Kiss of Love

I meant to say: "I doubt many of the great artists we've come to know and love would agree with Arthur's assessment of the critiques."

I actually saved this photo a day or two back, blew it up, and brought up the levels in Photoshop--and found nothing that could have been salvaged or brought up from the very dark area behind her back. It didn't look "blocked up" to me, but I am no expert on such things.

--Lannie

Arthur, I was not nitpicking about the light. I was suggesting that the light was not special or challenging for a portrait like this. That's amongst the most important issues in a photograph - the light. The point of this was to counter an early claim that this image was the best ever POW, not to criticize the photographer for making an image in flat light. I also suggested that nothing particularly special had been done with the flat light here. Again, a very important issue in photography - how one deals with light. But I did say about this that it was "besides the point". I then said that subtle judgements about the rendering of light should be made of prints. I thought that should have been sufficient to suggest that I was not, in fact, nitpicking about light. My last point was made specifically to Fred about his comment on challenging light. It was just that the way the photographer dealt with the lighting conditions here did not strike me as an interesting feature of the image. I stand by that and think it is worth considering....that is, what we do in flat light to elevate our images. Not sure why you found that so objectionable. JJ

Jeremy, I respect your point, even though I cannot agree fully with it. I do not consider that lighting flat, irrespective of how many may refer to it as such. For some reason, we think of an overcast sky as producing flat lighting - that great soft box in the sky. In fact, the light has both direct and reflected properties that give an image, like that here, good modelling. There are shadows as depicted by the very dark areas to the left and to the right of the main subject, and also small shadows about her body and clothes that indicate anything but flat lighting. Many studio photographers can spend hours balancing their multiple lighting to try to get get an effect like this, which is often free in nature. I also think that this type of lighting is more impressive and subtle in some cases than that of the hard lighting of direct sun.

Flat lighting is like that of a direct flash coming from close to the lens axis and rendering everything in its way with a flat and similar intensity. Drabbly so, except for a case when I might have wished to show clearly the nature of some of my samples emanating from a thesis experiment. That for me is what may be considered as flat lighting. I hope that explains my viewpoint a bit better.

I can understand that you do not have the same highly positive response as that of Alex. My own appreciation is also a bit mitigated, but for different reasons. While I like the composition and the apparent meaning of this environmental photo, and am drawn to look at it more than once, there is something that I cannot quite grasp that prevents me from being wholly convinced by its communication. It is not a technical detail, as I have mentioned, but rather my feeling about its emotional impact.

I agree with Arthur that the lighting is not flat and that such light shade can actually be quite rich light to work in, with the proper exposure. If anything makes this photo flat, IMO, it's the composition, in which everything is close to the wall and somewhat linear in nature. I say that more as an observation than a criticism. I agree with Jeremy that it is relatively easy light in which to make a pleasing portrait.

In respect to Arthur's final comment about it not being a technical detail that determines his response to the communicative aspect of the photo, I don't think that's necessarily what a discussion of technical details is about, a blocked up shadow here or a blown highlight there or a harsh crop somewhere (not all these examples pertain to this photo). A photographer thinks differently about technical details, a photographer thinks of them in terms of what things LOOK like, as well as how they communicate. There is a visceral side to art, a vital visceral side. Communication may get through despite whatever visceral reaction a viewer has, but that purely visual reaction is a significant one. The good artist knows that and that's why he can spend hours if not months and years refining details that other people could easily label him "crazy" for. A good artist always works both visually and communicatively (or expressively, the term I prefer) and knows how the two work together. A more shallow fellow doesn't understand the vitality of each, of the artistic symbiosis between the visual and the expressive. Few if any actual artists are only expressive, without concerning themselves with the finer details. Though one detail will not derail the communication, it still affects the photo, which is a communication . . . and much more.

Arthur, it almost read as if you wanted to say that your critique, based on the communicative value of this photo, had more value than the technical considerations others were discussing. In the end, as Fred also states, technique is one of those pillars that enables the communication. It's not the end-all-and-be-all, but neither to be dismissed. But I think and hope I misread your earlier post.

I can understand this, though my take on it was different in my first post, and it still is. I see the environment in this photo as leading to a wider story, and this photo takes my interest into this wider story. As a single photo, it may not have the full potential which it could have, but it does awake an interest and a want for more. To me, this photo feels like a good 'teaser'. It would work on the cover of a magazine to introduce a documentary.
Where I might take things a bit different than many of the participants in this thread so far is the value of motherly love. Yes, it's depicted here as a centre piece. And yet, for me, it is the first thing that fades into the background. As a subject for visual arts, it's a bit a cliché (think all Madonna with Child painting and statues). It's a bit a given, it's what we expect to see from a mother with a child - so as such, to me, it communicates little. But it does raise an awareness for the surroundings, the context of where this every-day event happens. To me, this photo is to a very large extend about what is not in this photo.
In that sense, this photo may not have a huge emotional impact - but to me, it has a huge potential towards it. On its own, it can leave something to be desired. But let your fantasy run a bit with it, and this photo grows.

P.S. With all this written, I do not want to say it is the best PoW I have every seen, or the best documentary photo of this kind I have every seen - but it is, in my view, a very good documentary photo.

Wouter, I actually love the potential you're seeing in this shot. I'm imagining the series you suggest or even a somewhat different take on this shot, from a wider angle, where the mother and child could still be the focus but much more of the environment were shown. A different photo, to be sure, but well worth considering as a comparison to this one. I agree with you that the narrative possibilities may be much deeper than the more strictly portrait ones here and that if there's a flaw here it may be in the photographer not having reached an organic balance of the two or commitment to one or the other. Thanks for that line of thinking, Wouter.

Wouter, I suggested earlier that the image lacked a context sufficient to give the mother-child act a greater significance or deeper meaning than the act itself. Could that be it? There is nothing else in the image to cause us to fantasize about things outside the image. It is all there in this case. It's sort of like reading the book vs watching the movie. This is the movie. I'm not suggesting this is an error on the part of the photographer, just that the context could have given more than it does.

Fred, I am acquainted with two senses of the phrase flat light. One is diffused, even light and the other is direct light coming from the lens axis. The light is flat according to the first sense and that of course is the sense I was using when I said earlier that "my reading of the light this image is made in is that it is uniform shade - either cloudy sky or shadow of a building". Is this what you disagree with? Do you think the sun is shinning on the subject or a flash was used? Or do you disagree with the use of the phrase "flat light". If it's the latter, change every instance of "flat light" in my posts and replace it with the phrase "diffused light" and nothing else changes. There is another possibility and that is that we are disagreeing about the difference between the light itself and the way the light has been rendered in the image. As I said earlier, I think the light itself has an ordinary quality that I called flat but that it had been pushed in post processing to give the sense that the light had more depth than it actually had. I suggested it had been pushed too far.

In case words are failing us here, this is an example of what I mean by special light.

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/191/2091/1024/Salgado04.jpg

The light in this POW is a non-starter in comparison. It's not perfect in comparison, it's not the best ever in comparison and it's not even very good in comparison. Since light is one of those qualities of an image that tends to give it deeper significance (more mystery), perhaps this is one reason why some of us are not fully connecting here. JJ

For me, this is wonderful light for this kind of documentary shot. As Arthur says, this kind of soft shade is like there's a light box in the sky. It's the type of photo, much like Migrant Mother (I'm not comparing them in terms of their impact on me), that doesn't demand any more dramatic or profound lighting. It seems to me to want lighting that reveals gesture, expression, and narrative, and doesn't itself make a statement or have a profound impact. The lighting in your link has much more of an impact on the photo than this lighting, yes. I understand your calling it special but I don't think it's inherently any better light, just different.

If there is a flaw with this photo, I don't think it's with the light. It's that the light simply doesn't reveal the kind of gesture or expression that might be more compelling for some people, or the story is just not there. This same photo, if taken with more dramatic light, might well have more of a wow factor but I don't think it would actually have any more substance or emotional depth.

I agree that it's diffused, even light, extremely good light for a documentary photographer to work in. Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of documentary shots that work well with more dramatic lighting. Generally, I use the term flat light when it literally flattens the image, and causes there to be a lack of depth. One can achieve great depth with this sort of light and this sort of light can allow for the attainment of a full tonal range in a photo. Overcast days, for example, feel rather flat in reality. Living in San Francisco I know how true that can be, since most of our days are overcast. What's fascinating to me is how much depth and richness that kind of light can give to a photo. The magic of photography!

I would like to write just my personal opinion. For me the light in this photo is not flat it is just soft. Flat light is the light that gives no shadows, here we have shadows (soft but shadows) that give depth so we have 3 dimentions. It really is not that easy to have perfectly flat light, it needs to have equally powerful light from all directions. To have a flat photo we must have two kind of flatness, flatness of light and flatness of perspective like when we shout a portrait from far with super telephoto. A flat photo is not a bad photo, it is just a different photo. I like flat photos, somehow they de-materialize the subject. I like photos like this:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16532397
flash on camera and camera upside down so the flash is under the camera and erase shadows in neck.
I notice that people write every time new dogmas about photography, I write just my personal opinion.

There's a beautiful quality to the "Printing" in this portrait. The gradients in toning are also rather hard and not subtle, which I believe fits this very well.
As for Lou Meluso's crop? Though I admire his work, I do prefer the uncropped version.

This is an excellent environmental photo with added impact provided by the spontaneous positioning of the child. The light works well; cropping would only lessen the shot's informative context.

Got to agree with Landrom Kelly

The image is a well seen and captured moment of real world tenderness.  Composition is nice and adds to the "story."  The B&W conversion is very good.

I respectfully disagree with Lech's assertion that this is not a kiss.  Mother's lips are pursed and pressed against child's cheek and her eyes are closed.  I cannot imagine that any mother would attempt to burp a baby while holding the baby's face to hers.  It is usually done with the baby's chin over her shoulder.  

Cal   

what a cracker of a shot, well done

Grts

Fernand

fernand-decanne.magix.net