No.7

Andy the creative compositon makes this image irrisistible, the comments are as creative as the image. I am fascinated by the child expression. I was initially nervous and worry about the child in the air and its landing! Congratulations on an stunning winner!!!

Exceptional timing and clarity.

It would be interesting to compare/contrast this image with this one.

Yes, it stuck me that Andy's tossed infant was serene enough to take advantage of the higher perspective (however momentary) to look out into the distance. I would anticipate most such infants would be looking down, hoping for a safe landing, as in John's example.

Nice angle and framing, and great facial expression. Lighting perhaps just a bit harsh, no...? Regards.

It's a clever photograph but low brow. The staging is obvious. In that sense it is a failure. It is a magician's trick after you have cracked the mystery. It's dead. I figured out the photographer's trick in a few seconds. But that said, there is one interesting thing: The expression on the kid's face. How did the photographer get that just right expression? I am guessing the kid is used to posing. I am also guessing the photograph dangled something to focus the kid's attention.

I think this picture is really great! Catherine Photo Aficionado .

Alex (and others), I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what rationale do you use to conclude that because the staging is obvious, this photograph is therefore a failure or it's dead? What words would you use to explain to another viewer that because the staging is obvious, the photograph therefore fails? I see all sorts of photographs in which the techniques used to produce the photograph are very obvious (e.g., HDR that goes over the top with unworldly colors, or special lighting to make something appear different than it is in real life), yet they are not declared dead, and in fact many receive high praise. Is there a logic that goes beyond saying "well, that's just my personal opinion" that you would use to explain your viewpoint regarding staging?

[i suspect you assume that staging (contrary to other techniques?) is intended to deceive, and when it doesn't, then it has failed its primary purpose, and the photograph which is based on the staging must also fail. If that's the rationale, that might be worth debating. If that's not the rationale, then please ignore this last part; I included it only because time is short.]

To me, the fact that the staging is obvious can be a plus. Here, it sort of is, even though I don't like the photo. You have a shift in perspective while looking at the photo, which can be kind of cool. Here, you first see the baby as flying in the air, maybe having just been tossed by the hands. Then, if you look for more than a second or two, you notice that the baby is standing on the ground and the camera is above. So, you've had a visual shift. It's almost like you were first looking at two profiles facing each other and then you shift and see the negative space between the profiles as a goblet.

It fails, IMO, because it does that quite simply and superficially here. Once I get it, I get it. And, it does it in a visually not-so-moving way here. Before I even get to the shift in perspective, I just don't like how the photo looks (the brightly lit baby with the extreme lighting . . . it's just a loud baby to me, the underexposed arms looking almost deathly). The content just isn't there to accompany the shift in perspective to make it matter at all to me.

It's almost impossible for me to believe the staging here was not meant to be seen. If that were the case, then the photographer simply did a lousy job in hiding it. I prefer to think he left it easy to recognize so that the viewer would experience that perspective shift. It doesn't matter, and I wouldn't need to hear from the photographer to help me with my view of the photo, although if we did know that he wanted to hide the staging we might suggest ways he could have done that. Either way, it comes across as a tricky, bright baby pic that has an element, for me, of a horror show, almost like the baby is possessed.

The surrealists played these kinds of tricks a lot, where the staging easily became apparent, or the shift in perspective was had within seconds. The themes they dealt with just seemed more important and deeper, there was a kind of internal questioning to them. And they often looked more visual (more integrated in terms of lighting and subject matter) and more sensual.

So Fred, I gather it's not the obvious staging per se that "kills" the photograph for you, but rather the resulting photograph, whether staged or not, and whether the staging is obvious or not. I'm concluding that if obvious staging had been done on a different photograph with a different content (and possibly a different purpose?), then that might have worked for you, despite the obvious staging.

BTW, I've seen this photograph on a different site, and there the adult's arms had the same color and brightness as the baby. I'm curious whether Andy purposefully changed the appearance of the arms here, or whether something went amiss with the upload. I suspect the former, but that's partly just an educated guess: in poor uploads that I've experienced, a problem with color or brightness is universal and not localized.

Yes, Stephen, that's it. I do a lot of obvious staging myself and I think many great photos do it.

The problem comes in if the staging is obvious and it seems like the kind of photo that would want the staging not to be obvious or much of a consideration. Sometimes, staging is better left in the background or even completely hidden. If it shows in those cases, it can ruin the photo. But if you can make the fact that a photo is staged part of the essence or message of the photo, which many surrealists and others do, more power to you.

I don't think staged or not, obvious or not, is much of a concern really. I think it is just whether an image does its job or it doesn't. As I said above, looking at this image, I see it as more of a stock, commercial sort of image rather than some stand alone art piece. The fact that it is so "clean" (versus organic), the studio backdrop and the artificial light all work to push me in that direction. The fact that there is no indication of it being a "real" moment adds to a sense that it is just an illustration. Certainly, there are fine examples of studio images on studio backdrops with artificial lighting that are incredible, substantial images, it is just that it isn't this one. There are also illustrations that go beyond that, but not this one.

I think once we get a sense of what role an image might play, then we can see if it was in fact successful. Here, I do think the child would work in the context I suggest above. It is more sterile than I like, but that doesn't preclude its success in that market. But I do think that, as I said above, once we move to the lower half of the image, it pretty much falls apart. The lighting is subpar and the position and nature of the arms just doesn't feel right--compare it to the linked image above in my last comment. I suppose I could rationalize the missing head (should be between the elbows) as the tosser is laying down but I am probably not going to work too hard at it because I think the lighting alone has made me move on as I review this as a POW. I can't believe there wouldn't be better images of this sort out there if I needed one to illustrate an article--but this lighting could be fixed in PS and a good crop could certainly make it work for some things.

I am not crazy about this image but the child might save it for some uses. For stock, people often want images that read quickly and this one does. Coupling it with the right headline, it could work and someone probably would make it do so if they had access to it.

John, to me, part of the job of the image is to get the viewer to shift perspective, first to see it as a child floating, next to realize it's a child standing. Maybe I am, in that sense, giving it too much credit. But it's hard to imagine that any photographer wouldn't realize such a shift in perspective is going to take place and that will become a notable aspect of the image. You and I agree on the ineffectiveness overall of the image, but do you think the shift in perspective is just totally superfluous here and maybe wasn't meant to be noticed? I'm honestly asking because now I'm unsure whether I'm giving the image too much credit in even thinking that the shift from seeing the child as floating to seeing him as standing is important in the sense of a visual trick or visual inside joke, even if superficial. In that sense, I really did think part of the essence of this image was for it to comment on its own construction (not that it was composited, but that it kind of reveals how it got us to think the child was floating, rather than attempting to cover that up). Given your comment and that I respect how you view pictures, I'm doubting even giving the image that much credit. I'd appreciate your thoughts, although I understand that, in this particular case, it may not matter all that much.

Fred, I certainly didn't see it that way. In fact, I don't even get that sort of shift. I just saw it as a construct. That certainly doesn't mean it wasn't meant to be here, but I don't see that type of device as part of the work he includes in his portfolio (I think we always get clues from other work). But then I think this piece is actually a pretty odd duck in the photostream and wonder about that as everything else is so consistent. I actually like what he has done with the cat and the child and even where one or the other is missing, they work well together. Certainly, there is a perceptual shift in this work, but I don't think it is the same type--or really related--to my understanding of what you have described. This is just an odd shot in this portfolio.

Thanks, John. Appreciate the answer. And, yes, I also think we get a lot of important clues from a body of work and this one does stand out a bit, more stylistically and in terms of technique than in terms of vision, though it can be hard to separate the two.

Then I will ask Alex, or if anyone else wants to take a shot at what Alex might have meant. What did you mean when you originally claimed that the first few viewers had been fooled? Fooled about what? I thought you meant fooled into thinking the baby had been tossed in the air when in fact if you look carefully you see that the baby is standing on the ground with the camera shooting from above. Is that what you meant, Alex?

Fred, what I was referring to with this image is that it feels much more commercial and "clean", a very studio set up in nature. The others all have a more organic quality to them and exist in a place--they also feel more like they were created as art while this one does not. This one just doesn't fit with the others IMO and I think if I was reviewing this portfolio as a gallerist or art director, I would have a WTF moment when I came to it--and not in a good way. It is distinctly different and doesn't fit.

I think a commercial portfolio could better accommodate the difference (because of the illusionistic quality of this and the others) if it had a few more examples to support it. Otherwise I think it is too different on its own--and not nearly as well done as the others.

Thanks, John, I understood that and agree.

Fred, my guess is that you are giving the photograph or the photographer too much credit regarding the change in perspective as being an intended component of the photograph. I think Andy meant this to be seen simply as a child being thrown into the air and experiencing some degree of thrill in that activity. I think the cute face strikes most viewers first, and that's probably sufficient for most. Comments like "will the thrower catch the little one," "caught at the peak of action," and "good timing" also suggest some saw it as a real activity (although this is just my guess). On the other hand, the very first comment of "Very original idea..." suggest that some saw it as something other than what it initially appears (again, just a guess on my part).

Looking closely at the photo, I still can't see the child as standing; I just can't understand how anyone with that degree of arched body and right foot arched downward could maintain sufficient balance to stand, let alone a small child. Looking at the very clean line across the abdomen, I had assumed the photo had been constructed, with the original legs removed and new lower legs and feet added. John's observation about the head of the adult being missing (his comment made me put my own arms into the air, and sure enough, there should be a head there!) suggests that Andy might not be adverse to cutting and pasting. But that's just a semi-educated guess, and I'd much rather hear from Andy as to what he did. I also thought that this work was an odd duck within his portfolio, and I'd much rather spend time viewing the photos of the young girl and the cat -- I thought those were quite interesting, almost an Alice in Wonderland kind of feel.

I like cute faces of young kids, so I'm sure I enjoyed this photo more than those who were put off by the apparent staging or those who want more depth in a photograph. Nevertheless, I can understand those viewpoints.

Stephen, I pretty much saw the young child's posture as you did. It is so extreme for such a small child. I'd thought about that it may have been a comp of two shots as well, but wasn't too concerned about it except in the sense of others suggesting he was standing. Just thought I would mention this, no real point beyond that.

This is my first post on this forum but not my last.Maybe. I think the optical illusion you are referring to is by chance and not design. I think this because it would have been pretty difficult to pull off and not worth the effort. Further more I would classify this image as entertainment which you would view, maybe give a chuckle (or not) and move on. My preference in images is much the same way I view a poem ,they must communicate and they must do so in terms that I can understand. By that I mean if they are so abstract that I must spend an inordinate amount of time trying to decipher it then I drop it. As I understand it, this forum is about trying to help the shooter improve his or her photography (this is where I duck my head)but I have seen very little of that in this thread .

Warren, welcome to PN and this forum. It's my understanding that the POW is a chance for all participants to discuss a particular photograph in detail for a week. While the photographer may benefit from that discussion, it's really more for the larger community to exchange ideas and points of view. Individual photographers have their best chance for feedback on their photographs in the various critique forums based on subject matter (e.g., landscapes, portraits, birds, nature, etc.) to which they submit photographs and ask for critiques and/or ratings.

Love this photo for it's simplicity & lighting. The composition of the outstretched arms and the flying child are terrific. Of course the child's expression is priceless. Super capture. Congrats.

Many thanks to all! I am very pleased that my work has caused much heated discussion. In this work there is no installation. I was just trying to convey to her all the love of children. That depends only on us expanding their horizons. And only at our hands they can rely on.

Playing kid like a cricket ball.

I think if you turn this photo upside down you will see how it was faked.