give me

please comment!

.....strong expression !!!

I enjoy the balance of the eyes and hand. The child pulls you right in and you've captured that perfectly. The graidation of the ground from bottom to top adds to the appeal. Nice emotional tug. Well done.

What a stark portrait! Besides the exquisite tones and good choice of angle, which makes it seem like we're looking down on him (in more than the literal way), you captured a great expression of him looking back a us. The determination on his look alone makes it worthwile.

 

There is, however, a quibble, and a non-technical one at that. I feel sad about this image, like the kid shouldn't have to be the subject of the photo, or like we're exploiting him for liking the image.

If this was shot for a Care poster or the like, it works...

This boy is not just another boy begging for a change. He's angry, you can see it in his eyes ... and your photograph emphsizes just this. The angle you've chosen for this shot dwarfs the boy, reduces him to his extended hand and angry eyes. I can't think of a better way to express what this child must have felt. You skilfully managed to combine the contents and the form to convey what you wanted to say. And it is a very powerful message. I'm humbled by this photograph. I would only like to see a bit more room over his head. Thank you.

My perception is that of a beggar boy that knows there is money where there are cameras. So different to Marc Gougenheim's 'Child'.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=895511

 

Cheap shot Ashley ... both of them

in line with the photo.net announcement to restrict comments to the photo and not go on a tangent, I am removing my comments, whose purpose were to explain the reason for my low rating for the photo. I shall also delete the low rating I have given this photo.

No cheap shot was intended. I grew up in the 'third world' and although there is no 'begging' there (Grenada) as such, I still recognise this child's demeanour to mean something different. And I see why Venkat is offended, its an issue about exploitation. I agree and disagree.

 

I defend the photographer, as there was probably no harm done. However, if the photographer approached this naked begging child, took this intimate close-up, then walked away (with no benefit to the child, but earned plaudits as a photographer as a result)....I'd have some conscience issues to tussle with.

 

Maria, the reason I included Marc's "Child" is because I see these as two very handsome portraits. But, since they're both taken in the 'third world', I was staggered by the vast differences of portrayal of much the same subject [boy growing up in 'developing lands'].

I would rate this image the opposite of what Venkat has suggested. I think this photograph has a very strong aesthetic and that there needs to be a disctinction in this case between aesthetic and beauty. The modern use of the word is fused with beauty, but consider its opposite: Anesthetic.

 

The aesthetic of this photographi is shock, definitely the opposite of anesthetic.

 

Questions regarding other issues, ethics, permission, etc, are evidence of the photograph's emotional power, which is another facet of aesthetics.

 

The tightness around his head, I think, reinforces the urgency of his situation.

Emotional judgments sometimes help but most often stand in a way -- take a look at Selgado, my latest favorite on expolaitation in documentary photography. I think that only a sheer volume of fame separates this photo from Selgado's works. We can discuss social or moral context but I like to focus on photographic aspects of photography on this site. BTW -- I wonder what you think of nude photographs on this site?

I called ... uhm ... Ashley's comment a cheap shot because it advertises the work of another photographer using somebody's else's space. Which would be fine if the work we were referred to weren't a well executed shot of a big belly and lotsa colorful fabric without any comparative value to this photograph. But I bet you already went there (see, what I mean?).

 

 

Unnecessary comment by me.

This is a terrific shot. Some of you people need to get a grip. This site has some of the snobiest, holier than thou individuals I have come across. I would have shot this shot, right up on him and hopede for similar quality. It is a beautiful image. Compelling, and thought provoking. You have no idea what happened before or after the shot. I have travelled all over the world, and kids like this are everywhere. We live in a hard, hard world. I normally talk to and pay my models, and for all we know, that is exactly what happened here. If it didn't it still brings the message to the table. The flowers, butterflies, soft focus portraits, and over-rated cliquish photos on the front page are not in this league. I feel like telling you to kiss my you-know-what and it ain't even my image. Who cares what else this guy shot. This work stands on its own.

Jay, I respect what you have to say. I've realise that you are indeed a good photographer, so what you say has more meaning to me. However, we can still disagree. My perspective comes from a 'third world' origin. We therefore have different backgrounds. I never suffered poverty, but certainly witnessed it first-hand. Its about ethics, ethos and perspective. I see that your own images of folk 'down on their luck', is a sympathetic but honest record (and interpretation) of their lives. You may not have meant to, but your images are sympathetic to your subject matter. Don't believe me? Ask some other photographers. My point was only, that the image above, said more about the photographer than the subject matter. I also said it was an excellently composed and exposed image. Are you upset that I've accused you (with Marc) of being more in-tune with your subjects, than others might be? I think I did have 'a grip' all along. But that too, is subjective.

Ashley how can you expect to find a coherent "theme" in his "Single Photos" folder??? The fact that you did might indicate some therapy is in order.

 

For all we know the kid is just put out because the guy took the time to get his camera out and take a picture before giving him some money.

 

Self righteous bastards aside, I find it a very powerful and captivating image. Well done. I would love to see it at 16x20.

Derry, the theme I referred to, was definitely a subconscious one. A camera is a tool that records. But it records in the mood of its master. I also don't think its necessary to call people bastards. This language was not used before. Please desist.

Peter,

 

Would you care to tell us what really happened ?

Did you ask his permission ?

Did you pay him ?

 

In any case, there is nothing original or aesthetic about this shot. You need to be in a developing country walking around with a camera and rude enough to make the kid beg while you focus and frame. This is sad.

 

Very interseting to follow this discussion.

 

Is there always a need of why the photo was taken or what the purpose is?

 

The picture of the kid is taken in a "bustiearea" in Calcutta. In this area there are living 5000 people per km2. I'm a swede working as a teacher in Denmark. Every year I go to India with my students for 4 weeks to do some work. I have been there 5 times now. And the picture is showing a kid working for the local mafia. The small kids belongs to a group of beggers who is not begging money for them self or their family. Small kids can get more money out of tourist or rich hindu people.

 

I did'nt have to do this explanation. But I did.

 

Peter

Another unnecessary comment by me.

I was going to rail against Ashley, threats of being squashed by a 250 pounder aside, until I noticed he/she rated this photo pretty high.

 

so instead, here's just my opinions:

 

ethics...not universal. to each his own, certainly your right to express your opinion, but don't expect everyone to share it.

 

I've seen poverty in US, Tijuana border, Panama, and Ensenada(about 60-100 miles south of Tijuana, Mexico). All different kinds. This picture is closest to the chiclet selling TJ kind. (and yeah, haven't been too many places outside US, but working on changing that)

 

photos degrading to women??? It seems like there was a woman in the photo, and I'm guessing she ~probably~ had a say in doing the pose, and probably signed or consented somthing to allow the picture to be shown (fyi I like the squatting in the forest, don't really like the pissing ;) pose

 

Now In Defense of Ashley, I don't think it was a cheap shot inserting Mark's photo to generate discussion. Until I read the later comments, I didn't even realize Ashley was so strongly against the taking of this photo. I disagree that Peter's photo simply illustrate's his own Psyche...in fact, if that's all it did, you wouldn't be complaining so much. Maybe Peter is subconsciously (or consciously) trying to make a statement about a photographer's intent/limit/exploitation/etc.

 

Or maybe Peter grew up rich, spends 4 weeks in impoverished India doing social work with students, and feels more at home than someone who left behind the poverty they grew up in. Maybe Peter is a bastard who wants to put this kid in a Nike factory.

 

oh, btw, I like the lighting, and the texture around the child. the only thing I might add would be to have had a shiny quarter in his hand (you could take it back when you are through j/k). Or a second picture with him smiling or something. Would this be perceived as more or less exploitative?

ok, I originally did this to be a smartass, so I'm probably still going to hell for it, but it's interesting (to me anyway), how this bad PS work changes the whole meaning. Once again, I think this shows there is definately something to this photo.

M.B??

 

Are you serious? Did u send a mail to Photo.net for them to remove this picture?

 

I never thought about it, but you see other things in the photo that I can't see..

 

The world is full of crazy people and I´m not one of them. If pedofiles want some pictures, they will get them. But my picture..?

 

Hmm..!

 

 

Lex. You are right. Sometimes, I need to be reminded that I tend to 'speak from the pulpit'. I went on too much. I didn't realise.

 

Peter. Excellent image.

ack! don't remove your photo, Peter. any photo that has generated this much discourse deserves to remain for that alone.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is evil.