Guest Guest Posted July 20, 2003 In child photography it is difficult to overcome the 'cute-child- factor' and to give the photo something that is of interest to someone not related to the child. What do you think, does the picture succeed in this respect? Thanks for commenting. Link to comment
houstonphotographics 0 Posted July 20, 2003 wonderful! Brilliant and crisp! Shows the innocence of childhood, even though no face is visible, but that works too! Link to comment
dougityb 0 Posted July 23, 2003 yes, it works, but I think it would work better if the face were visible because: Is she grimacing at steppig on slimy moss or a dead fish, or is she laughing at getting her feet wet? I like the ripples and reflections in the water. Link to comment
philmorris 0 Posted July 23, 2003 I like the crisp detail here. And the blacks and whites. And the geometry on her clothes. I see her pulling a face as contorted as her arms and legs. As contorted as mine were after I stood bare foot on a bunch of sea urchin spines. Ever had a doctor whack a needle into the soft belly of all ten of your toe pads? Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted July 23, 2003 As a child we went swimming in a lake and while changing I fell with my naked bottom into an ant-hill. An ever-lasting experience. BTW Fanny is smiling and singing one of her self-invented songs here. Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted July 25, 2003 Every time I look at this, Birgit, the more I like it. The moment you caught is just so nice! I can almost hear her made-up song as I view the image. This is what childhood is all about, isn't it? Its got lovely tones and I love how you caught the ripples on the water. If I didn't do it before, consider this one added to the list of your great one. Damn, I hope you didn't sit on fire ants. OUCH! Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted July 25, 2003 Thank you Andy! I don't know whether we have fire ants in Bavaria at all. But it sure FELT like fire! The most embarassing part was being dragged into the water and getting my bum washed off the ants in front of all others who rolled on the grass and died of laughter. I was five. Link to comment
scott bulger 0 Posted November 10, 2003 I read Sensei Dougs comment about seeing the face to gauge an expresion, and while I certainly see his point and can agree that at least not ALL child photographs should be faceless, I certainly think that on occasion, it is ok to go without the face. This reminds me of a picture I took of my son about 12 years ago when he was three. We had gone to the city park one hot summer day to play on the swings and gather some respite from the hot sun in the shade underneath the tall white pines. The public pool is right nearby and it wasn't long before his attention was garnered by hte sounds of the other children laughing and frolicking in the cool water. The pool is surrounded by a chain link fence for security purposes. I watched as he got off the swing and ambled over to the fence to watch the other kids. He leaned up against the fence, grabbing the links above his head with his tiny fingers, and rested one of his feet on his knee. The way he leaned into the fence nearly broke my heart. Without seeing his face, I gathered all the information I needed from his posture. I knew he wanted into that pool. I love this image, and the fact that I can't see her face bothers me not in the least. She looks like she is laughing and giggling and grinning from ear to ear. Thats good enough for me. Link to comment
syl_f._greg 0 Posted December 5, 2003 A bit more than 6/6. Very touching and pleasant image. Link to comment
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now