rené asmussen photography Having Fun!

That's what these expressions are to me. The right one steals my heart with her hair, earring, her face and her priceless smile. However it does make two completely different, but equally good pictures with and without the kid on the left.

 

I wonder how they were connected to each other at that particular moment? Were they shy and giggling because Rene was holding a camera in front of them or did something funny happen that is not known to those outside of this connection.

 

I would be VERY interested hear from Rene about the background of this moment and much more about he kids themselves, if that's possible.

 

As for the picture, there is a bit of glow around the face of the kid on the left, which could either be intentional or not, it definitely makes the smile and face divine. Wall on the back, IMO, has gone through a bit of blurring. That and the toning add to the mood in a great way.

The rule of an odd number of elements is supported by the comments above . . . do we / don't we keep the girl on the left? Back and forth . . . . We all agree that the girl on the right is the prominent one .. in focus, more contrast, eye contact . . . so I think breaking the rule works here, especially because the girl on the left is facing her.

 

Another rule broken . . that still works. not getting down at their level. I think this angle of view works because she' s comfortable with it .. . no strain to look up . . no pointed chin . . just the eyes and the smile to make us at ease.

 

Other visual design features. The wild contrasty hair is a key element for me, but I always enjoy a surprise and feel like I've been rewarded for staying with the image for so long . . . . the ear ring!!

The first time I saw this photo it gave an impression that the second girl has unruffeled her friends hair and is smiling on what she just did. The girl on the right is amused at what her friend had done to her hair. Well as is obvious I am constantly being distracted by her unruffeled hair and yes her eyes apart for their beautiful smile.

 

The background is unsual but it also gels well with the subject matter. The photo is spontaneous and grabs attention even when you are looking at his entire folder of over 80 photos !

 

Congratulations on your second POW.

 

 

What a surprise ! I've seen this shot for the first time so long ago ! :-)

Well, I still like it as much as I did then, essentially because of the "heavenly" expressions, as Balaji said... But maybe I've become a bit more critical and I have to agree with Scott here about the hands of the girl on the left. Her closed eyes are welcome, but not the crop of the hands imo.

As for the background wall, I seem to recognize something I've already used on occasions - not too sure though... It looks to me as if there would have been a combination of 2 PS filters here: "ink outlines" and "water paper". On a textured background, we could get something like that with these 2 filters combined. I'd be interested to know...

Two POWs in such a short time seems a bit strange to me, but Rene is one of the few photographers here who certainly deserve this "double" recognition... I could easily pick 8 or 10 shots in Rene's portfolio, which would deserve to be POW as much as this one - if not more... So, be it...:-)

My love-hate of Rene's work continues.. :) This one is not a winner for me - due to the cropped hands/out-of-focus girl (either, but not both!), messy effects around the hair, and a background that seems to have no relevance.. Yes, cute expressions, but no I don't think this is one of Rene's best.

 

Hey, *someone* had to dislike it!

 

mt

This is a terrific candid shot, the kids are obviously having fun and this helps lift the image above the norm.

It reminds me of my childhood growing up with my two cousins in Colombia.

As some people already wrote above the fact that the girl's right hand is cut off bothers me a bit. I want to know what is she doing or holding. Great interaction from the background girl. The expressions are priceless. I would frame this and hang up at home.

This is captivating because of the joyous, if somewhat enigmatic expression on the main subject's face, countered by the girl on the left, who is secondary because she is blurred and because she isn't interacting with the photographer, and by extension, with us as viewers. I, too, am somewhat visually bewildered by the background and focus points in the image. Also, after a couple days of looking at the image, it suddenly occurred to me that the main subject's face and shape seem to stand out more because we don't see arms, giving her face and unruly mop of hair even more prominence against an unusually narrow frame, while it already had prominence by being in focus and by being the closest element to the camera.

 

Nonetheless, with all of those elements, what draws us to this picture is still a wonderful expression on a child's face. A strange, but captivating image, indeed, from an accomplished photographer. Enjoy.

I guess I'll be the other "someone" that doesn't love this photo. I deeply respect the thoughtfulness and moodyness of Rene's other images, and this is a nice, lighthearted departure from the rest of his portfolio. Here it comes . . . BUT I don't fee this a good representation of his work. I'm not a fan of akward crops, cutting off hands (on the left) and seeing missing arms (on the right). The expressions are great, but the background distracts from the girls. Pull out a little. Give the girls more room and this would be even better.

People! Correct me here.. i feel that the girl on the right is an add on with P.S. Where was this shot? These are not danish girls.. morrocco maybe? north african? i am curious about the details here. Very good expressions though.

One may be inclined to remark: It's difficult enough to "handle" one child in front of a camera, how about two? Fortunately, it doesn't work out like this for children. Two or more kids will be occupied with each other, rather than worrying about the photographer. Therefore no freezing up. The back-ground is not the best choice. P.S. There is a saying: NEVER SHOOT WITH CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, BOTH CAN TURN A PHOTO-SHOOT UPSIDE DOWN!

Hello René,

this is another masterpiece. I find a bit strange this picture comes from Finland. These two girls seem better Palestinian or even Jew (expressions and shape of faces, especially of the girl on the right remember me very close Ben Shan's drawings). In this regard I find title unsuitable: I find this picture deeply sad: the smile of the left girl is a woman's one; it seems she's already aware of her whole future life, likely not an easy one. Thanks for sharing. Enrico

Im sorry to say this, but as much as I love the expression on the girls faces, the weird background effect almost looks as though the gird on the left has been super imposed. i'm sure that's not really the case, but It just makes me questions the validity of the blurring. I don't think it added anything to a superb shot. I'm sure the original shot was better than the one provided (apologies if there was no modification to the photo - it simply looks as though there has been some dodgy blurring effect).I'm surprised that no one has said anything about this. Even still, it's a lovely photo and the girls look like they're a cheeky lot!POW is purely subjective, and the chooser of POW has tastes that will not satisfy everyone's tastes. because of this, In an area where things are subjective, no one is going to please all of the people all of the time.

Anyway, this is still a lovely photo. Congrats :-)

Hey, you can't do that! When you have non-white people in a picture, their facial expression is supposed to be either haunting, malnourished, bereft or profound. Anything but smiling! That's not politically correct, and also not artistically correct, because if your subjects are smiling, it's not art! (LOL) Personally, though, I love this picture. What joie de vivre! Cheers, Robert

The facial expressions are intriguing, but there is far too much contrast in this print from your trying to get the "dark" look. The hair has no detail at all. It is totally clipped to black (and there is no such thing as black in real life). The dodging around the little girl on the left is quite distracting also.

 

I get the feeling this is one you edited too quickly and posted in haste (although I know it's been around for a long time on photo.net). An interesting picture with notable technical flaws. It could have been presented a lot better. Apart from that, a commendable job from what I suspect was a difficult negative.

Certainly one of the stronger images on this site. The angle, to our left, of the girl's head and of her eyes, points us in the right direction, even as her facial expression reinforces the feeling created by what we've no doubt already glanced: the main subject, the girl to our right, whose comedic brow, innocent smile, flyaway hair, and face full of joyful surprise, are a real treat. What makes us come back to this image, though, even beyond that treat, is the relationship implied between the two girls - their sharing of fun and joy.

Add to this the warm tonalities, the beautiful catchlights in the eyes - which lend depth and drama, as catchlights are supposed to do -; and add, as well, the way the photographer has broken to such good effect the silly rule that has every fool with a camera trying to shoot at eye level with children and dogs: add it up and you have one charming picture, one that makes any talk about "weird" backgrounds, "photoshop" (please), and, what was it?, no such thing as black in nature or something? Great job, on a shot I wish I'd taken.

There is no texture in either of the two girls' hair, Doug. They are black blobs. Why is it "utterly nonsensical" to note this in what is a technical as well as a creative forum?

 

There is far too much reliance on the aesthetic qualities of photographs here. Of course these are vital to the success of a picture, but it is also vital that aesthetics are connected to and grounded in good technique. Dismissing techincal comments as philistinism or "utter nonsense" when compared to the supposed aesthetic qualities of an image (which in this case are manifest) makes me wonder whether the commenter is hiding his or her own technical deficiencies behind a facade of "artistic" appreciation.

 

Showing texture in the hair would, in my opinion, enhance the aesthetic qualities of this photograph and make it even better than this presentation.

 

Aloha.

Rene, my congrats for the POW, even if , and you know how much I like your photos, I think you have much better works to be prized ...

The more I look at this image, the more I think that the lack of texture in the hair is, if anything, an asset; it actually helps draw attention to where all the action is here: the faces. Your criticism reminds me of those who are critical of HCB for being out of focus. Who cares? Lots of people can make perfectly focused, perfectly exposed images. How come those images aren't strong like this one? In the end, it's all about the effect of the picture - and not about the technique (or, for that matter, the number of Leicas one has acquired). Oops, I did say g'day, didn't I?

I'm glad that Tony and Doug both have portfolios for us to use as a reference in this little debate. . . . :-)

 

I was hoping we could get back to the image and the photographer who took it, this being Sunday afternoon. This style of photography is not my strong suit and I would like Rene to tell us about the moments leading up to this shot. Where, when, how, who . . . whatever you'd like to share with us.

Congrats on POW, Rene! I love this shot, however I think you have even stronger work in your portfolio that is equally deserving of POW. That is saying a lot! Your portfolio, IMHO, illustrates your talent as a photographer and that this wasn't just a "lucky shot" for you -- it is consistent with your other work!

It's getting so you have have to say a picture is as good as it can be, wonderful, marvellous, it's technical deficiencies always adding to its wondrous aesthetic appeal, no "ifs", no "buts" &etc.... or you're some kind of old nark who doesn't act "like a man"...

To criticise one picture for an alleged technical flaw is not by any means saying that all such deficiencies are fatal to a proper appreciation of all pictures (and that in this case the technical deficiencies distracted me and made me want to see a better presentation). I thought I made that clear. All I was proposing was that both technical and aesthetic aspects should be considered together, traded-off if you like, to arrive at a final appreciation of any creative work. The problem is that some (not all) have no technical background or knowledge and seek to obscure this by relying on that bewhiskered old chestnut: "everything's subjective" (which is, of course, an absolute statement in itself, and thus somewhat contradictory in terms).

Sometimes a bad print or an out-of-focus camera can help a picture, or at least not hinder it (although less so in the former case, as the photographer should have infinite control over the final print). In this case my feeling is that the image, as presented, could be improved by a better print (or scan, or what-have-you), to wit, less obvious dodging around the little girl on the left's head, and, yes, more detail in the ink-like blobs on top of both their heads. Otherwise it's a charming shot.

And, for the Photo.Net Cropping Society (who seem to have survived various recent Nights Of The Long Knives undiminished in enthusiasm), I think the framing is fine just as it is. The way the action is slightly clipped at the edges gives the shot a feeling of being part of a greater action, just outside the borders of the print, that we must tantalisingly guess at and use our imaginations (remember those?) to ponder about.

...ciaou, baby.

T and D - mud slinging, and back and forth lengthy discussions are something to do in another forum or via e-mail. Please re-read the "About" page for the POW. Yours truly - Moderator

First of all: Great capture though I find the DOF a bit too shallow. BUT what I would like to know is where did you take this photo ? As far as I remember the town where I was born, Finlandsgade dosen't look like that. As with many other POW's, I would like that the photographers would comment on the questions that are made to the photo (other then "Thanks for all the kind votes and comments").

 

The Moderator stated: "or simply congratulatory one liners -- or rants and repetative comments... Will be deleted as per policy to keep this forum informative and full of substance". But choosing POW's the moderators also have to choose pictures with information. On this photo the only infos given are: Camera: EOS3 and Film: HP5 and exposure location is certanly wrong. This is very little information for others to learn anything. Rene - come on - you must know that you are good ! Give us a little info and tech details on the photo. It woulden't make us all as good and you and you will still get all the fame anyway.

 

I love the girls' expressions in this photo, but the background does not seem quite right to me, either. Where is Rene in this discussion? I usually appreciate when the photographer responds to the comments of his/her photos, especially when there are questions about technical issues... Rene, were these two girls really in the same shot, or was one superimposed on later? Is that dodging around the girl on the left? Any comments on the the issues brought up thus far? I only ask, because as someone learning photography, it helps to know more about what I'm seeing. Any information you could provide would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Extremely well done. Reminds me of Cartier-Bresson.