Kiss of Love

Thanks, John. In any case, it is an interesting shot to have provoked at least two early claims about the "decisive moment"--and the discussion that ensued. Whatever I might have thought about this photo from the beginning, I would not have predicted this direction in the discussion, even though I played a role in its going this way. I thought that those who used the phrase "decisive moment" interpreted the shot as a truly candid street shot. I had my doubts and still do. Even so, as I said earlier, Umair has made no claims one way or another in that regard.

For me, the question of whether this was a "decisive moment" thus revolved around the presumption that it was a candid--as most persons probably did think at the first (and perhaps still do). PJ work has its own ethos, and I simply did not see this as meeting the criteria of the PJ ethos. The issue of authenticity, that is, provoked my first reaction. If people were interpreting it as a candid, well, was it? I do not see Umair as coming primarily from the PJ tradition. That is not to disparage his work, nor to disparage setup shots--unless they are passed off as candids.

In spite of HCB's own contradictions, there still seems to me the strong likelihood that he interpreted the "decisive moment" in the context of the candid street shot, with its demands of perfect timing and almost instant composition. I would not call it a "romanticization" to say that the "decisive moment" is most demanding in that fast moving context, a context in which one typically does not have much time or control. To the extent that capturing the "decisive moment" is indeed most demanding in that fast-moving and almost uncontrolled setting, the force of the claim "decisive moment" would seem to me to be the strongest in that context, and thus the phrase used as a term of approbation would thus seem to be most likely to be affirmed in that context--and I believe that that corresponds to common usage. (I'm sorry for this tortuous paragraph, but there is no time to rewrite it before the clock runs out.)

Expanding "decisive moment" to apply to every possible context seems to water down and distort the most common interpretation of the phrase. Is there really a decisive moment in a still life, for example, or in most landscape work? One could claim, as Fred has, that there is a "decisive moment" in all types of photography, but then the concept has lost all meaning. Where the passage of time and change of lighting are very slow, I don't quite see the point of invoking the concept at all. It is a matter of degree. Thus do I believe that the phrase is still most likely to be used when referring to street photography--or in what is thought to be street photography, which brings us back full circle to where we started: is it an authentic street shot, or a setup? I for one do not consider the question meaningless. I want to know what I am looking at. Sometimes that knowledge affects my valuation of an image, sometimes not. The fact that I can appreciate a setup or even a still life (the ultimate setup?) does not change the fact that I am likely to interpret and evaluate street photography by different criteria. I do not see the same criteria for evaluation being applied to all types of photography.

--Lannie

Perhaps you are correct, Fred, but that seems to be a rather forced argument, especially if one is trying to read it back into HCB's writing, much less into the body of work for which he is the most well-known: fast-moving street photography and the beginnings of the photo-journalistic tradition.

--Lannie

great work!

Ugly little baby? That's totally uncalled for.

It looks to me as a staged photo, for two reasons. The form of holding the baby for a kiss is very unnatural, as well as the way her cloths( fabric) in the upper (her back) and the lower parts as well, are very nicely arranged.
But technicaliy it is well done in B/W. Eliminating the real colors and leaving her surrounding as is, is enhancing the atmospher, letting the viewers understand what are her every day life, but having consolation of her love to the baby, and her motherhood.

Alex, as far as I can tell, the justification you have given for this being the best POW is that it's not over processed, it's not cute and the background is "perfect". Putting aside the question of what could possibly be meant by a perfect background, I just can't imagine that these make sense as criteria for a "best POW".

I must say, this POW thread seems to me at least to lean much too heavily on the implied meaning of images (abstract philosophical hyperbole relating to what the image and all it's connections might mean) that are wanting on numerous basic photographic grounds. In this image, the composition is ordinary (not bad but not special, unusual or interesting in any way), the light is ordinary (just flat light in the shadow of a building), the expression is good but obviously awkward and contorted and the story is ordinary as well (it's a mother kissing a baby but there is no contextual story to give any deeper significance to this act than what it actually is). For me, the tonality is not actually that great. I don't see rich blacks but rather a lot of muddy, brown, kind of blocked-up shadows. So, based on these criteria it's fine as a sort of street snapshot, but how can it be very good with so many ordinary features? How can it be the best POW ever? That claim makes no sense to me at all. JJ

Wow, Dr. Jeremy, do check the performance of your monitor.... The lighting is anything but flat (imagine a flash lighting for that case, here the volumes are well depicted), the tones are quite wide ranging and attractive (what's wrong with textureless black shadows, of which there are too few here to even worry about?), and the composition allows one to stay within the frame and provides an interesting pose of the woman and child (the slight awkwardness issues I think from the unselfless act of hugging/kissing a loved one) and her relationship with her far from modern environment, that also gives a bit of a sense of timelessness to the image.

Philosophical evaluations are also of a simple nature in this type of timeless image. It may not be the greatest photo of its type, but it is clearly an honest and a seemingly natural one. Umair is a fan of Boubat, the gifted French photographer, who was famous for showing the viewer the grace in the most natural and ordinary human subjects, transfiguring them rather than changing them, revealing them like actors in some ancient ritual related to human existence.

Matisse has said: "What interests me most is neither landscapes or still lifes, but rather the human countenance, for it is this that enables me to express the almost religious feeling that I have about life itself." Judging from Umair's photographs of ordinary people in his native country, he seems to be directed by a somewhat similar approach, even though the road is not a very short one to attain the state of observation of a Boubat or a Matisse.

I see mother forcing child to burp. It is not stagged scene and it is no kiss of love but it is a perfect photo

Not so (or at least not stated by him). My error! I was thinking about another Photo.Net colleague, the bio of whom I had also been reading. However, my thoughts on the value of this form of street photography, and my reference to the approaches of Edouard Boubat and Henri Matisse in regard to human countenance, remain unchanged.

No cropping. Please no cropping. It's fine as it is. The composition works, as it is. It needs the surroundings as context. Cropped very tightly it really becomes a photo about a loving kiss, and no more. At least now, it offers a bit more.
Looking purely at this photo, not considering the rest of Umair's portofolio (I'll have a look later and might change tune then) - the whole discussion whether it is set up/staged (or not) is really totally irrelevant to me. Maybe I'm too simplistic at it, but looking at the image I experience a genuine emotion. Whether that emotion was evoked by the photographer or not, I really can't care. There is no fakeness about it, it comes across a charming, heart-warming photo displaying care, joy, love. Not a plastic look-a-like care, joy, love.

I really quite like it. It feels like a documentary photo to the extend that I'd like to see the other photos as well. One could argue it is a "flaw" of this photo, because it would not stand on its own enough, but I do not mind. This photo leaves enough impression to want to know more about the context in which it was made, to find the story running through it. Possibly in context of other photos, it could win in strength still.

One of the best photographers here or anywhere, a recognition well deserved. As far as the image itself, there is something almost Biblical about it. I would not add or subtract a thing from it.

This photograph depicts an intense moment of mother love story. It is very moving and I do not think a crop is needed. My only suggestion would be that the intimistic moment between the mother and her baby would be even stronger if the photographer took his picture in a lower position the way to get a low-angle picture.
Congrats for the POW.

However you define "decisive moment," I'm not sure this picture was taken at exactly that moment. Perhaps there was another moment, when faces and hands were positioned a little differently, that would have been better. It is certainly a very heart-felt moment.

As to the cropping, I wonder if too much has been cropped out already. Perhaps the original picture is vertically oriented and shows the wall extending further above the woman's head than it does now. If so, I wonder if the composition would feel more balanced if the picture showed more of it.

Arthur, I think we view this image in a similar way really. Good but not as good as "perfect" or best ever. But my reading of the light this

image is made in is that it is uniform shade - either cloudy sky or shadow of a building. We all know this is the easiest light to make basic,

pleasant images in but it is not challenging, special light. That's all I am saying when I say the light is ordinary. I think my monitor is ok but

it could be the problem for me. My sense is though that the tonality, contrast and dodging and burning are all pushed a bit too far here so

as to make the most of the flat lighting conditions. But, really this is besides the point. It's only a print that tells the full story and I would

want to reserve final judgement on these issues for the print. JJ

<<<We all know this is the easiest light to make basic, pleasant images in but it is not challenging, special light. That's all I am saying when I say the light is ordinary.>>>

I agree with this but with an important twist. The kind of light shade you talk about may be the easiest light but in that sense it can be very challenging. Strong dramatic light or backlight can sometimes be tough to work with, but if worked with well is likely to yield great drama. Shade, on the other hand, requires that extra creative oomph from the photographer to be something. Ordinary light, ordinary subject matter, can be transformed by a photographer into a very compelling photo. What to do with light shade is the question.

When I started making portraits, I remember a friend commenting that when I could make a really interesting and engaging picture of a generic looking sort of white bread Abercrombine and Fitch type, that would be an important accomplishment. It's one thing to get photographic emotion out of old people with lots of wrinkles, poor people living on the streets, exotic folks at parades and street fairs. It's quite another to create an interesting photo from the plainest of people or situations, to see the POSSIBILITY in any subject or lighting scenario.

Here, I would say the light simply is what it is and is there to reveal a narrative and expressions, which is where the challenge would lie, at least for me.

I tend to think that Jeremy is right about the dodging and burning having been taken a little too far. The area behind the woman's back is especially (and annoyingly) blocked up, in my opinion.

I'm not sure that area was really burned in. Even if it was, Martin, what might it add to the photo if opened up? Last weeks POW was a case study of blocked up areas, that didn't seem to bother most viewers. The dark area behind the mother or grandmother here plays one visual role - that of keeping her from falling back out of the picture, which her slightly awkward balance seems to suggest (actually, I do appreciate that tension). I agree with the comment that perhaps we should see more of her environment than we do, but that may also lead to just "gilding the lily". It might however reinforce the environmental quality of the image, which is already there for those wanting to see and to react to that part of the image.

"what might it add to the photo if [the area behind the mother's back was] opened up?"

I think it might just be a little easier on the eyes. I really don't enjoy looking at that part of the picture.

I agree with Martin, the shadowed area in question is a visual thing, not an interpretive one.

Last week's dark shadows, IMO, were a whole other ball game. They created the predominant atmosphere of the photo and I don't recall them being blocked up or black, just very dark, perhaps a little too dark to allow for depth but not feeling unsightly.

The lower part of the woman's face is the one area that bothers me visually. I don't know if it's from processing or camera quality or exposure, but it looks like she's sporting a beard and somewhat unnatural in an otherwise very naturalistic photo.

Fred, I certainly would not say either of the following about this image:

1) It's impressive how the photographer has created such shaping, depth and dimensionality in such flat light

or

2) It's interesting how the photographer has used flat light to convey a lack of depth or dimensionality in the subject.

Sure, any light/subject/etc., can present a challenge depending on the objective or approach. But if one is just making basic, pleasent images of mother and child, flat light is the easiest. JJ

Excellent shot, mother love doesn't know limits and no matter how rich or poor parents are we all love our kids the same way. Composition, moment, B&W rendering, all that is perfect. Somebody was suggesting to crop the image, I believe it is good as it is and oppositely, details of her legs, kid's bottle with milk on the step in dust and dirt, all that is just completing atmosphere. It is one of those images which leave something in your memory. Only I do not like very much is the almost right angle of mom's head, it is a detail but some way it is disturbing image impression, it is just calling attention too much.

Nitpicking about a door of obvious lesser interest being only partly in shadow (but still quite recognizable), or whether the lighting was "easy" or not, or other small details, is often the way these critiques wind down and I imagine this is probably just mildly irritating for the photographer who hasn't even personally requested a critique in this forum. And if he had, I expect he would be glad for comments that relate more to the essence or communicative power of his image. Fortunately, he can just refuse to read at some point. On the one hand a critic is made about flat (even) lighting, on the other hand the criticism is then made of shadowed areas not as evenly lit as the lighter areas. Give me a break.

Photography is based upon the rendering of light and shadows, textures and forms, amongst other things, and with the exception of Uncle Harry's straight on camera flash shot of a family party, or millions of other monotonously lit direct flash photos, shadows are there for the purposes of modelling, mood, mystery, highlighting light areas, balance with light areas, etc. That is also simply how lighting works, .... and how we see. In bright sunlight, shadows block up much more readily than here, leaving black blotches with little or no detail, unless tamed by reflectors or reflecting surfaces, or purposely chosen to have no detail (like its opposite of a blown out highlight area).

The way the critiques evolve in this sort of spiral down to the nitpick, it is at least a comic relief for the reader.

OK, blast away on this, esteemed fellow critics....

Fast-forward to next week. . . .

--Lannie

Just to provide an alternative to Arthur's viewpoint, I've received many great critiques about what might seem to others to be minor details. In my opinion, a photo is a combination of the bigger picture and expressive elements and the smallest of details. Often, I have lost sight of some important detail that others were able to point out to me and I was very thankful. It's made me a better photography and has improved my seeing.

I doubt many of the great artists we've come to know and love would disagree with Arthur's assessment of the critiques. While they certainly had the bigger pictures as their main concern, all the great ones knew the value of the most subtle of details. I'm thinking of DaVinci, Manet, Weston, Rodin, to name just a few. They weren't just there to express their emotions, they were there to express them through their art AND their craft. If you don't believe, just look at their work and note the details.

Nitpicking . . . I don't think so. I think it's called art.