light

 

i think i have commented at the very top, that yes i do wonder what the image would have been like with the girls's attention. it would have been very different indeed. but i think i am still partial to the girl being oblivious the the boy and more importantly, the boy being oblivious to the girl, or anything else for that matter save, THE LIGHT. (hence the name of the image, not to mention the under-exposure) i think it makes it the stronger image. i am also curious about the responses provoked on this issue. is it a commentary on men-women relationships (or prophecy?) as some have posted?

 

also: knowing these two particular children, the response would certainly NOT have been fond admiration, but vague bewilderment- "what ARE you doing?????". prophetic indeed!?!

 

as for the composition, i am not sure what good revealing the bottom half of the torso would do, central subject or no. to my eye, i actually like the space above him, as it gives him and the light ample room to play in, as well as putting the moment in context. also, i think conjurs the conductor in front of his orchestra image-bottom torso cut off. how many times have you seen that image? the arms and hands are key. as a mtter of a fact, if i had the chance to re-arrnage this shot, i would have shot either much lower, revealing even more light streaming down from the window (still with his torso cut off), or i would have stood on a chair to shoot down (my children would have quickly frowned on this..."chairs are NOT for standing on..."), to show more of the classroom, again just with the top his body.

 

yes, we have heard much about the flare........

 

as for the amount of ballyhoo over the image, if you subtract all the tomfoolery (sp?), i think you'll find just as many posters more than willing to offer their suggestion on how to make the image stronger.

 

the children are calling. thanks.

 

andre

-Marc S.

 

Not that I'm becoming defensive here, but....

 

Your question makes me ask what the POW is all about. Is it a week long opportunity to say "great job - congratulations!"? Is it a verbose rating system: "I like it", "don't like it", "well, kinda like it"? Like your post, is it a chance to describe what you do and don't like about the photo and then move on (which I think is the responsible thing to do for a regular photo critique.)? Or is it a week long opportunity to "pour over" a photo in an attempt to extract the lessons it has to teach us about photography? I think it is all these, but the uniqueness of the POW, as opposed to the other 200,000+ photos on photo.net, is in its ability to allow the last. Some of that pouring can become a bit tedious, ridiculous, hilarious, egotistical but it can also be instructive. The POW is a common starting point from which ideas and techniques of photography can be (sometimes hotly) debated, compared and explored. For those interested in right-brain photography it is a chance to drone on philosophically (as in this paragraph). For those driven enough to take the photo as their own, to crop, burn, embellish (or "clean") in search of improvement, even if not instructive to the hapless recipient or other viewers of the POW (which I think it often is), the process is a personal tutorial.

 

Pouring over the POW, I would say, is exactly what it and we are here for.

After reading all of the above, I know you are going to nail me for this one (if you don't maybe I'll post again), but when I saw this photo one thing came to my mind : Doisneau.

 

Very nice photo indeed.

There is so much post, I guess I can post some non-pertinent one too.

 

Is the kid real or is that a puppet? He's so rigid

Hmmmm....that gives me an idea.

"Oh no! Not another idea!"

 

 

Marc G. -

 

While Tony and Dennis get up to mischief in one corner, let us continue with our play in the other. Andre, be sure to keep a

good eye on all the naughty children in your classroom.

 

I think that Marc, your last proposal, while using more photoshop than I would like, does suggest a good solution to this

image. Despite the admonitions of others, ultimately light is what this photo is all about and light may be an answer to its

problems. Being pouty however, and unwilling to let you have the last word, may I offer a further modification. To my eye

the light you propose is too harsh - I think that it is still possible to stay within the tonal range of the original photo and

create the lighting effect you suggest. But also I must say that it isn't fair to remove the clock, it just isn't fair, and I want it back!.

From the very start I knew something just wasnt right about this photo. It was obviously staged to look like something it is not. I feel it is my duty to all the photography purists out there to bring this scandal of Olympic proportions out into the light of day, or into the incandescent light if it is nighttime where you are at the moment.

 

It turns out the severe glare was really caused by a mysterious second shooter hiding under the table. He was wearing the only decent piece of clothing he owns, a relatively unsoiled tee shirt from the GAP that was sent to his country as part of a relief effort.

 

It also turns out that glow-boy really is a puppet and therefore has no mother. I must say that it is a sad state of affairs when unprofessional tricksters use any and all manipulations at their disposal to tarnish the honorable pursuit of photography. You can thank me for uncovering this deception by sending large denominations of your local currency to me in care of photo.net (checks and money orders also accepted).

While I actually came here to almost congratulate Bill, I must say that I need now to congratulate somebody else !! And that's Dennis, no doubt !...

Another 7 minutes under the table, laughing my ass off (excuse my French)... dennis, really, you impress me...

 

Now, still, I have to congratulate Bill for almost posting the perfect version... I say almost because what he posted was good, yet not as good as another one he did... He will hopefully come later to apologize for posting his second best instead of his best by accident...:-)

 

Well, anyway, that will be my last appearance I guess for this week - many will be glad about it I'm sure... and I wouldn't want to leave without congratulating one more person...

 

And that's Andre... Sorry if our quest for perfection was in any way annoying to you or others, but I wanted to make one thing clear... If your picture was just bad, we wouldn't have cared so much about it... I acknowledge in this shot a brilliant catch of a beautiful moment... And I would repeat that the content of your image was first class and more important in the end than all our little detail stories... but as you know now, photographers are petty and fussy... Meanwhile, keep in mind that you had only 1 POW at the beginning of the week, whereas now you have two ! Triple congratulations for

" Illumination "... No doubt you have a way with kids !... See you next week on this POW forum to comment " Illumination "... :-)

Dennis -

 

Bravo. You have indeed distilled the elements of this thread into a resolved image - including the annoying flare lower right.

I hope this stands as the conclusive effort of our creativity for the week. Tony, your seraphim version remains a work of

pure genius.

 

Andre -

 

May I second what Marc has said above. The magic (the elves were right) that you have captured and the comment it has

generated have made this a worthy and enjoyable POW.

I speak on behalf of my client, Andre Vuski, who has informed me that the allegation brought forth by Dennis are, indeed, true. The boy is indeed a puppet, has no mother, and yes, Tony Dummette is wearing a GAP tee that is causing uncontrollable flare. (apparantly, my client tried to convince him to wear the soft chartreuse one instead, but Tony compromised by NOT wearing the sequin top as he threatened. imagine the flare on that one!) Andre has asked me to convey to all offended families, real and imagined, a deep sense of regret, remorse, and repentance for betraying the trust of PHOTO.NET.

 

As Mr. Vuski's legal counsel, I have advised him to return the POW velvet jersey immediatly, and to never let Tony Dummette into his classroom ever again.

 

Johnny Cochran

Reminds me of a famous Leica Fotografie shot of a European conductor from between the stage curtains.

I have just spent $5,000 having an overhaul done on my teeth. Even though they are only Australian dollars and the teeth have been more, shall we say, "papered over" than restored, I refuse to put up with six restorations and one root canal and still not have credit properly ascribed.

Yes, Dennis, you are correct as to the direction of origin of the flare, but you are again pathetically wrong as to it's nature. It is in fact caused by my continual yawning (Bill and Andre were so slow, fumbling and muttering trying to get their cameras ready... it was boredom plus-plus for all of us - including the little girl) and the radioactive glow was simply my new synthetic implants giving of their all.

This is what I meant by "having the right equipment". Not only did I bring along the 99E (developed by myself and Monsieur Cokin so that I may once again retain the accolades of my peers here on PN and achieve lofty heights in the ratings by taking "ethereal", "mystical" and "magical" shots), but I also charged up my new choppers for the occasion (you do this by opening your mouth to short wavelength ultraviolet light and the fillings hold their glow for hours).

Rick the Dentist (a lovely guy... he's even minding my credit card "till next time") assured me that I would "make an impression" with his Pearla Glow XXX specials and I thank him for his foresight. This is why he drives a BMW, owns three houses and a Cessna and I make do with only a (dented) Subaru and a large mortgage: he's the expert.

As to his promise that, "Your body may die, but your teeth will live forever," I am, of course, yet to verify this (but hasn't his caution that the triple-X compound "will fog film" turned out to be triumphantly true, in the case of this POW?).

Lastly, to Andre, any time you need some more gratuitous kibbitzing, image disembowelment or some other kind of unsolicited interference with your creative vision, don't hesitate, just ask the experts: Bill, Dennis, Marc, Tris (where is Tris?) or myself. And if we can't "cut the mustard", there is also always the Photo.Net Cropping Society ready with their razors to trim any composition down to size. We, your colleagues, are here to help. Congrats on finally getting your POW ship-shape. It was a helluva job, but once we managed to dispose of the original image, I think we'd all agree it was pretty plain sailing. "Learn", "Share", "Help" - bywords for what we're on about.

P.S. ...and if you ever need to get your teeth fixed, there's always Rick.

One of the most enjoyable comment sections of a POW since I've been around. Thanks to all who have contributed!

 

I love this photo, as it is, and in many of its, um... alternate versions, as well. Congrats on a great POW.

 

I'm just left wondering how much of Tony's antics were caused by the pain medication the dentist prescribed for him...

Great photo! Let me tell you why i like it. Because at first glance, there is absolutely no doubt that it was shot with FILM!!!!!! digital has its place, but it is far from replacing this format. Great job!

Hi all, just thought I'd chip in with my 0.02sp worth (sp = South-pacific Peso ie AUS$)

 

Firstly, I love the depth in this POW - with the boy highlighted both with light and focus, and background receding well. I was initially prepared to put up with the flare-ball, assuming it a necessary evil in getting such a shot. I don't want to see the top cropped, even though the clock does look like a beachball, but the versions without the flare-ball do work better for me.

 

Then I saw "Illumination" - even greater depth. The girl is clearer, and the long diagonal table moves further into the background, helped again by its near-end being highlighted with sunlight.

 

So, "light" gets 8/8. "Illumination" gets 9/9, and my preferred vote on POW material.

 

(Incidentally, I gave 12/12 for "Boy with Angels" (Tony Dummett) and 14/14 for "Boy in Headlights" (Bill Hocking), so I guess in my book, Andre's shots are a little too "photoshoppy" for me. I like the simple realism of the other works. Having just been to the dentist myself, I have rated "Tony with Teeth" at 1/1 (I find almost everything to do with dentists as being too intensely boring).)

 

Nik.

Oops, I forgot to mention Dennis' arrangement (there's that deeply philosophical musical analogy once more). Dennis, I was actually really impressed with this shot, and at first look thought you'd cropped the girl into the boy's picture. It wasn't until a little later I realised you'd somehow merged the two. However, I was too busy filling in your "POW Tactical Response Form" to remember to comment on your picture - apologies.

 

Nik

I don't understand how such a lovely photograph can engender such an active discussion most of which seems to be about how best to gild the lily. I would die happy if I'd taken this. Almost any piece of art, from Beethoven's 9th to a Van Dyck portrait could generate a million comments about how they may be improved but that doesn't mean you should bother trying. Some things are crap, others are wonderful. No amount of fine tuning will turn crap into the sublime. it's very easy to turn the sublime into crap.

. . . but as we merrily exit this week's POWfest I thought I'd offer everyone a new link.

Liva Rutmane

I consider this woman's work to be of no little interest, a kind of art in its own light. I've studied this photographer for three months and then some, and I must say she moves me more surely than what we have ladled out to us on a regular basis in this feature.

Do yourself a medium-sized favor and check this gal out.

I simply love it! I don't find the need to over analyse the technical aspects of the shot at all. When I look at it a smile comes to my face, which is all I ask from a photo. Perhaps it's just a boy being a boy, all brovado and dramatics, and the girl working hard in the background.......isn't it the way it's always been???

Thank you Andre V. and Bill H. for giving your thoughts on my comments.

 

I agree with Bills comments about the general purpose of the POW. It is a forum for sharing ideas and different perspectives where people are permitted to comment as they see fit. In the case of this photo, I saw it as an ordinary image that was over anal-ized by the virtue of it being chosen for the POW Experience.

 

What I mean by the POW Experience is that the POW creates an aura for an image by putting it in a forum where viewers will believe there is something terribly good or engaging about the photo simply because of the POW status it was given. It is like anything that is placed in the limelight. People of the general public automatically think it is good in some way because it is being put up there in big lights. If you stand in a large crowd of people and look up at the sky in awe, then everyone around you will follow suit simply because they think there is something up there to be seen.

 

The problem I have is that the types of images often chosen as the POW are not always up to the task (my apologies Andre, I realize you had no choice in your photo being selected and partially serve as a victim of this mixed commentary).

 

In this respect, and I think the most important issue that Bill raised is that it is a week long opportunity to "pour over" a photo in an attempt to extract the lessons it has to teach us about photography. That said, I think the chosen photos should be ones that we can learn from rather than ones that will simply conjure up a mixed bag of controversy.

 

What I would learn from Andres photo is to be careful about lens flare, and as I also mentioned, there are problems with the composition. Lens flare can work in some photos where the light source is also visible within the frame and the photographer wants to emphasize the strength of the light source. This is not often the case though. With this image it seems to have appeared on the film without the photographer knowing it would. In my opinion this would defeat the purpose of the POW in being able to learn a new skill from the photographer. In fact, this can be argued as a skill level issue and knowing how to prevent it with proper positioning with respect to the light, the use of good lens hoods, etc. On the composition, the empty space above the child is too vast and the main subject, the boy himself, is not outstanding enough in the frame. At least he should fill a bit more of the empty frame from left to right, if not from top to bottom.

 

I think the moderators of Photo.net often choose photos that they feel will create some sort of controversy or mixed reaction rather than selecting a photo that is technically correct, of aesthetic interest to a general public, or helpful to photographers who are trying to improve their photographic skills as Bill suggested. The elves, as you affectionately refer to them as, may not always be up to the task of selecting a great photo, and because of their own agendas, may not care if the image itself really has a lot to offer.

 

I am also not sure of the backgrounds of the photo.net moderators and their experience or ability to properly judge and select photos for the POW. Have they ever sat as judges for photo contests? I dont know. Having read many of their comments as to why the photo was selected for the POW it does raise a bit of a question mark.

 

There are many photos on Photo.net that achieve a tremendous number of viewings as well as high user ratings, but are never selected as the POW. Why? Again I dont know. And you can only find these great photos by using the Photocritique filter system.

 

The best user rated photos on Photo.net are ones that have proven themselves as being worthy of the POW status simply by being a good/interesting/difficult to achieve composition and has passed the test by earning those ratings through sweat equity. Not some photo that the elves have simply chosen based upon their mixed intentions, which as I think I tried to explain, may not always relate back to the big Photo.net user picture. Otherwise, what is the point of trying to put up good photos on Photo.net if the ratings arent going to lead the photographer to anything?

 

That said, the choice of the selected photo for the POW would be best left to Photo.net user ratings rather than to an unknown group of people who may have different agendas than the masses of Photo.net users themselves, the main contributors to this institution.

 

Respectfully

Come on! Give him some applause.

I just liked the picture!

Great use of Tri-X! The kid is well lit, and stands out very well. He seems like some sort of god, ruler of all the other kids. The out of focus elements look good as well. Good job there.

I liked this simple shot; just a casual thing capturing a moment. The succession of 'improvements' strikes me as about the funniest thing I've seen on the 'net.