Together

I like the way you used DOF to transition to main subjects. Lovely.

Dear Andrew. Thank you for your very kind comment. I specially value it as it comes from such a talented photographer. I looked many time at your gallery and it is very impressive and inspirational. Have a great day.

i like the innocence and optimism projected in the overall scene. The bare legs of the child with the oversized hat, fingers curled, all so familiar... carefree years of childhood. The holding hands are the start of a lifelong friendship (we hope). Above all, I love the shallow DOF (very rarely we see such a clean focal blur on PN, which is partly due to the camera, and the rest the photographer's skill). By getting at the level of the children, the photographer has put us right in their arena. The focal blur signifies a beautiful story, delineating it's past (the blurred area left behind by the children), the present (the area in focus), and the future to be explored (blurred area in front of the subjects).

What really grabbed my attention immediately upon viewing this image was how Tom caught each child walking (or possibly running) in cadence with each other. Each left leg is doing the stepping. The image makes me think of Tom Sawyer and Becky Thatcher.

When I was a child, my parents used to take a Christmas picture every year of me and my (many) siblings. One year they hired a professional photographer to do the job, and he forced all of us to hold hands and run away from the camera so that he could take (and did take) a lovely picture of family love and "togetherness." Which, to this day, makes all of us brothers and sisters roar with laughter because we *never* held hands; we loved each other like the little beasts that we were, but bucolic hand-holding, or doing a Sound if Music running-away scene (to a perfect sound track) was just not going to happen.

 

Cal me skeptical of this picture's "truth" to anything other than cliché ...

The forced and clearly artificial DoF leaves the impression that the children are insects on the beach. That sort of tilt and shift lens effect can be put to good use but does not seem to serve the cloying intent of the hand holding children.

I like the handling of tones, nice B&W conversion.

its ok.. the sand isn't defined enough.. the granules should be individual.. the kids would be better facing us. kids backs are boring however sometimes better when we see them exiting the scene if you catch my drift lol.. I see hundreds of photos of peoples kids just like this, no offence to anyone its cute I will give it that

Stephanie, given the image's POV, capturing individual grains of sand would be difficult, if not impossible. Besides, do you have something against kids' backs? To me, the fact that we don't see the kids' faces doesn't detract from the image at all.

There are several things that separate this image from cliches in this category. Things that come to mind are lens flare, flying leaves in fall, warm colors or sepia ... elements that I frequently see in 'walking children hand in hand' photos. Showing the children's faces than the back is also one of the cliches IMO.

I think a lot of parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents would like this photo and, to that extent, it would be a success in terms of pleasing them.

I find the strength and prominence of the foreground and its blur an obstacle. It bombards the photo. The rest is pretty much expected, perhaps trying a little too hard to be iconic or universal.

I agree with Gordon on the handling of the black and white.

While I don't find their clasped hands visually clear or appealing—there's a squareness and blockiness that just doesn't read delicately to me—I like the sweet gesture of the little boy's other hand.

Compare and contrast this to WE Smith's 'Walk to Paradise Garden.'

Although the theme of two kids is the same in both pictures, there are huge differences in atmosphere and environment. One has forest, the other vast openness. WE Smith's one doesn't show any sky at all, whereas in the POTW there is a strong presence (and role) of sky. IMO, the Paradise Garden is about two kids' joint stepping into the world of imagination and adventure (a tunnel, bright light in front). In contrast, the POTW is about two kids' collective journey in life (signified by the open sky and flat land which is grounded to reality) where the destiny is fuzzy or unknown (blurred horizon).

"Compare and contrast this to WE Smith's 'Walk to Paradise Garden.'"

No.

Supriyo, oddly, looking at the two together makes me like this one a little more. As you noted, the sky is "used" in this one where it's not really a part of Smith's. Seen side-by-side, because Smith's picture's surround is so "full," by contrast, it makes this one's sky seem to breath. Seen by itself, this one's sky looked rather empty/glum, to my eye.

 

Also, obviously the flatness or this one's wide beach versus the rise of Smith's narrow trail give two different messages.

Stephanie, are you still following this series of comments? If so, can you please respond to my previous post?

Remember, Michael, we have no way of tracking follow-up comments to the POTW anymore. Though I get alerts on follow-up comments to threads I've commented on because I've set my alerts to Watch threads I post to, the POTW threads don't seem to be Watchable and I get no alerts about them. Likely, Stephanie has no idea you asked her a question. The reason I saw your followup post is that I've learned to check back on these POTW threads a few time during the week so I can subsequent posts. I've noted the situation with the POTW in the Site Help threads. It's definitely not a priority for me, though, until a lot of other stuff is taken care of.

Fred, I get emails every time someone comments on photos I have commented on, including the POTWs. For example, I got an email when Michael asked the question to stephanie, and another email now when you posted. I don't think I changed any settings in my account, but this has been the behavior ever since.

I've turned email notifications off in Version 2, as I had in Version 1. Too many emails filling my box. I rely on the system alerts now as my forum prompts. It was just a guess as to why Stephanie may not have answered.

magnifica foto, muy bunea composicion y es una foto que habla por si sola, felicitaciones

@ Michael Linder.. if you look at the subject the perimeters of sand do have some definition but not enough. perhaps its just the beach itself? maybe it rained or the sand is actually dark sand? it looks like mud more than sand grain to me. I have an eye that pays attention to detail.. I think perhaps the tone isn't right here too monotone. the sand blurred effect ruins the whole shot for me.. looks like the camera picked up the sand in the foreground of shot. it cheapens it for me. sometimes less is more in photography . I don't get the point of the blurred sand /? it really distracts from kids, kids are expressive honest you should see at least part of the girls face. is she looking at the boy? is she looking something down the shore? I don't like the fact that the clouds don't pop. they have no definition . I see a very posed unnatural shot. it feels set up. I even think the hat was a prop plucked from mommy or daddy head,,, just my thoughts.. I may be way off. the parents are more concerned with the shot and the kids just want to go back to play

Thanks, Stephanie. Your most recent comments clear up any confusion I may have had about your original ones.

Julie, I think your and my reading of the picture has a lot of similarities in them, and I agree with your comparison of W E Smith's photo.

 

grrr ... when will we be able to quote one another. Admins, please ....

nice photo.