the background/the factory. What is she doing there? Why abandoned building behind? Does she live there or is she just a model? You can explain this in words, but image itself lacks something.

I agree with Ken's point of view. When I first saw it I have asked myself what is the conection between the row of buildings and the girl. The title does not help either. The PP is bizarre , not only her eyes but the dark shadow on her cheek looks like a glued stain. The composition is not convincing.

I agree with Ken's point of view. When I first saw it I have asked myself what is the conection between the row of buildings and the girl. The title does not help either. The PP is bizarre , not only her eyes but the dark shadow on her cheek looks like a "glued" stain. The composition is not convincing.( sorry for the repetition)

The look is seductive. Perhaps she is mimicking the photographs she has seen in ads or on TV.

There probably really isn't any connection between the girl and the factory other than that she probably lives nearby and happened to be walking in front of it when the picture was taken. Nevertheless, there is a nice contrast between the girl (not old and grimy) and the factory (old and grimy).

As for the title: So what? How did Marc know that this picture would be selected as a POW and the title obsessed over?

I missed this, from original comments under this photo, but maybe it will answer some of these concerns:

Thank you Marc for the background to this documentary photograph. It is a painful story that you tell. There is a connection between the factory and the girl after all. The girl has her painful story to tell for sure.

i knew there was a fine picture beneath the toxic PP, and I found it, but you lost me with the title, an apparent double entendre that flew right past me.

Few people have remarked about the fact that the girl is walking out of the picture, partially saved by her looking back to the camera, but still there is a lot unnecessary space here -- in fact, half the picture is wasted in my view. I would crop the five left hand buildings away. All of that gravel or grass or what ever is gone and the picture looks great as a vertical. That is of course in my humble opinion. (Willie is back!) Not a particularly good name in my view, but the picture is beautiful ... if cropped.
Willie the Cropper