'Exuberance of Youth'

In 'Exuberance of Youth' in honor of THE PHOTOGRAPH' I've chosen to

send conventions of photography (Level horizon, stopping action, focus,

great care in framing, etc.) to heck, when confronted with a subject and

photo that has extraordinary action and verve and in my view, all that

was best presented by discarding those conventions to show off the

photograph's essence.

Do you agree or disagree with my choice(s)? I'd like to hear your

viewpoint. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If

you rate harshly, very critically, or to make an observation, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography

Please do not suggest I 'reframe' this running little boy as that would

have been an impossibility. You get one chance with a photo like this --

sink or swim. Does this selection Sink or Swim, viewers?

Please let me know, conventions or photography or not.

The other choices are

(1) Don't take the photo; and

(2) Don't post it because it 'breaks rules'

Yea or nay on breaking rules for this particular photo, sir?

You're a 'rule guy' mostly.

What would you do when faced with this one and the 'rules' that seem to guide you so much?

Too weak and just pass on the photo?

Too strong and let the rules get passed by?

I'm very interested in your viewpoint, -- especially yours.

john

John (Crosley)

I was about to clear a flash card to insert in my camera for a new session. I routinely review old shots when I do that, and this one just JUMPED out at me (just like he is doing here). There was really no comparison with anything else on the card.

I have told this story before, but it bears retelling. A mentor, a \Lucie Award Winner, had a photo of kids chasing barnyard animals on a kitchen cabinet. I asked who took it. He said 'nobody, really, but it's a great photo, it's just so full of life. He was loyal to \the photo' not the 'technique' which is what prompted my question to Meir above, who is pretty rigid about certain 'rules' and down rate for 'violation' of those.

But this photo breaks all those rules.

It still has all the elements of a good to very good photo, and I'm convinced it's good enough to post; early returns tend to confirm at least that it's original, and some seem to think it's aesthetically cool as well. I've posted more complex photos, but this one has 'energy' and 'spirit'.

When in school and learning 'rules of grammar', I noticed many authors violated them. My teachers told me routinely, first you must know the rules, before you violate them, then when you get good, you can violate them, (but you must be able to pass standardized tests about 'what is right') Here there is no 'standardized test.

Ask Gordon Bowbrick, who violates 'rules' all the time. It's his stock in trade.

His images are beautiful and completely original.

All the best to you, and thanks for sharing your opinion.

Maybe others will have a different opinion and not be afraid to say why.

John (Crosley)

I wanted to know how rule-bound you were; no misundersanding you, just curiousity.

Your answer is gratifying.

John (Crosley)

I think this is a very good shot. I like the feel of the image as a whole.

Talking about rules, I am reading a book by Joe McNally called The Hot Shoe Diaries. In which it speaks about the fact that you can break the rules.

I personally am not the a great photographer, but I hope that I am working my way towards becoming better. I think that so much of what we do is down to personal choice on likes and dislikes that it makes it very difficult.

I say you have a great shot and for that I say from my small corner that this should be posted.

Keep on trucking. If you break a rule or to I wont tell.

Adam

I thank you for taking the time to discuss not only this photo but how it fits into the general schema of 'rules' as they apply to photography.

Obviously I have long come to the conclusion that rules be damned; it's the photograph that counts (aide by my former mentor, a Lucie Award winner), as explained above).

I am forever grateful to him for his lesson, although I had already come to that conclusion, but felt uncomfortable with it, and I think he recognized it and sought to assuage my worries. Special thanks for that for it has given me confidence to do as I will and post immediately shots I might have sat on, perhaps forever.

Adam, thanks so much. Keep your ideas in mind in your own shooting, and take a look at Gordon Bowbrick's portfolio. He and I think alike (I believe) on shots such as this, but he is dedicated to the more amorphous shooting while I do representational as well as less representational captures, as here -- whatever moves me or is opportune.

My best to you, and thanks.

John (Crosley)

Most of us know that an 'S' curve is strong compositionally.

A 'Z' structure is almost as strong.

Note that the right side of the photo is dark -- the left is light, helping the composition, as the boy is a transitional figure.

Moreover, the boy is at the base of a concrete 'Z' figure, which leads the eye into the upper left of the photo for a chance at some good composition (which is why it got posted.)

Note: Whenever anyone runs in front of my camera, I'm firing away, so be assured this is not a 'one-off' sort of thing. I have shot hundreds of shots like this to get one that is postable.

;~))

Remember, luck follows the well prepared.

John (Crosley)