light

Congrats Andre, a very well deserved POW. I loved seeing it pop up on the home page.

 

I have to totally disagree with Tony on this one. This image is all about the moment. Flare yada yada, cropping yada yada, light from a desk yada yada, just experience this picture for what it is. Let it make you smile.

 

I think some of us have become too caught up in the technique of photography to enjoy it to its fullest potential. I found myself doing this with music a while back. Anaylizing the recording, not being able to just enjoy the song, a groove, or lyric. It became an obsession. Then I found photography and saw others anaylizing photos like I anaylized music. It caused me to take a step back. Its hard to just experience things that you personally take part in yourself, but now I try to listen to a song first, not just the guitar tone or the kick drum sound. It's hard, but well worth the effort, sometimes musicians have to be listeners too.

 

Just listen to the photo first. Then after its played its tune all the way through, make an opinion. Try to forget that you could burn out the flare in photoshop and enhance the contrast of the BG yada yada.

First: beautiful shot. re Tony Dummet's comment on the lighting on the underside of the boy's head: I think it's reflected back up off the surface of a table... ie the same thing that caused the flare, but not flare.

 

I can't agree with the suggestion (not by TD) to increase the contrast in the background: the greyness is what makes the boy stand out. Sadly I do agree that the flare is flare and not a numinous visitation of mystical energy and it would be better not there.

Will,

It's too easy to characterise articulate criticism as tantamount to technophilia. The "yada yada" embellishment is actually quite insulting as well as awesomely empty-headed. If you'd like a blunt statement: "In my opinion, the picture fails".

Now, if I just uttered that three-word reaction - the picture fails - I'd be called negative, carping, jealous, etc. yada yada yada - all the usual suspects - but I gave reasons for my criticism. It was nothing personal towards the photographer. I also said I thought the idea of the picture was good, if not its realisation. I made constructive suggestions as to how the image could have been better realised. I praised its use of empty space above the boy's figure. I criticised the Photo.Net Cropping Society's inane misunderstandings of what the photographer was getting at. Why do you insist that my (and others') simply pointing out excessive flare, halation and possibly flawed composition (hardly photographic qualities to be aspired to) can be characterised only as a purist's over-analytical ravings and/or obsession with technique? I know a good picture when I see one (and I have made a few too). Why must a supported critique that happens to be not positive, be slagged-off yada yada yada, when the glib and unargued "wows" and the "perfects" and the "wonderfuls" slip by without remark or challenge?

What is this place? A support group for the sensitive of soul, or somewhere where robust and reasonably well-explained criticisms can be made without fear of ridicule and belittlement? Your musical metaphor as to how to appreciate a creative work - "Then after its played its tune all the way through, make an opinion" - is noted as the patronising waffle that it truly is.

The first thing I saw was the glare under his arm and thats what keeps distracting me from the rest of the photo. It pulls too much attention away from the subject and in my opinion needs to go its really not something I can just ignore or overlook because I find Im looking at it all the time. I wasnt really bothered by the closeness of the girl until I saw Tonys version. With the glare gone it feels unbalanced and I would really like to see more of a gap between her and the boy (not that much Dennis).

I took Marcs advice and had a look at Illumination, which I like a lot more than the POW. It has some glare at the bottom of the photo too but it doesnt distract the way it does in this picture. I also think the composition is more balanced and I really like the way the light behind her makes her stand out from the rest of the classroom.

I think the overall age of the subject(s) gave this photo what it took to become POW. Imagine if this was a college classroom. I don't think we would be praising it the way we are now. True innocence, meet the return to innocence .... I like this photo a lot though...

From some weeks to now, I am under the impression photo.net is having fun to place as a POW some not really exceptional pictures and see what's going to happen. Maybe this is a way to light the fire on the discussion.

To my eyes, this is a potentially quite nice shot (although nothing truly special), flawed in the realization by a number of problems Tony Dummet already articulated in a way I feel to share.

Even without those problems, we would have here a smiley child picture and a good exercise of lighting, nothing so deep, involving, beautiful or original to be worth to be intensely discussed.

This is a picture I would be happy to have in my album, especially if my son would be one of the childs portrayed. Not a picture which, in my opinion, deserves a POW mention.

 

Nothing truly against the picture, which may be quite nice altough not exceptional, and sure nothing against the photographer. But why on heaven this picture is here???

I wish a stronger choice for the next week.

 

I must have seen this shot in the same portfolio while commenting and rating the other shot illumination last November. For me the latter looked and looks more striking, has more impact (I would crop off the window though).

 

The little boy's arms are probably as interesting as the little girl's face. but, the whole composition and the whole light effects of this shot are not so successful: The distance between the two children is too small; it doesnt look good that the clock on the wall hangs directly above the boys head; the glare (from the reflection?) is distracting; the radiation of the sunlight is not very effective. All these are merely my critiques on this shot as a high standard POW, though I do enjoy it as a wonderful candid shot.

A presidential speech... I love the rim light...

Light and beautiful. Love it!

Congratulations Andre on POW!! I have to agree with Tony and others about the light flare being distracting.There are also a few black spots center left I would PS out as well. I know they're part of the classroom, I still find them pulling from the main focus. Tony's PS rendering is much more powerful without the light and with the added blur. Sorry Dennis, I think your changes are a bit too distracting. I find the light reflection off the chair left adds to the mystery of this image. It's as if the halo of light surrounding the boy has also touched his chair. I like the composition and the little girl's lack of interest in his grandiose style. This looks like that wonderful age where boys have started to realize they're boys and girls could care less. I think this photograph effectively captures the very beginnings of the mystery of the male/female relationship. Jen

 

Congratulations Andre... Looks like this image is going to be another "love it or hate it" image. Well, I love it. To my mind it is one of those techy vs visual comentaries. Technically, hmm... I do like both Tony's version with the flare gone and your version with the flare for two different reasons. Somehow (and it probably was an accident) the flare off the desk adds to the image interpretation for me. What I see is - a boy commanding the light to rise. What I know is - that I take joy in looking at it and that counts for a whole lot in my book. In Tony's - my attention is drawn to the boy and the sweet light on his head and rimming his body. A boy embracing the light. All in all - an innocence that visually I love! A moment well caught. I agree that the image should not be cropped. I also think Tony's critique was well thought out and when people have opinions/critiques that are expressing what they don't like about an image... That is fine as well as important/helpful as long as, they don't rip in with nasty and cutting or calloused negative phrases.

I'm sorry but I must be one of those oddballs who don't agree. I usually find POWs most intriguing and am always awestruck by them, especially Bill Hocker's work of the Opera Society. This is one great piece of work but as a POW, I think it's an overstatement.

 

I find the 'mystifying' glare very distracting. The background is too bare. Perhaps a globe or some common classroom objects will do the trick? The girl in the background also doesn't do any good for me.

This photograph made a positive first impression on me, although not so positive as "Illumination". However, for me it does not hold up under close scrutiny, for the reasons that Tony and others have analyzed.

 

It is exasperating to have, in almost every POW discussion, someone objecting to an analytical critique of the images. It's almost as if people are afraid that their positive response to an image will evaporate if it is analyzed -- that the critiques are stealing something from them. But in my opinion, the greatest images are those where one's appreciation deepens upon close scrutiny and analysis. A well-reasoned and true analysis is a gift not a theft.

 

Besides, if analysis and critique are not legitimate, we might as well just eliminate the comments and all just rate the image according to how much we "like" it.

Haha... I began reading earlier posts AFTER I posted mine. Seems like my sentiments are well echoed.

 

Give me Illumination anytime. I think if POW has to be awarded to either this or Illumination, I'd choose Illum.

I hope no one is misunderstanding my position. I've never said or alluded to being in favor of positive kudos all around. This comment by Dan Sweet is the reason I usually pipe up and ask for more positive/constructive negative comments or defend (some) people that are being attacked for their "negative" comments: Dan said: "This is the first time I have dared to comment on a POW for fear of the shark infested waters". Why should the POW be a forum that people are afraid to venture into? This is not the first time a newcomer expressed this kind of sentiment. Some with tongue in cheek but some are truly afraid to make a comment here either positive or negative due to the sometimes nasty put downs and comments that sometimes appear on these pages. I was only pointing to the civilized constructive critiques that really work to help us look at an image in a new light.. Pardon the pun. Where Tony does bring up flaws and explains his position/opinion he also finds some positives which balances his critique. (Phil Greenspun himself is also a perfect example of this). I personally love the image because a photo that moves me emotionally and visually - as this one continues to do - is an excellent image in my book. Sometimes I like to keep it pretty simple. On the other hand there are some images that are technically perfect and move others but don't move me... But each POW experience teaches me a little more than I knew before because of the diversity of tastes, "opinions" and knowledge.

I thought I would take another stab at photo editing because I'm not sure I want to be a part of this conversation.

 

My advice (directed towards no one in particular) is to concentrate on your own remarks relating to the photo and leave others to succeed or fail on the merit of their individual statements.

it is a nice scene and children are usually great subjects for their spontaneity. lighthing is definitively beautiful and provides a sense of teaching or enlightment to the boy. there is a glare at the lower right that bothers me, and its gonna be hard to convince me it was on purpose. i don't know about you, but i feel the upper part of the picture does not provide any value added to it.

Congrtatulations on POW. Makes me long to be a kid again. Very well done.

I apply a simple test to what I put online, in any venue for any purpose: if I were facing this person, having this conversation, at a cocktail party, how would I say it?

 

Except for the few photo.net commentators who seem to suffer borderline personality disorder, I think you'd find that every brusque POW commentator would somehow find a way to make his/her point in a more polite way in an eye-to-eye conversation.

 

 

I liked this photo before it received POW honours, and I still do... although upon a second and more thorough examination I certainly admit the flare under the boy's arm is a flaw and a distraction.

 

However, I remain unconvinced that the composition could be improved with some separation between the boy and the girl in the background. I know this would be the "textbook" manner to handle this shot if there were time to set it up properly, but I still maintain that the depth of this photo creates the necessary space to allow the boy his position of prominence.

 

Others have noted that this appears to be one of those photos where you either appreciate the emotion it conveys or you remain blinded by the technical deficiencies to the point that the photo is considered a "reject". And to be honest, this may be what separates a great photographer from a merely good one. Myself, I'd be tickled to have got this shot, but apparently the Dummetts of this world strive for something better.

If I may, a round of agreements. Tony is on track (to my mind) about both the flare being a distraction, and especially about the cropping. Whatever its flaws, this image has a strong use of space, which I'm afraid would be lost if cropped. Perhaps you could make a strong image out of a smaller area (the middle third as a vertical?), but it would be saying something quite different than this presentation does.

 

I also agree about the flare being a problem. I must say, though, that my problem with it isn't because it's a "technical flaw", at least not entirely, but rather because it distracts from the boy. Although removing it leaves the right side of the frame more void of interest in a way, it also brings the focus back to the boy, his expressive arm position, and his place in the frame.

 

I must also agree with Tris. Mysticism and magic have a place in photography, but this image seems (my own opinion, of course) more engaging as a view into this child's play and the classroom than as some imagined Harry Potter scene.

 

Here's the thing, though: I still *like* this picture. A lot. Three elements combine to make the shot for me: the wonderful light on the boy, the arm position, and the contrast between the boy and his scene. The contrasts include both the photographic (lighting, spacing) and the human - whatever the boy is doing, it seems unnoticed by the girl (been there, right guys?) and by his surroundings.

 

Yeah, I'd probably pick the other shot out of the portfolio, too. Ok, enough ramble. Enjoy.

"patronizing waffle" <---you crazy aussies. Im gonna use that :-)

 

Thats also exactly how I reacted when people would tell me I was over anaylizing music. "I made recordings, wrote songs, I play guitar, I know what it should sound like, yada yada," not even listening to anything.

 

Tony, I didn't mean to imply your criticism was invalid. You have a wondurous online portfolio and your advice is almost always well founded. I really wasn't speaking to your comment directly but in a more broad sense, pointing out a trend I thought I saw developing.

 

I agree with Brian's comments about criticism deepening an image, but only if it has truly been given a chance. If all you see is flaws how can you see the beauty? Technique is one thing and style is another. Andre would have to say for himself, but I dont think he's a photoshop kind of guy.

After reading all of the comments on this photo and viewing Illumination, here are my thoughts... I like Illumination, but this shot is more dramatic. I don't mind the glare in the bottom. In my eye it is the light that the boy is playing with. I like that the girl is not looking at him - it makes the moment a private one. Andre, you have captured a very imaginative moment, and the moment, for me, overrides the technical stuff. I like this photo not in spite of, but because of it's imperfection. I wouldn't change a thing. Congrats!

I want to reiterate that I think this image is great, but that it is spoiled by a relatively easily-fixed flare under the boys right arm, which I find impossibly distracting. The space above his head is essential as the place to which he directs his grandiose gesture, and the girl is essential as his audience, even if she isnt paying attention to him, which is probably the point.

 

Now whether people want to criticise the technical execution or the composition and intent (I suspect there'll be much more of the former in this discussion thatn the latter), you cant deny that it is a striking image. I expect THAT is why the elves chose it, and the ensuing debate, whether critical or not, is a testament to the evocative nature of the shot. And extracting a reaction from people with your image is a big chunk of the point. Squabbling with people with who you disagree is really fairly pointless, and just reinforces the fact that the photographer took an image strong enough to MAKE you want to argue about it, and therefore he/she succeeded. On that level, same as last week, this shot is a winner.

First of all: great moment and lighting! No need to say more... congratulations!

Here is a quick edit with some(?) burning-in (I believe nothing that couldn't be done in a darkroom) to even out flare/halation and tone down bg. Just for the sake of discussion... this should only be taken as a personal opinion/interpretation (possibly a bad/tasteless one, I'm not sure yet... :-). The photographer ultimately decides, of course (I'm not one, in any case... :-)