light

It looks like the guy is throwing a ball, someone recognized a clock in it, but my screen doesn't permit me the ultimate identification. Am I blind? It's kind of bugging me, but on the other hand the object is intriguing, and helps to make this picture interesting. WJ

Hmm...interesting choice for POW. I love the moment captured, and the lighting is lovely. I thought I didn't like so much space around the boy, but now that I look at it more closely I think the only thing that I'd change about the crop would be to trim the left to put the boy in the center. Right now it seems just off center. This would also eliminate the bright point of light in the lower left corner. The flare, I think, does at to the mood of the photo; flare isn't always bad, and here, as others have said, it does help balance things out. Being a fan of darkroom work, I also think that the drama of this image could be increased by burning in gradually around the top and sides; this would bring the focus more directly to the boy, and would make the most of the lovely lighting. By these suggestions I don't mean that I don't like this; it is indeed a lovely image.

The "Illumination" shot does clear up one mystery-- it's now clear that the dark, blurred ray in the upper left-center of this frame is the shadow on the dust in the air from a column between windows above.

(And I agree with most people here -- nix the flare and do not crop!)

"...apparently the Dummetts of this world strive for something better." (Nick Scholte).

...and why not, Nick?

Every photograph has its flaws. When we choose an image as a "keeper" we weigh the technical flaws against the aesthetic appeal. If I'm picking out a single image from several from the same scene I first reject the out-of-focus or those with camera shake. With transparencies especially I'll also take a hard look at exposure before settling down to aesthetic evaluation (if any shots are left to work with). Lens flare is also in there too as a regrettable potential source of a picture's ruination. The reason I do this basic "gardening" is because it is almost certain that irritating flaws will distract the viewer's attention from the underlying aesthetic appeal of the image and its realisation. Having said that, these are not hard and fast rules, but they are useful guides. I'll be the first to admit that there are always surprises, however.

In this case, the photographer has made a reasonable shot less accessible by avoidable distractions. He didn't do it deliberately or with malice aforethought. He wasn't trying to con us all out here by slipping one by when no-one was looking. As Morwen Thistlethwaite indicates, he certainly would have been a fool to decline the mantle of "POW winner" just because the elves picked the wrong image from his portfolio (they almost never get it right, do they?). Let's remove any personal opprobrium from the photographer himself (he is certainly a fine one). But the picture does have flaws, nevertheless.

The elves thought these flaws added to the attraction of the picture. Many (including myself) disagree. To suggest that a technical appraisal of why a picture works or fails can only be the product of a rigid rule-following mind is absurd. The technical flaws here are only noted because they endanger the picture's aesthetic appeal. What other reason for mentioning them could there be, unless this is a darkroom workshop or an optical design seminar (which it is not, at least primarily)? The world is full of good ideas. But good ideas aren't enough in themselves when it comes to that most intimate and personal of moments: that time when the wheat must be separated from the chaff. To leave agriculture and return to Will's musical metaphor, a beautiful piece played beautifully is always better than the same piece given a pedestrian performance. It might be just "on the night" that the performance is lacking, but are we to ignore our disappointment altogether and just rely on our imaginations to fill in the gaps?

Try going out into the Real World and selling poorly focussed, flared or exposed pictures to clients. Try telling them, "The idea was great, don't you think?" when the final image is a reject. See if they pay you your money.

Now this picture probably wasn't done for a professional assignment (I'm assuming a lot here... excuse me if I'm wrong), so there may not be the factor of a client's appreciation to worry about. But if there was, the image would most likely take more "selling" with the flaws than without them. If the photographer was lucky, the client might have thought along the lines of the writer of the elves' precis above, and they might still have accepted it. But, in my opinion (and that of others) he would have been lucky to achieve this.

So many people participate in photography because they think it's an easy path to becoming "an artist". You don't have to be able to draw, or hold a note, or play arpeggios. Pick up a camera, learn the darkroom rudimentaries and people have to take you seriously, don't they? I made the same mistake myself. But there comes a time when you have to face up to your work's deficiencies and realise that inspiration and enthusiasm aren't enough. It's not a shameful thing to admit this. It's actually quite liberating to realise how much there is to learn and that you're going to enjoy yourself doing just that. Maybe you'll get somewhere, maybe you won't. Lots of non-photographic influences can get in the way. But please, let's not lose sight of the balance between inspiration and perspiration, between having that Great Idea and carrying it through in the best way possible.

So, should we always strive to do better? I think the answer to that question is patent.

Actually Tony, I agree with most everything you say. My original comment to which you replied was more lamenting my own critical shortcomings (and lower standards). This in turn is a reflection of where I presently am as a photographer - an enthusiastic hobbyist with about one year under his belt, and by no means a professional.

 

While I still like this photo, your critique (and Tris' and a few others) helps me to recognize where deficiencies exists and accordingly help me to grow as a photographer. As long as its kept cordial (i.e. no personal attacks which are not only rude, but tedious as well), I for one, like the give and take of POW discussions and the different points of view expressed. Simply put, its how you learn.

 

BTW, you must be one heck of an early riser Tony - my clock on the wall indicates that you must have entered your comment around 7am Oz time.

Great discussion, this week... As somebody said, the elves must have made this week and last week's selection to allow interesting discussions to happen. I suspect it is actually the case. Great idea, great scene, touching moment of life, it would seem that most of us agree on these aspects, and so do I. " The World is full of good ideas ": it certainly is ! I can't count anymore the number of (probably) " good ideas " I had as a photographer, which failed for a detail - technical or not technical... So, does this picture fail ? This question is meaningless. Is it a fantastic shot. I don't think so. Is it a good shot ? Yes it is. Because the content in the veine still (fortunately) matters more than technical details - for a good shot, that is, and not to decide whether it is just good or really great... Once again, I have to agree with what T. Dummett wrote about " the potential clients " for such a shot. This probably wasn't an assignment, and who cares about clients when there is no client for a fact, one might ask...? Well, a client is the most innocent viewer you can think of: I like, I don't, I buy, I don't. That's the client. To buy, one needs more than just sympathy for a shot, because money matters...

Yet again, we here are not clients. We can afford to like but not love, see the pros and the cons, and balance both. That's what we do, which is of greater interest... I agree with Brian M. about constructive criticism and with Mary too. I also agree with the person who said, that what matters most is to justify critiques in the best, most sensible and most polite way possible... see the good, and see the weaker aspects...

As a client would I buy this POW ? It depends what client I am. For an art print, I wouldn't buy it. But surprisingly, for an ad campaign, I might - despite the weaknesses or rather FOR the weaknesses of this image. This also happens now and then in the advertising world: sometimes a creative director comes in and tells you: " I want an old feeling, I don't want it perfect at all, but I do want an image with a very strong emotional impact ". Clients and assignments like this exist - though they are fairly rare - and for these specific ad campaigns, the present POW might be just right. Levi's is over here for example looking for " imperfect life images "...

Imperfection with a purpose... motion blurs and such... I'm always glad not to be given this kind of jobs. Calculated and well adjusted and strongly emotional images which are imperfect, that's the most difficult thing in the World to achieve...

Would this POW have managed this here ? Maybe. But imperfection is also the arguable thing in the World. Some imperfections work, some don't - for a given purpose only. Here, we still don't know what was the purpose of the " imperfection " and whether it was calculated, intended, or not... So, how to decide ? With no client, no end purpose, no ad campaign, this picture can only be judged as an art print. If that's the case, no, I don't buy - though it certainly does touch me indeed !... I turn to the other wall in the gallery, and I see this really fantastic shot of a little girl busy in her world - Illumination... And if I can afford that one, YES, I buy...

" Illumination " keeps imperfections to such a minimal level, that nothing disturbs me really, and I could look at it for a very very long time... And I feel such a peace in there... that's really terrific ! Congrats for my POW - Illumination... To me this other image of yours really deserved the title...

I take the dogs for their walk at 6:30, Nick. When I wrote that comment we'd already had punch-ups with two cattle dogs, a husky and an old black labrador, plus the mysterious early-rising woofter behind the paling fence, of whose breed we are as yet unaware. In short, we were all in a mood to speak our minds.

this is such an adorable shot :-) ....the background noise (clock on wall, etc) is a bit distracting, but for the most part very well done.... the way the light outlines the arms is excellent... this might be a superb shot with just the child "cropped" out of the rest of the frame....

even as i speak, i hear the children screaming in the classroom, so i cannot respond to all right now. (which sometimes makes me think, where do people get the time to keep current on the POW posts, much less respond to, much less mean what they write????? it seems like a full time job...i mean does anyone work????:)

 

seriously though....

thanks for ALL the comments. secondly, blessing and curses on the elves for choosing this one....

 

i am the first to admit that this is technically quite an imperfect image. tris, i believe this is your "work in progress" idea that people shot down last week. a very raw image.

 

yes, the flaring at the bottom is "visually distracting" and would be easily "fixed" in the darkroom and/or PS. yes, i believe as some have written that "visual distraction" is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from "emotional, and/or pyschological disconnection" that this image relies on.

 

tris and tony: i too am weary of labels such as "mysterious, or mystical, magical" being overly appplied to images (especially for the light flare in this instance). it is often too lazy a description for something that needs to be explained (at least tried to be explained anyway...) in order for it to be really mysterious.

 

back to the image: there is no dodge or burn in this image. unsharpen mask and a trick of feathering on the edges that my wife showed me is about it on this image. i am quite ignorant in PS. my graphic designer of a wife mocks me mercilessly for my willful ignorance in PS. so i guess i am not a "photoshop" kind of guy.

 

thanks. and keep posting. much more later

 

andre

Now that's cool! Gotta love Tri-X.

I initially wondered if Tony Dummett's remarks seemed a little harsh. He has subsequently more than justified his comments. I not only understand his point, but feel it has expanded my perspective on viewing photographs. Thank you, TD.

 

So to the image. No way is that flare "ethereal", it's obviously a product of the lens. What is written in that box marked "Why this photo was chosen" is merely an opinion, not necessarily any more qualified than anyone else's. Hopefully, we can see each week's image as providing us with something to chew over and discuss, rather than some 'ultimate' image.

 

I hope, as a participant, that if I see flaws in an image I can go away and hope to minimise those flaws in my own work, while being inspired by the photographer's idea. This is one such case. I like it, but it is still flawed.

by the way, graham was right about the flare off of the boys head. it comes from a table right behind him. i don't mind this so much as the flare to the right.

 

funny that tony should bring up the discussion of how an image is realised, and if and how it suceeds in it's realization...

when i first posted this shot, someone asked me the story behind the story. it is at the beginning of this thread, but i should tell it again anyway.

 

i was, as a matter of a fact, busy shooting "illumination" - a shot i had dreamed of, and when i came to school and saw the incredible light coming down from the windows, i knew this was the day and that i would be ready. i took nearly the entire roll of this girl (she is working on a plant diagram) with about three shots left when this boy crossed my view. i looked up and he started playing with the light coming down from the windows. my first impression was not so much of a child conducting an orchestra, but of a child messiah calling forth light. i didn't have time to burst out laughing, but quickly recomposed and finished the roll.

 

in the six years i had been at this school, i confess that i would never have imagined this image. as they say, it just happened. i was simply glad that i had the eyes to see the moment happening and that i took it. is it flawed in it's composition? probably so, as most have mentioned.

all of this to say: i hold "illumination" as a shot that i am proud to say i thought about, planned for, and executed. what should i say is "light" then? a candid moment? merely a "snapshot" as some would derogatively say? i am not sure, but i like them both equally for very different reasons, although they were taken seconds apart. illumination isn't perfect either as some have duly noted, although in my heart of hearts, i do wish they would have chosen that one instead. simply because it was the premeditated shot. the girl stands illuminated as she focuses on her work, illuminated nearly as much as from her table than from the light coming down. and then there is the boy. the boy who is SUPPOSED to be WORKING, but is goofing off and entirely mesmerized by the beams of light coming down.

 

the two images were two different challenges that i suspect haunt all photographers: a decisive moment captured, or an image shrewdly executed? i suppose it is the masters that can confuse the two.

 

just curious, which would you guys rather have?

 

now look. it is only monday, and i have already used up my fifteen minutes of fame. thanks for the patience. keep posting, and be constructively critical, i can take it...i think.

 

andre

Three words, OMG.

 

Jim

Interesting pic,the lighting is very powerful, however I'm having trouble understanding the message. Mostly, it just looks neat.

Add me to the list of party poopers. Leaving aside the subject matter for a moment, the streakiness of the upload and the "sundog" (flare) in the lower right hand corner do not add to the image, they most definitely subtract from it. Technique and presentation do count. I tossed a gazillion "it would be perfect with one more stop" pictures today, and I'd lump this one in that genre.

 

That said, it is a strong composition and potentially strong use of backlighting. These elements do not redeem the photo entirely, but they do manage to do so somewhat.

 

I'll confess further: I hate kid pictures. Almost nobody can keep their own nostalgic sense of childhood wonder from coloring their photography or critique of same. Sentimentality becomes the rule of the day.

 

However, I do try to keep my personal feelings about a photo away from my opinions about its general quality. There have been PoWs that I haven't liked but deserve their status. I don't think PoW isn't of the usual quality of other PoWs mostly the techie reasons I've mentioned in the first paragraph.

 

Andre, congratulations on your award and be thankful that you at least you have gotten many intelligent critiques so far.

For those who are fans of cropping (don't call in the hit squad) I was wondering if anyone had considered this in a square format? I think that comes closer to solving some of the compositional woes that have been mentioned.

 

It's hard for me to believe that this was taken with a sophisticated camera, because the quality seems reminiscent of a high school student's first attempt in a wet darkroom. Artistically, the flaws seem to create the illusion that this photo was taken a long time ago. Perhaps to help create an atmosphere of fantasy that allows us to return to the world of children.

 

Yes, I like the photo and I think the photographer is a wonderful person. I agree that it could be improved. I would now like to (jokingly) suggest that we create a form along the lines of an accident report, so that we can streamline some of the weekly repetitive comments here.

 

---- I strongly [] agree [] disagree with the reasons for selecting this photo as POW.

---- I strongly [] agree [] disagree with the comments of the previous poster.

---- I think the photo [] should [] should not be cropped (to hell).

---- I feel [] hurt [] insulted [] gratified [] complimented by the previous comments.

---- I want to [] eat a sandwich [] chew nails [] spit fire because of the previous comments.

---- I think the photo should be [] darker [] lighter [] about the same [] I'm so drunk I'm blind.

---- I think the rating system is [] useful [] sucks [] sucks eggs [] pointless (thats a pun).

---- I think the photo should be cropped [] top [] bottom [] left [] right [] and then flushed down a toilet.

---- I did not read any of the other comments, but just wanted to say [] Wow [] I just don't like it.

---- I only like [] photos of cats [] photos that I take [] photos of myself [] photos of naked people.

---- I am [] always right [] seldom right [] never right [] able to justify things in my own mind.

 

I like this shot very much, but I still feel uneasy looking at it. When I first saw it, I thought the boy looked cut and pasted. The distances looked too compressed, then there were the glares and the spots on the far wall and that clock just begging to have some relationship with things, then the streaking and the vignetting. I felt my brain stretching to fit it all together, then to decide whether it fit together in a satisfying way or not. It's preschoolers and there is, as Kelly pointed out, the sentimental bias (the noble toddler syndrome) but this isn't an easy composition like most cheesy kid pix (my folders are full of cheese). So I sit unsettled, but decidedly more drawn into your picture than I was yesterday. The light is the thing for me, and you did a great job of catching it. I don't think darkening or increasing the contrast of the background is the answer, though I think a shorter DOF may improve things a bit. The girl is just a bit too clear for me and she and the boy don't looked detached, they look like they're from different pictures.

It is a beautiful shot, I think most of the elements are additive, but the sum of the whole does not necessarily create something greater than the parts.

 

I actually like some of your other shots better than Illumination, this one included.

 

One concern, up top you said you wanted to curse his rudeness when this kid got in the way, then just ahead of this post you said you wanted to laugh. I hope the latter is true.

 

Congratulations

I love the image, but for some reason this photo seems too unreal. To me, it seems like too much Photoshop blur was added to the image. Please prove me wrong.

Goodness ! I certainly didn't expect to read what I just read - which is what you just wrote... May I just say I find this really hilarious, and that you truly got me laughing for the whole last 5 minutes - stopwatch in hand...

 

Now, more seriously - and I wonder why, by the way, since it was so good to laugh -, I have to say that I did in fact think of this cropping, which in my opinion would be second best - the best still in my opinion being what the photographer chose... My objection to the square cropping is just that I feel the gesture of the child, still, more limited by the borders. Otherwise, it still is a cropping that makes some sense and solves numerous problems stated earlier...

 

Once more, Dennis, sincere congratulations for this masterpiece of humour...

Thanks for this nice little story, Andre... I would pop up once more just to say that preparation matters certainly - except maybe for masters, as you said... The difference between a decent and touching catch on one hand, and a wonderful picture on the other hand, is written here, in these 2 pictures... When you said Illumination had its few imperfections too, well, I might agree, but sooooooo much more bearable than in the boy's shot ! And again, I still prefer her face to his back and arms - so the choice is easy: Illumination should be (IMO only) the Picture of this week ! That makes it 1 vote. I hope each of the new comments will include a vote too. Would be nice, for once, to reach a sort of conclusion...

 

Andre-

May I also say congratulations and express my admiration for the beatific quality of the photo. Like you, I am struck by the childs messianic character, and that potent undercurrent would lead me to favor this image over Marcs more pleasurable Illumination. Various people have mentioned flaws in the composition and technical aspects of this shot which seem to diminish the power of the photo, but I think that with a small amount of normal and acceptable burning and dodging, which you no doubt would have explored in time, the problems that the composition poses can be resolved. Since you are probably too busy at the moment to spend time fiddling, I took the liberty of making the minor adjustments that your previous post and your photos title suggested.


/general-comments/attachment/339072/light2.jpg

kelly, thanks for your post. all party poopers welcome.

 

i can only agree with you when you say that it is near impossible for anyone to keep their nostalgia about childhood from coloring their work. (i would say simply impossible) but i am not sure i would conclude that the end result always be kodak moment, hallmark card, anne getty, or sentimentality ruling the day. (people i am sure make a hard earned living with this, so let me apologize now for any offense) shots like these are easy, cheesy, and FOR ME, often times, shameless and just unsatisfying. but lord nows i have taken them. for these are the cliches, the nostalgia that i am sure you speak of. and they are easy to take. when some parents ask for me for work, that is precisely what they are after, and when i am feeling lazy, it is a very sleepy default to snap smiles, and giggles, and all things fuzzy. hell, it even makes me feel fuzzy sometimes!!

 

but working with children (which doesn't make anyone an expert) i know that it is much more complex than that-as any subject becomes more complex the more you look at it. the shots that i love to give to parents are the moments that they would really have absolutely no chance of ever seeing anywhere else. moments. revelations. connections. these, i think are much harder to take.

 

i would also raise the question kelly, (and this to me seems a frequent land mine of-a-topic when it comes to photographing children) when is it ever possible for anyone to not color their work with their own biases and experiences about anything??

 

thanks again.

 

andre

Andre, just to clarify on my previous rushed comment, I do like the idea of this picture, I just find the glare (I think partly because of its roundness, if that doesnt sound too stupid) too distracting. I congratulate you on catching a spontaneous moment that I almost certainly would have missed, though like others I keep thinking if only. I really love Illumination though. If I didnt make it clear in my previous comment Marc then count that as 2 votes for it. Like you, I much prefer her face to his arms.

Would be nice, for once, to reach a sort of conclusion...

Why?!? It's the journey, not the destination, man! :-) I personally am not that excited about "conclusions" and "end"(?!) results.

...and to all a good night! :-)

Great shot, but croping out the chairs at extreme right and left makes it even better. I covered them up on the screen with black card it makes it a much stronger shot. That's my two cents.