"Best Friends" Revisited

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

The elves are letting us know that they know that it is possible for a photo to both stimulate discussion and be a very, very good photo, worth looking at for its own sake.

This is splendid. I have no criticisms.

--Lannie

The alignments are a bit overwhelming, the way the framing depends on the precision placement of the fence posts. The horizon line feels like it's choking them as it also perfectly aligns with the top of the fence posts. They are so centered. They feel posed to look natural, which is generally awkward and somewhat typical of, say, wedding pics. It's a world of butterflies and flowers and white processed sugar. It's what we already know is sweet. Most moms and dads will adore this, because it's sappy and a bit overworked.

Looking through Durr's portfolio, it's evident that he is adept at getting what he wants. There is a consistency to his idealization of the friendship of these two girls.

I think that may be the crux of this week's photo chosen to be critiqued. I didn't feel they looked posed until I looked at Durr's portfolio, and then I realized that these two friends had probably walked together like this more than once as Durr stood behind to try to get the composition he wanted. I felt a slight letdown when I realized this was probably not a spontaneous, candid moment, but instead the outcome of a directed production.

This brings me back to that conundrum I see so often in these discussions: to what extent is the process a part of the result? Is the outcome the only important aspect of a photograph, or are the methods used to obtain the results also important aspects of a photograph? More particularly, if a photograph is presented as one thing but we learn it really was something else, is it lessened as a result of that discovery? Usually this dilemma comes up when a photograph that has been significantly photoshopped or composited is presented as an unadulterated single exposure. Here, it's the difference between a spontaneous moment and a directed, practiced, repeated-until-it's-right moment. It's the difference between these two girls going off somewhere completely unaware that someone is behind them taking their photo at that moment, versus these two girls walking down this pathway for the nth time, but this time being told to hold up the corners of their dresses in addition to holding hands as they walk.

This choice of this image tells us(the viewers) that an old image do not die at PN ,this is so very good and it got its own inherent message both for the viewers and the photographers.
And while the image was composed finely ,and with good contrast ,I find that the missing of any details in the sky ,and less than accurate editing (softening and or blurring especially of the right sided longitudinal wood bars and right arm of the right girl) have done a harmful effect to the image especially because it was very clear to the observing eyes.
This POW represent to me a work that could be so much enhanced by watching ,observing ,and giving the small details its proper care and completion.

When I first looked at this, I got a hit of "Hyannis Port" and maybe that of a more famous image done in similar fashion--not sure which--or both--just that there seemed to be something familiar about the image.

I am not as bothered by the framing as I might read into Fred's comment but there is a strong sense of the image being a posed moment. Looking through the rest of the images, we can see that this is apparently a remake of an image made a year earlier (at least according to the "detail' on the images).

That earlier image also feels a little bit like a set up as well, but there is a difference between the two. The older image has the sense of childhood innocence in the attempt while this one has more robust acting, especially by the girl on the right--who might have been believable on her own. I also thought it was interesting that the dress on the girl on the right in this image seems to be the same one that didn't fit so well the year earlier, which is a nice touch.

This photo is also a redux, as indicated, of an earlier posting of the same image, with the adding of what appears to be some mood altering techniques using blur and overlays. It gives the image a nice effect but it also can, and did, affect the tonal structure in what I feel is maybe a little less than optimal. The image is very high key in its setting, the white railings, dresses and sky but the technique plugged up or depressed many of shadow areas in such a way as to defeat this sense of the light and airy. This, unfortunately, anchors the image in a way that I find much less effective, than the tonal structure of the original, in conveying what appears to be the intent of the image. I think this could be an easy fix by taking another step in post to lighten the image, opening the shadows, back to its original level. By the way, I felt this image was a bit too depressed/plugged up before finding the original post of the image.

in any case, I like the structure of the image and the idea of working with these two "best friends" over time. This is a nice image and maybe it is just the flaws in the "pose" that make it all the more "real".

Why does this photo look so different on this other website? This week's critiques would have been much different if addressed to this version.
http://500px.com/photo/7772773

Stephen, you posted while I was writing and your last comment does bring up some things to contemplate.

First, was this image actually presented as if it was a moment? If I was trying to pull that off, I wouldn't have posted the other images that confirm it wasn't.

Second, my experience is that if I am working on a job with models, I would have probably had to go through the pose n-tieth times. not nth, to be sure to get it right. My experience with "family and friends" is that you maybe get 3-5 tries unless you are working with camera hams.

Third, what is the purpose of the image? This image "might" not work as a commercial image and it might not convey the sense one would want for the wall--falling short of the sense of spontaneous joy/youth. But it may provide for decades of laughs and stories within the family. The wrangling of the two girls, the flubs, the repeats, the photographer's frustrations etc. A one take prefect moment is one kind of memory while it is often the less successful moments that provide the most cherished memories.

(Alberta, that image is also toned significantly different, probably another working of the image, not the same version as here. But it does solve the heavier feeling we see in this image that I commented on.)

Stephen,

I don't see it as a distinction between process and product in this case. The "posed to look natural" feel of it is how the photo LOOKS. So, for instance, if I learned this were not at all posed, it would still LOOK "posed to look natural" and would still bother me some.

Like John, I've had occasion to spend quite a bit of time posing people and repeating shots until the poses feel right to me. Sometimes I pose to look natural but then I usually want it to actually look natural and will work hard to get that. Sometimes I pose to look obviously posed, which is something I like to play with in a theatrical sort of way. I don't think poses, natural or otherwise, are meant to deceive anyone, unless a particular viewer expects some sort of self-imposed truth from a photo or believes that candid is more "true" or more "accurate" or less deceptive than posing, which I don't. Think of a pose as a sort of conscious or conscientious truth. Also, consider that, even when posing people, there are significant moments of spontaneity, sometimes those in-between moments, sometimes just the right gesture that wasn't planned but came as the result of trying different poses, etc.

Let me pull back a bit. I must admit that I assumed it was presented as a spontaneous, surreptitious photograph, but there is no way for me to know that for sure. If it were done for parents, I can well imagine several tries to get what Durr and the parents wanted (and maybe Durr was one of the parents). I also learned that the famous photograph of Diane Arbus of the boy with the toy grenade was photo #8 out of a series of 11. I think what I may have been trying to distinguish was that between a posed, multi-try photograph and a single "decisive moment" photograph and whether one inherently (for whatever reason) is to be admired or appreciated over the other. In doing that, I overlooked some of the important points made by John and Fred regarding posed photographs. My first post exposed some of my own prejudices (or to be more charitable, "preferences") regarding photography, preferences whose walls have been significantly lowered and often breached simply by these POW discussions over the years. So I'm already looking at this photograph differently than I was an hour or so ago, and I'm still mulling over my own prejudices in the back of my mind. And so it goes.

So, Stephen, just to throw a little bit more into the mix, I do think that we can judge an image on the result in a forum like this. We aren't the parents and we wont have stories, only the impact of the image and what we do know, and can relate to, with reference to context. Significant information regarding an image will stick with us but a day trying to capture "my daughter and her friend" really has no relevance to anyone else--at least in most cases. So, looking staged may in fact ruin the image for us although it is more 'real' to the situation.

I think Sally Mann's images of her family are a really good example. Looking over the collection of images she made, one might sense that she made the images at the "moment" whereas she often recreated the moments she saw--it's pretty hard to swing an 8x10 camera into position in the instant we see something. I don't think her images are any less powerful because of this, in fact, one of my favorites, for its power, was set up and I have since seen the video that was made while she worked on it. The video did not affect my feeling for the image but, as with these sorts of things, just opens up one's eyes to the possibilities (and often humanizes things so that we don't think these people have "special" powers but are rather just not restricted in their way of working).

Jeff Wall "begins by not photographing" and you might find what he says in

I do not like this picture. Although technically very good there is a forced feeling to the subjects as if the were asked repeatedly to parade up and down the ramp until the photographer got his shot. Notice how both are holding out their, similar, dresses. This looks over coached and decidedly not spontaneous.
I think of the wonderful iconic photograph of Eugene Smith- Walk Through the Paradise Garden (LINK). Although Smith saw the unique setting and had the subjects walk though a couple of times, he allowed them to act naturally as well as timed the step perfectly. I wished this photographer had done the same. My sense is Smith was making a personal image about his own children. This photograph looks like portrait-for-hire work with no sense of the real personalities of the children. As such it misses the mark with me.

Although I don't like it, I'm sure the parents of the children will find it adorable. The framing, composition, location and technical qualities are very good. It's a fine commercial product but nothing more.

Way too much of that effect (blurring, de-noising, whatever it is) applied throughout the photograph. I can see why it was done. The grain in the originally posted picture is a little blurry. But I think much less of the effect should have been applied, and mostly, if not exclusively, in the sky and to a lesser extent on the fence, where the out-of-focus grain is most apparent.

Durr has other, much nicer pictures of these two girls, in any case.

Whether this photo is staged or totally natural, it is still a cliché.

It is the idealized image of the innocent years of small girls, that many parents dream about and that small girls are delighted to play out. The white dresses, the blur, the lake-side, the wooden pier - have all been used, over and over again, sometimes for artistic purposes that have ended up in major works of art. Think about the early films of Ingmar Bergman where such girls or women dressed in the same light dresses walk at the sea side illustrating the same lightness of being - until reality takes over and the darker sides of childhood and family life plays out. But, here the cliché stands alone, and the emptiness of the gesture, is what we have left to watch.

When this is said, surely I can see the adorable side of the shot and be sensitive to it, and surely I understand that it will probably be loved by the parents and the girls alike. Surely also I can see the technical skills behind. However for me the cliches involved kills it for me.

"time out message" yet another time - sorry !

I'm sure...I mean really, I know for a fact, that there are people out there who eat this stuff up with a spoon. I'm not one of them. This reminds me of those pre-framed posters you used to see in some shopping mall "art stores", usually with some maudlin caption printed below the photo. It's the "feel good" equivalent of those motivational photo posters you see hanging in offices and worker-bee cubicles all over the country now. It's a coffee mug photograph.

I looked through the series and one of the posed images that stands out for me is called Best Friends Smiles, which I love because it captures an essence and gives us more insight into these 2 best friends and I think is much more representive of the series than this shot. If you look at the series, albeit posed, you get a better idea of what, I think, the photographer was trying to achieve. When the girls are relaxed and comfortable with the camera even when posed, they shine. I think if you go through the shots you can see the gradual change from stiff to responsive.

I looked through the series and one of the posed images that stands out for me is called Best Friends Smiles, which I love because it captures an essence and gives us more insight into these 2 best friends and I think is much more representive of the series than this shot. If you look at the series, albeit posed, you get a better idea of what, I think, the photographer was trying to achieve. When the girls are relaxed and comfortable with the camera even when posed, they shine. I think if you go through the shots you can see the gradual change from stiff to responsive.

time outs...poo

The sensualization of the children is a bit distracting especially when shooting with their backs turned toward the camera. It distorts their scale where they end up looking more like small adults. It's only a visual distraction, not a moral judgement. Friendship is clearly not obvious here. It becomes more a decorative depiction of two female figures.

It would help if the skin tones were lightened up enough to see they are holding hands. That would drive home the point about them being friends otherwise I'm reminded of the twins from "The Shining". Too much of a fashion shoot look to it with the folds of the baby doll dresses voluptuously flapping about in the wind.

I don't understand the use of blurred spots throughout the image. Guess it's for effect but it makes their skin look plastic and gives an unnatural overly stylized feel to the overall presentation.

Pleasant looking sepia tone.

My favorites from the series are "Last Look", "Smiles" and "Secret".

Louis, Anders and Jim have said much of what I feel about this image, which has some positive aspects in its black and white rendition, but which as an image composition and treatment of a subject says very little to me. There is a more natural looking similar image in the portfolio. Here I cannot reconcile the cloistered look provided by the dual ocean walk fences, the choice of position of the two girls and the sharply defined horizon that intersects their shoulders, with any sense of feeling of two best friends or some spontaneous expression of love between them. It seems to me an overly contrived setting, which seems distantly second to the photographer's predilection for arranged dual symmetry in the setting.

This is a nice photograph. The photographer has done it all right to create a soft old fashioned look. I cannot fault the technique and the success of the photographer's intent. Only I find this photograph bland. I've seen something like it so many times, including on this forum.

I like the photograph as far as it goes. Given its basically sentimental subject I do not believe one can pump much depth out of it. It is cute and slightly sultry. And that's fine.

One comment about "staged" or not.
I came to photography from other art forms which are by definition totally staged representations of reality: Theatre, paintings, sculptures...
When photography grasped my interest as viewer and slowly also as photographer (dedicated amateur) it was only because of the "image" and not the process. Photography has a great capacity of playing on the viewers immediate belief, that what one sees is illustrating reality, and yet it is always "staged" in one sense or another.
As John and Louis refers to the works of Eugene Smith, Jeff Walls or Sally Mann (you could surely mention others - Gregory Crewdson, for example) - they are clearcut examples of photographers, that set up scenes and shoot them in order to "talk" about something beyond the immediate surface of what one sees when looking at the images. All photographers do them to various degrees by cutting out frames and eliminate what physically lies beyond the borders.
What Durr has done in this "Best Friends" is, in that sense, in line with the best traditions of photography but, as mentioned, I think, he clearly overdoes it, creating clichés that in some way talks down to the viewer instead of opening our critical eyes to reality of life.