"Best Friends" Revisited

Talking about the photograph solely on its own terms, and without trying to force it into something it is not, I see two elements which could be improved.

1.) The faux blur is sloppy and inconsistent. (The link to the 500px version somewhere above shows it more clearly, but it is still evident in the version here on photo.net) It looks like it was applied with a brush tool with no gradual feathering of effect. If a softening effect was desired, I think utilizing something like the clarity slider in Lightroom (moving it to the left to soften) would be cleaner. If there has to be a selective area of softness, there are numerous tools and plugins available that can provide a more subtle gradation for selected areas.

2.) As Tim pointed out, I think the holding of hands could be made more prominent by bringing up the skin tones, or by a careful use of dodging.

Cliche? Well, what does that mean? Generally, it means that an image has a powerful effect on a large group of people. Cliches happen because people respond to that type of image. They also happen because we see something, as photographers, that looks familiar and somehow sticks in our heads that it is "worthy" of our efforts--again, because it is something that has proven effective as a communication over time.

Although I do think that as we move to create our own sense of expression about the world that we move away from these things, I don't know that a cliche "in some way talks down to the viewer" but rather it serves up something that is safe and familiar. It plays into the very strong social order of wanting what others have--and that isn't always a bad thing, it is often the motivation behind the striving people engage in that enriches our society as folks improve themselves--and maybe grow beyond what they originally were focused on. Not every photographer's goal is to innovate and many of the most successful just "serve". Many amateurs, and more power to them, just "enjoy".

Sometimes I think we are too hard on the photographers whereas we certainly can talk about where an image is successful or isn't.

(this comment is not aimed at Anders at all, his entry just stimulated some tangential thoughts)

<<<Cliche? Well, what does that mean?>>>

cliché: an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning, or effect, and even, to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.

Doesn't seem like something to aspire to. Seems a worthy, and apt, criticism here. I don't find any of the critiques here particularly hard or overstated. I think it's been another good discussion . . . for the second week in a row.

I don't particularly like back views like this, I think if the 2 were walking towards the camera I would enjoy this image more. As it is I see it more like a generic or stock photo. Yes the edit could be improved I think the straight from camera versio is probably nicer than the blur applied here. Another thing that bugs me is the lack of detail in the sky, a hint of cloud would balance it out a bit better I think. And a ps to one of the above writers, I've seen many dogs, and naked ladies on coffee cups and if I had my 'druthers' I'd druther this one gracing my morning brew. Wink.

BTW, I'm well aware that clichés sell. As I said, this is the type of photo many parents will adore. That is certainly a worthy accomplishment. I have created many a cliché in my day, whether as final popular product or as learning tool. My best selling photo is a big ol' cliché. And I know it's a cliché and I also know it can be annoying in a more "artistic" or "aesthetic" sort of way while appealing to a lot of people. As this is a photography web site, a cliché can be critiqued as such, even for what it is and even if it succeeds as what it is.

Good points made about clichés. A key, it seems to me, is deciding or knowing that a particular image has become a cliché (i.e., overused or trite) as opposed to a subject or a photo that is simply outside our sphere of preferences (but not that of others) and we criticize it simply by putting the undesirable label of a cliché on it. With respect to Durr's current critique of the week, it may be staged and syrupy, and we may not prefer it because of those attributes, but does that necessarily mean that it has earned the description of being a cliché? I don't see many photographs like Durr has posted, and I'd prefer to criticize it by avoiding the easy route of lumping it as a cliché. The question for me (which I can't answer at the moment): what is being called a cliché here: a staged and syrupy photograph, or a staged and syrupy photograph of two young girls dressed in white posed as friends off on a romp?

Would it be my two daughters in this photo, I'd be thrilled with it. But they're not, and that leaves me much as Alex wrote above: it's a fine image for what it is, but searching for more depth in it, is not going to be a rewarding effort. The word cliché does come to mind indeed.
The point is really that there is not much I can find wrong with the photo. I'm no big fan of the soft-focus-look-like effect, but I do find it fitting here, and not overused. I'm no big fan of square photos, and central compositions, but it works out well enough here. This photo does not need the tension of lobsided composition, it does not have the dynamics to imply motion or movement, nor does it need to. In so many ways, this photo seemed to have gone really right.
And it just doesn't touch me much. Each time I see it (and I usually wait a few days before participating in this threads to be able to see a photo multiple times), I am less interested in it. And that says probably more about my taste than it does about this photo. Because each time I also think "nicely framed, a medium sized good quality print on the wall, be this my two kids.... it would make me happy daily to see it". I'm the wrong demographic for this one.

I agree that if we introduce a term like "cliché" we better share in which sense we use it. The quotation of Fred, is in line with my use of it, at least as a "A trite or overused expression or idea"
What in my eyes is a cliché in this POW, is: the use of white dresses in the wind; small girls lifting the dresses not to fall; innocent nature; the tidy haircuts; holding hands; the blur, the confined space etc etc all to illustrate what the title tells: "Best friends". However all this are also signs, as mentioned, of the idealization of the "good life" and the innocence of small girls which, as we know, older girls probably have lost, to the worry of the parents. All good and comfortable to watch.

But, as mentioned, clichés are used by all great artists, it a major form of communication. What, in my eyes is lacking here in this POW is the necessary distance making to the cliché, that makes the viewer question what is happening and bringing him/her beyond the cliché, playing on dualities and contradictions (in the sense of: positive/negative connotations; optimistic/pessimistic; uplifting/sad).
Sally Mann did not use clichés apart from photographing her small girls growing up, as far as I see it, but made the whole distance for the viewer towards the dangerous and uncomfortable to watch, like here: At twelve: Portrait of a young women. Jeff Wall sometimes goes very near using clichés, but immediately takes a step further into something else, like here: a married couple.
My critic of the POW is therefore not that it uses clichés, we all do, but that no further message seems to be present in the shot - apart maybe from the dark troubled waters in the background. In communication terms the message is therefor fairly one-dimensional.

This is no critic of Durr Wise. His portfolio is a clear indication of the fact that he has made many marvelous pictures, also of these two girls. The POW is just not one of the better, in my eyes.

Stephen, clichés may be a bit like pornography in that we know them when we see them but can't always specifically describe what precisely makes it so.

I find many idealizations cliché, especially when there's no visual comment on the idealization. I find beach and sunny wind-swept subject matter often cliché. I find this kind of block precision framing a photographic cliché.

Things like the horizon's relationship to the girl's head are not cliché, just awkward, IMO.

Most of what parents adore in pictures of their kids is cliché . . . and I wouldn't take that away from them though I might try to make kid pics that showed other sides of childhood, even in commercial endeavors. We become attuned to what is "pretty," what is "nice," what is "acceptable," and then when we see it our expectations are fulfilled. Few people want "challenging" pics of their kids. Few want pics of their kids that don't flatter them. There are, of course, some who do . . . or would if shown.

To an extent, sugary and sappy are clichés, yes.

Tchaikovsky famously wrote a piece called Mozartiana, a tribute to the earlier master. He was both faithful to the spirit of the original themes on which it was based while still updating the music to have a Romantic-era feel, with more broad dynamics and fuller orchestration. This is NOT a cliché. It's a homage, done with intention. A cliché would be someone writing precisely like Mozart in today's world and thinking that was enough.

Anders, wrong Jeff Walls, that guy, the link you gave, is a wedding photographer in Portland Oregon, not the acclaimed Canadian fine art photographer--I think the link is a pretty common photo and doesn't go much further ;)).

Fred, I wasn't saying anyone did, but I was distinguishing between talking about the individual photographer (overlaying their thought process based on our own) versus critiquing the piece itself.

I would also suggest that if an image still tantalizes individuals, then maybe it isn't a cliche--at least to those individuals. "...has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning" may be true for one person while it still resonates for another--and as it was intended when first created by another. I think there has been a lot of acknowledgement here that such an image would probably have significance to a parent, so is it then really a cliche--except to those who think it is? (I certainly think it is a common tableau but cliche? I am on the fence)

John, yes, even if it means something to a parent, it's a cliché. There have to be some objective statements we can make, otherwise we devolve into a world of subjectivity, which is solipsistic and unworkable. I can recognize clichés in my own work and even clichés that move me, still knowing full well they are clichés. I'd like to think, and even to expect, that others can do that as well.

Sorry you are right, John. Then let's take this of Jeff Walls which was referred to by someone the other day with an interview of Jeff Walls. It is the same game of clichés of commonness and friendships. Sorry again.

Aren't there degree of cliche? And cliches done well and not done well? and with merit and without?
This one has some technical problems, I think Durr would admit, which is why he redid it (and for some of us, made us like it less); so it may be a cliche, but it's a cliche with problems.
But some of his other photos in this series are not nearly as cliche and also have much more emotional resonance, and all in all are much more worthwhile.
Take a look at them!

Martin, you might have noticed that several have mentioned different ways of using and making cliches. We have all also

mentioned the very good photos you find elsewhere in Durr's portfolio.

Durr, I congratulate you on your photo being chosen POTW. This is a lovely (I never use that word!) image, very sweet and youthfully romantic, and that's where I stop. I only pick apart a photo if I find it provocative, and if it tells a story. In my mind, this does neither. I will say one thing... to make it look a bit more interesting, more spontaneous and engaging, a more photographic "slice-of life moment that can never be photographed again," it might have been more effective shooting this with an iPhone or any other kind of camera, or with any other kind of effect, perhaps slightly blurry or more angular, that would render it as something more serendipitous. It looks like a private moment that should have been caught, or at least, appear to have been caught without premeditation.

Wonderful image

"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." I ditto that sentiment, I thought it was corny and sappy eight years ago when I first saw it.

It's obviously a forced pose, but I think it works. Some don't like the back view & would prefer a frontal. I think the rear view works perfectly here, as does the symmetry. The photographer has also gotten a low angle, down tho the childrens' level.
I'm not crazy for the toning or the horizon bisecting their heads. Other than that I like it

It's obviously a forced pose, but I think it works. Some don't like the back view & would prefer a frontal. I think the rear view works perfectly here, as does the symmetry. The photographer has also gotten a low angle, down tho the childrens' level.
I'm not crazy for the toning or the horizon bisecting their heads. Other than that I like it

It's obviously a forced pose, but I think it works. Some don't like the back view & would prefer a frontal. I think the rear view works perfectly here, as does the symmetry. The photographer has also gotten a low angle, down tho the childrens' level.
I'm not crazy for the toning or the horizon bisecting their heads. Other than that I like it

i hope you dont actually have to have children to appreciate them ? the beauty of the photo is that it is something we can all relate to. we were all young once. its a moment of freedom of innocence of hope. i dont think the photographer over thought the photo. all it takes is one word.. run.... and that is what they did or walked to the end of the dock. its not that difficult to get a great photograph of a child. they make the best subjects in my opinion. it is simple and real .. nothing deep and philosophical.. it is what it is. if this photo doesnt evoke some kind of joy or warmthness or beauty or memory of our youths than i feel bad for that particular viewer,, i really do.....

I remember coming across this series of "Best Friends" photos when Durr began posting them. They became a source of inspiration for my own series of kids photos.

It's evident that the photos are dear to Durr and apparently taken years before posting them here on P.net. His daughter, Sigrid, also appears in the "Nut Cracker" series of photos as a dancer posted a few years later.

I prefer the sepia toned version from May 2003; it's packed with emotion and communicates the innocence of childhood friendship in a way that's second to none.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1586691

The title fits very well the composition: Best friends are often much alike though not twins and in harmony though not at unison. All these elements are in the frame.

However the b&w post processing of this particular version fails short in emphasizing the main element of this composition that ties it all together, namely the hand holding which does not stand out sufficiently from the background ocean waters. In this respect Michael is right, the sepia version is much better.

This being staged does not diminish in any way Durr's merit of creating a beautiful frame, in my opinion. Setting it all up, interacting with the models and so on is an integral part of the creative process. The main difference with a candid lies in the fact that the photographer here actively participates in the process, as opposed to the passive observer role required for a candid.

Maybe I'm the only 'Tim Burton' type amongst those who have commented so far.

This image is ambiguous to me.

It's easy to lean to the 'cutsie' stuff that others have called cliche. The title helps. That impression would be reinforced by dodging back to Durr's gallery. Maybe that is a good idea. On the other hand, what if that wasn't possible? Does the image stand on it's own?

If this image is viewed on it's own, there is a sad, morbid perspective that hit me right away. There are two young girls in angelic white vestments and bare feet headed down a restricted path towards a vast abyss. The blur reinforces the surreal. Wonder how the poor little girls met their fate? Spirits on their way to eternity?

I like being able to flip back and forth. Did Durr want it? Probably not. I'm sure the little girls and their families didn't. Still, I appreciate it in this image.

What if the little girls were semi transparent and the surroundings tack sharp? Does that convey 'forever'?

Lots of photographs force emotion. Polarization. Ambiguity is hard to achieve. For me, Durr's image did it.

The eye cannot see what the mind won't allow.

Despite what I may have implied earlier, I recognize the role of the photographer in composing or directing many kinds of photographs (my earlier criticism dealt with submitting directed photographs as candid photographs, and I was entirely in error in suggesting this is what Durr did -- I had no basis whatsoever in coming to that conclusion). I can see a lot of creativity at work when a photographer directs a photo shoot that results in an image that captures spirit, beauty, mood, story, or other positive attribute that we often look for in a photograph. However, I don't think the word "passive" is the right word to use to describe the photographer in the making of a candid photograph. A successful candid photograph is a great achievement, IMO, because it captures a real event, the real flow of a person or people, in an instant that captured the spirit, beauty, mood, story, or other positive aspect of the photograph. I think that requires (at least from my perspective) a fair amount of luck, a lot of persistence, and especially the ability to see the potential, or the developing potential, of a particular scene, and then be ready with the right camera setup to candidly capture that fleeting moment, or that decisive moment. That's no easy feat, and I generally consider it a higher accomplishment than that of a directed or created shot in which the photographer has control of many more elements, especially the flow of time. Certainly there is vision and skill necessary for both candid and controlled photographic shots, and the word "passive" doesn't do justice to any successful photograph in this regard. The word itself is just too......passive. Creativity, anticipation, skill, familiarity with equipment, rapid response, none of these leave room for passivity, IMO. Perhaps this is a minor point, but it struck a strong chord within me.