light

It is true that images of children are always so trite...

 

http://www.journale.com/portraits/art2/images/cover_small.jpg

c Steve McCurry for National Geographic

I have to say it has been fun but I doubt it will last. It is has been fun to come in and smile and laugh out loud at the shinnanegans...instead of boil and fume. By the way - my 11 year old daughter (shamelessly honest in critiques by the way - and I know because I've been her victim) -- said she likes the flare because it looks like the boy is on stage and that flare is like his stagelight for his performance.

I wouldn't change a thing. I even like the flare in the lower right hand corner. Great photo.

The audiophile people have a term - audiophile nervosa. It is a nit picky type of thing - not to imply that the nits arent there though. It leads to an inability to enjoy the music becasue the recreation isnt "perfect" (which it never will be). But,it has been noted that people often "really get into it" when driving their car with the windows open, the wind in their hair and the stereo of comparitively poor quality cranked up to provide that joy that most of us know from similar experience. Sometimes you just have to ignore the wrinkles and enjoy the music. Its there if you (dont) look. Perhaps its easy to get Photographica Nervosa as well. Glad that this weeks ongoing rant is of light spirit. D-

It looks to me like there are a couple of black dots on the left side of the picture, wheter it is the scan job or the printing job you did it takes away from the picture. And I could be wrong but the kid in the foreground looks like he was flashed, the white outlines are a little too much. Nice composition and sharpness of the foreground save this picture. Not Photo of the week material in my mind.

Dane,

 

Speaking for myself, I am well aware of the difference between what you call "Photographica Nervosa" and a more balanced criticism, taking both aspects of the image - technical and aesthetic - into consideration.

 

The critique I made of this photograph was of the latter kind. For that matter, most of the other commenters that mentioned, for example, the flare "problem" also stated that the technical considerations interfered with their aesthetic appreciation of the image.

 

There seems to be a tendency occasionally at photo.net to wrongly characterise any technical criticism as frigid pedantry and the critics themselves as aesthetic Philistines. It would be convenient for some (especially those who neither know nor care about the craft of photography) if that were true, but it most certainly is not.

 

It is the technology of photography that allows us to make the images we so enjoy making. The effectiveness of the message of a photograph is intimately entwined with its medium. Is it not proper therefore to consider both in formulating a critique?

Now I know what was causing that constant facial twitching and intermittent flashes of blinding light!

 

Tony: I think what people are trying to say is that you are a "Buzz Kill." Some people seem to be here for the express purpose of providing an audience for the photograph, and they (apparently) take exception to you (and others) jumping up during the "performance" and shouting about the orchestra not following the composer's score. People who are here just to look at the pretty pictures should stop paying money to read your reviews (oh right, they got them for free). My only problem with your comments is that you keep upstaging me when I am trying to be clever. Your comments are always instructive and often humorous. Thanks.

 

Andre: Congratulations and apologies for running wild through your special recognition. I guess that's why I'm never invited to parties.

 

Dennis, your comment reminds me of the story about the concert pianist who was dragged back on stage for five encores. Finally, after thanking the audience profusely, he pleads to them, "Please let me go, or else I'll miss my plane". A little guy from the audience jumps up (score in hand) and shouts out, "You'll keep on playing till you get it RIGHT!".

I think it's important to get it right (not quite as obsessively as in that story), or at least to speculate as to whether something could have worked better. Not just for technophiliac reasons, but to better enjoy the potential of the image. It's obvious that Andre knows what he is doing and felt perfectly comfortable in posting this image. While commending most of his work in producing it (the photo's qualities are clear for all to see), it doesn't hurt to point out where it might also have been improved.

P.S. Upstaging you - although your "gondolier" rendition of last week's POW was brilliantly un-upstageable - is one of Life's little pleasures, and should be indulged in whenever possible, as the opportunity does not arise too frequently.

Awesome. That's Tri-x baby! Love the sparkle. Like it much better than last week's POW--I think I was the only one who didn't get it. This one is great. I guess you got more than one shot. Are the others good?

Afflicted with chronic photographica nervosa myself (and proud of it), there are, indeed, two as yet unmentioned technical aspects of the photo that I think are post-shot introductions and that get in the way of my appreciation. They are the excessive and uneven graininess (even by tri-x standards) and the edge vignetting which Andre uses on all of his photos and which here makes a splotchy lighting situation only worse. Were he to clean the image of these foreign elements (and that one little annoying black spot directly above the girl's head) the photo's qualities would be, I think, even clearer.

Of course a balanced approach is good and in fact this is inherently a critique site. Honest critique is a good thing and very valuable, the issues pointed out are in fact present, and I do not mean to belittle the criticisms. I guess I am simply happy that the issues on this pic didnt bother me at all in the grand scheme of the image. Anyway, 'nuf said on my part. D-

Tony, Dennis - keep trying to upstage each other because it is wonderfully entertaining. Andre, I do hope you keep shooting those kids - you have a wonderful "stage" there in the classroom. Dane, I understand very much what you speak of because I'm a "feely" type in my reaction to art. What brought me to photography is my awe at color, texture, patterns, expression, emotion etc. I love being "moved" by nature and by artistic expression. In this quest to transform what I see into good images - I can appreciate the more critical and technical mind. I know I've improved in projecting my vision with the help of people who have a passion for their vision of right and wrong in art. I don't always agree with all the rules and I don't always agree with what is considered excellent photography by some. I also on one hand can enjoy a photo like this purely and absolutely regardless and because of the flaws. On the other hand there are images I see that I see have flaws - yet are applauded and given great accolades and I feel that I must be blind and (possibly?) wrong. But I'm not. It is subjective at times and that is the beauty of art and opinions. We all see noontime from our own windows... and that is ok - though frustrating at times when you wonder... Why can't they see what I see... They are also saying with equal perplexity - why can't they see what I see. So, I guess we respect each other's right without calling the other opinions "wrong". Just different. I truly believe that.

tony-that makes me think....

 

did anyone else have the writing teacher that said, "there is no such thing as good writing, only good re-writing", or "practice makes better, not perfect"?? does this still apply do you think??? are you ever done with an image?? i hear of writers who toil over the question of when to leave a work for what it is, or when to keep working.

 

if any or all of this is true, than all the more critiques the better for the photographer, and all the better for the community of learning.

 

i think i can honestly say that none of the critiques (so far) have been unhelpful, or in any way rude. i can even agree to the glaring problems (literally) as well as the comment on the grain and the fade to black borders (congrats bill hocker, i wonder who would be first to mention it). although i respectfully disagree about the cropping issue-i like it just the way it is-thanks!, and the distance between the girl and boy-they seem fine to me anyway.

 

it is still a pleasure to hear what people think, or better yet if there was some connection or inpspiration. (i doubt though mary, that some posters, who again shall remain un-named, need little inspiration or prodding for their shinanigans. namely tony, bill and dennis. good grief...when i gave this image to the parents of the little boy, she was in near tears. i don't think i will refer her to the post with the angels, or the one with the choir!!!)

 

any more posts? let the rockets red blare...

 

andre

 

Ok I agree that the crops are not as good as the original. I am disapointed that no one was impressed with the fact that I combined the two photos and even moved that kid to the other side of the frame.

 

I still think the crux of this photo lies in the interactions or lack of interactions between the children. Here is yet another interpretation of what is really happening.

First of all, i apologize for being a nut in black and white photography, and half a nut in English... Now here it comes...

If I understand well what you said in your last comment, the edge vignetting used by Andre makes it worse... Am I correct ? When I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was...: or could have made the shot better if only it was stronger ! Then, I thought that was probably pure Black and white ignorance from my side... And I scrolled up to see the image again... and on my way, I found your post... with the burning a bit overall, and a brighter light in the center... About this version you posted, at that time, I thought the contrast added was actually an interesting possibility, yet I found the central rays of light a bit too harsh, and the circle on the wall a bit too sharp... Might have been partly as a joke, that you posted this, or maybe not really... not sure due to my English, but it was an interesting post anyway... but suddenly, seeing it again, it occured to me that this version of yours, with its overall burning and addition of light in the center, had actually somehow achieved something similar to a large vignetting... So, first of all, am I clear enough ? Second, am I correct in saying this ? Third, how serious were you when you posted this version ? Fourth, how different was it in your opinion from something like a large vignetting ? And would I stand a chance to be right saying that Andre's vignetting at the edges would maybe have been good if larger and oval in shape ?...

Andre said:

 

"or "practice makes better, not perfect"?? does this still apply do you think??? are you ever done with an image?? i hear of writers who toil over the question of when to leave a work for what it is, or when to keep working."

 

About half-way up this message board I left an ill-worded comment that momentarily got Tony's dander up. While the misunderstanding has been cleared up, I think Andre's point above is essentially the same as that I was trying to make. In yet other terms, regardless of the inherent value or appreciation of the subject matter, there is a continuum of technical proficiency for any photograph ranging from (dare I bring this up?) 1 to 10 (or 1 to 100 or whatever other numerical values one wishes to assign). The great photographers *demand* only the best in this area (again regardless of the appeal that the subject may hold for them), whereas the merely good, or lesser, photographers would probably accept a photo "for what it is" with somewhat lower technical standards.

 

Again, I like this photo "for what it is" although I recognize that some technical deficiencies exist.

 

You are right Andre, I shouldn't encourage them.. Marching to the beat of a different drummer...somewhat like the boy in the image. Boys..hmmm... Playing when we're trying to be serious here ;-) I'm not at all surprised that the Mom was beside herself with the photo! I've always thought that one of the purposes of photography is to give the gift of our vision to others and you certainly achieved that didn't you.

Marc -

 

So many questions - my head is spinning. Your lack of clarity about my intent has nothing to do with your (quite excellent) command of english and everything to do with my hopelessly convoluted grammar. I'm not sure that your questions are seriously intended - it's often hard to figure what is and isn't serious on these POW threads - but I will answer them seriously.

 

My version of the image was definitely intended to have a bit of fun at the same time pointing out my honest feeling that the attraction of Andre's photo is in it's "child-of-destiny" quality rather than its "nostalgia-for-childhood" quality. The banality of the background, and the very important position of the very unimportant clock works against such a grand interpretation, and the spoof, by exploding the clock, seemed a lighthearted resolution of both the flare problems and the compositional problems. Short of such radical manipulations I think that something must be done to de-emphasize the background so that our attention is more focused on the one truly astounding part of the photo, the boy. Perhaps it is by increasing the vignette as you suggest - but something akin was tried by Spiros above. I think that it does focus attention on the boy but also has the heavy feeling of a manipulated image. The suggestion in my last post was for Andre to eliminate the aspects of the background that I think are not a part of the original negative, the uneven grain and the vignetting, in the hope that by evening out and smoothing the background it will be less competition for our attention. "Cleansing" the photo to create a "pure" image (rescanning if necessary) would be my first step. After that I might then look at more subtle photoshop manipulations (purists be damned!) to help neutralize the background - reduction of the flare, despeckling or blurring the background even more or reducing its contrast, as examples.

" I think that something must be done to de-emphasize the background so that our attention is more focused on the one truly astounding part of the photo, the boy. " you said... Well, yes, that's exactly my feeling too...

And now I'm sure that you were wrong about at least one thing, and that's when you said my English was quite excellent...:-) What I was trying to say using the words " large oval vignetting " was, that I felt the burning should be progressive from the borders to the center... and leave the brighter central shape as an horizontal oval... My point was just that I wondered how you could say that vignetting was bad when your burning attempt actually ressembled so much what I called - in bad english - a " large oval vignetting "... As I understand it now, we agree on what needs to be done anyway: it's just that my words are not appropriate. I had a look again at Spiros' attempt... This might be called " vignetting " but to me it is good, yet doesn't quite help enough... Darker towards the edges, then more progressively brighter towards the central area is what I would be looking at...

Thanks for your reply, Bill...

I think they pick controversial pictures on purpose. In my opinion this is an ok picture. there are alot of distracting elements (girl,clock, and especially glare). of cource if I knew absolutely nothing of photography i would think it was a great photo. it would be so nice to see some pow that were of truly great shots both technically and artistically.

a little deconstruction would help...or at least Sontag....

Let there be light!!! :o)

Andre-

 

Forgive me for once again taking over your picture. I'm afraid, as Tony made clear to me a couple of weeks ago, the POW no longer belongs to its author - it becomes the property of the entire photo.net community - at least for a week.

 

Marc -

 

You force me to attempt to demonstrate what I'm thinking about, probably embarrassing myself in the process. The attached "cleaned" version simplifies the background in an attempt to shift the attention to the lower portion of the picture. Does it succeed? Perhaps others will let us know. A completely flareless version is also available, but since the flare is part of the reason that the photo was chosen I think that we must try and find a solution that incorporates it first. We must also now see an example of what you propose in your vignette version.

You're right... Easier done than said for once... The result is a bit patchy still, but this is roughly what I was getting at... Again, my knowledge of B/W is very limited, but I did my best...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=576804

 

To me this image, like many I have seen selected as photo of the week, is being poured over much more than necessary.

 

That lens flare/reflection in this shot wouldn't get any points in a photo contest and in fact possibly lose some. The editors of Photo.net should know that. Also, the composition is off. We need to see more of the boy's figure since he is the main subject and less of the open space towards the top of the frame.

 

The rim lighting on the boy is great however and is the saving grace. It draws you in and gives him an angelic looking glow, but the fact that the girl, who should be watching him with fond admiration, is not paying any attention to him. For me that just takes all the luster off the shot.

 

In conclusion, lighting is not the only thing you need to make an image .