Adopted

Powerfull, I wouldnt change a thing. If the picture were "too perfect" some of its power would be lost.

One detail I particularly like but didn't see mentioned yet is the electrical conduit that connects the child's face to the TV.

I think the electrical conduit is an important clue, suggesting that this is probably not a private residence. Then consider the complete lack of furnishings and you get an eerily sterile environment.

 

The structure outside looks very much like the kind of broadcast tower we see here in DC - the kind that no one wants in their back yard. In addition to its' contribution as a compositional element that serves to balance the composition and keeps the brightest spot from being totally without interest, the connection to the TV is obvious and important.

 

But unless I've missed it, no one's mentioned the most important point of the image. This child has directed all her attention towards a television . . . that isn't even turned on! For me, that's what elevates the picture from "good" to "exceptional".

I?m glad you both mentioned the conduit. I always felt like that was an important element in the photograph and I liked the "connect the dot" impression it gave me which seems to tie the scene to other familiar childhood activities.

 

It is rather chilling to think about a child sitting patiently in front of a blank television screen with the expectation of light and companionship. The reality is that Daddy was across the room trying to complete something else and was constantly reassuring her that he would be there in a moment. Still photographs tend to freeze or even expand the length of the perceived time and thus take on completely different meanings.

 

In short photography lies and if we are clever we can make it lie to suit our own purpose.

Well, it sure took them long enough to come to the conclusion that this is a great picture. Hell, I knew that a year ago. Well, Dennis, enjoy your week in the barrel.

"I think the electrical conduit is an important clue, suggesting that this is probably not a private residence."

 

 

Guess you haven't seen very many loft conversions. Industrial buildings with solid concrete walls get exterior electrical runs even when they're converted to living space.

 

I like the shot because it's simple and gimmick free. So much of what gets "oohs and ahhs" here judged too much upon how much the photographer managed to make the light/scene look like something that wasn't there. Not every great photo was shot with studio strobe.

Is there a particular reason the TV is turned off?

I have some different thoughts than Carl regarding the luminosity editing:

 

1) I generally prefer to use Curves over something like Shadow Detail because it gives more control.

 

2) Given the intended mood of the situation, I don't think you want to brighten the shadows.

 

3) I rather, chose to further dim the sky and its reflection on the hardwood floor to keep with what I feel is a very gray intended mood here.

 

4) My editions were slight and within narrow luminosity ranges. I did this by eye dropper sampling on the sky and the reflection on the floor. The square then moves along the range of the curve, and then I use the pencil, again concervatively, to dim the intended areas slightly.

This is in fact a loft style conversion of a commercial building; which is to say that it has little or no actual style at all. Carl happens to be correct that this space was being used as an office at that time. Bob is also correct because the building contained a mix of residential and commercial office spaces that were all generally finished in the same tasteless fashion and featured an abundance of sloppy workmanship.

 

This particular television included a built in video player and as I recall it was in the process of loading a video which rendered a blank screen, thus giving the appearance that the television was turned off.

 

I can imagine that I would have benefited greatly from having a bright screen to better illuminate the subject. I doubt that I gave it much thought other than in hindsight.

I wouldn't change a thing, Dennis. If the child and television were more brightly lit, then the impact would have been lessened, not increased. The microwave tower in the background also becomes more visible precisely because of the dark foreground. Masterfully done.

 

--Lannie

I did an experiment this morning with the original version of this file and to me the uploaded version seems darker than the original when viewed side by side on the same monitor. That seems to throw a wrench into all the little tweeks and adjustments I was doing. Has anyone else noticed this with their own uploaded photos?

To see a larger version of this photo click here.

I belive you have an idea here. but you have thrown it in the wrong direction. I see the

picture as intresting but with the title "adopted" you are giving the viewer nothing to think

about. You are narrowing your idea so far to the point that it almost dosent fit the picture.

maby a better title would be "moving in". I realize this is completely changing the meaning

of the picture but it lets you wonder. are the parents just giving the kid somthing to do

will they help move into a new house? do they love the kid? is the kid sad? all i am saying

is that by expressing your idea you are making it less intresting to us.

im not critic so feal free to hunt me down and kill me

 

great photo

Dennis, perhaps you could go to "Options" and then select "Edit Image Info" and enter the filename of the larger file. Upon resubmission and upload, it will, of course, resize to the medium ("Smaller") size as the default unless viewed as "Larger." Perhaps you could then see if the problem is with the uploading process. (You could always go back and resubmit the smaller version.)

 

The larger file is very impressive.

 

--Lannie

Harrison, I think you are right in the sense that titles are occasionally self defeating. At the risk of sounding completely myopic; I think that the title fit the subject and included the added benefit of provided a secondary meaning that worked for me on several levels, one of which was to poke a little good natured fun at the young girl's Dad for having the superficial appearance of being a really bad babysitter. It seemed like he thought it was pretty funny...at least until his face got red and he started clenching his fists.

Dennis, in my opinion, the larger version loses much of the philosophical implication of the original. The picture is not really about this particular child but more of a social commentary and is much better conveyed by the original with its dark and intriguing sense of incongruity, a kind of parable of modern life. Parables are not meant to be examined too closely, one is struck by the inherent rightness of the story as a whole, not by individual details.

While I like the image, it doesn't speak to me in the volumes that it does others here. I find the back lighting and tower really bothersome. The tonality of the girl and TV is too middle ground for me. I think the image would work better if the girl/tv was either darker or brighter. The way it is now it just fights for attention too much from the windows. If the subjects were pure silo it would be a striking image and allow mood to play more into the frame. If the subjects were brighter it would allow the viewer to engage the image better.

 

I do like the image, with some simple moves I think it could be more powerful.

Makes me think of the old RCA (Gramophone speaker funnel and the Dog) ad campaign - His Master's Voice . . .

 

Derek Isaacs

I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments.

This photo was captured spontaneously and it would not be as effective any other way. The empty room does not seem to phase her as long as the TV is front and center. It makes me wonder if she has adopted our culture via the TV.

Nice little situation ,simple and well executed, no more no less. I don't see a lot to discuss here .

One could analyze this image from a photographic quality point of view and question exposure, clarity and technical achievement but I think that would be missing the point. What drew me to this image in its original posting was it strength in concept. The success of an image is not held to technical execution but in its ability to delivery an emotive result. The story-telling power of communicating a complex and interpretive social statement is what drew me to this image in its original posting. I liked it then and I was happy to see it as a POW. A well chosen image and worthy of this level of discussion.

In my opinion theres not all that much of a focus on one object. plus I would prefur airing out the tower in the bg

It's interesting to me that people have such a strong opinion against that tower in light of the fact that I went to so much trouble to burn it in so you could tell what it was. I thought it was pretty cool like a cosmic alignment of the planets. In my mind it is the thing that is filling the empty room and the mind of the subject. My intention was to give a visual clue to what an invisible influence. The machine behind the steam of consciousness is unseen and therefore ignored to the peril of the general population. This influence is pervasive and begins in youth.

 

Perhaps I should have been a little more subtle with the tower but I wanted people to make the connection between outside influences and what is happening inside the room. There is nothing in the room except the television which is really just an information faucet that is hard to turn off. Once installed in our lives it rarely goes away.

There seems to be a time early in each of our photographic lives when we believe that a photograph is about a single subject - a dominance shot, in visual design parlance. The purpose of a pattern shot or, in this case, a balance shot, is apparently never understood. It's as if you can shoot anything you want as long as it's a portrait (of a person, a thing, etc.)

 

The goal of a photographic composition is not necessary to draw the eye to a single point and get it to stay there, but to draw the viewer in and encourage it to explore the entire picture space, making connections and drawing inferences.

 

Is it possible that those who want the tower removed don't know what it is? Otherwise, how can they miss the obvious connection with the kid and the TV?

 

Maybe it's also a case of reading an image without considering it's intellectual content, focuing solely on the aesthetics of the subject or photographic presentation.

This is a very strong image and indeed has so many just perfectly setup details, like the transmitter tower and the electric conduit between the head and the TV, that I initially assumed it was a set up shot. To capture this as a crab shot demonstrates a great photographic eye, but still has to be a very rare opportunity even for somebody as skilled as Dennis.

 

Yet, what I really don't like about this shot - is the title, which suggests this scene is all about adoption, and that adoptive parents, not biological parents, are the ones who dump their kids in front of the TV.

 

I also realize that the title can be interpreted in a different way, namely that the TV is kind of a surrogate parent. I like this interpretation, but from where I stand that's a long way away from an adoptive parent.

 

 

Frank