Norma Desmond

Doesn’t make me hate politics. Politics are pretty fundamental and necessary. I do, though, hate immoral actions of a powerful government being defended. And hypocrisy. The same ones who claim to dislike big government love it when its strong arm, attached to a strongman ruler, takes brown babies and puts them in cages away from their parents. Makes them feel like they have “a country.”

This seems a pretty fair and insightful assessment of the photos . . . and the situation which led to it. Thanks!

Simple thought, right out of the mouth of Trump. Pass the kool-aid, please. It’s not about having or not having laws, it’s about what the laws say and how they’re enforced. Of course, in this case there is no law demanding kids be taken from their parents at the border. It’s a Trump POLICY to hold kids hostage in hopes of getting his wall. A nation of laws is meaningless without a moral center behind it. Nazi Germany was a nation of laws. “You have a nation of laws or you don’t” is a hollow and pathetic platitude, signifying nothing. The fact is, Trump could reverse this policy tomorrow by the stroke of a pen to reverse Sessions’s NEW policy. He doesn’t want to because he doesn’t have a moral core that cares about anything but himself appearing to be tough and strong, and the dupes follow him, willing to discard their own morality to belong to a cult that makes them feel secure, spewing forth lies that make them somehow feel more comfortable about an atrocity being committed in their names. Until they come for YOU (and if this keeps up, they’ll find a reason), you won’t wake up.

People, in the hopes of just a modicum of privacy and even knowing complete privacy is no longer possible, would like to be able to delete whatever traces of themselves they can within reason. PN sends out email alerts, newsletters, maintains archives of one’s photos, one’s biography, one’s history of posting and commenting. Some of that can be manually deleted but not one’s history. While it makes sense to maintain one’s public posts for the sake of continuity of threads, there should be an easy way to delete one’s account and all non-eseential traces.

What makes you think a letter would get a response? Which shouldn’t mean one can’t delete an account, which would delete or hide one’s personal gallery, personal info, messaging system, email contacts, all in one step, while leaving one’s public posts in tact. What may be a bit more accurate to say is, “What you should be able to do but likely can’t is to change your name on the site”

Sandy, I hope you realize what a lonely voice (or should I say, echo chamber) you’re becoming. Even Franklin Graham has implored Trump to change his administration’s policy, as have others in the very conservative religious and evangelical community. So have Laura Bush and Ted Cruz, not exactly the Lefties you’d like to think or at least conveniently claim are the only ones pushing Trump to do the right thing and rescind the policy Jeff Sessions started days ago. Even Mark Meadows, today, is working on a bill to clean up the Trump/Sessions horror, but Trump has threatened not to sign a bill that doesn’t include a physical monument to his hugeness, a big, beautiful wall. You may find yourself a sole voice in a dark wilderness listening to the cries of children, repeating your studied litany of lies . . . but to yourself alone.

You’re probably right, though only time will tell. In any case, though I did bring up the iconic aspect, because of my immediate emotional response to the situation and this photo and the recorded sound I heard today (I’m not able or really wanting to separate any of these from each other) the more important thing is what current effect seeing such images (even less than stellar ones), hearing such recordings, and reading the reports will have. There seems to be more of a groundswell picking up as people and politicians on both sides of the aisle, and even formerly pretty quiet First Ladies, learn more and reject the blatantly false narratives being put out there.

I wouldn’t make judgments about Moore’s character. In this case, he can’t “save” the subject of his photo from our inhumane and immoral treatment of them. Had he the same opportunity as Ut, we don’t know how Moore would have acted. That’s not to take anything away from Ut’s courage and heroism. It’s to question your baseless assumption about Moore. At least he’s down there documenting the current abuse of children.

I should add that I think "similarity" can be considered in terms of effect and connection to events as well as possible historical importance and not just in terms of what's contained in the actual images or how exactly they portray what they portray.

Dieter, I agree. But I think the photos are "remotely similar" because, WITH written context, they both seem to be able to wring some emotion out of an audience and provide a heartfelt witness to a grand wrongdoing. I've heard many people across the U.S. today, who already know what's going on and have come across the photo in the context of the news story (which is a very valid way to be introduced to a photo), say what a big impact it's had on them. Along with today's picture and the sound from one of the camps (also sound that has no context other than what's provided by the reporter who recorded it), several prominent Republicans, including a couple of congressmen in border districts, spoke out today. Whether the imagery and sound influenced them, I don't know, but that particular image and the sound recording released today are having a visceral effect on at least part of the population. It's fascinating and I'm grateful that such images and sound can add strongly to knowledge that we get through written reports. Such images can act as important punctuation marks which can have a lasting effect. Again, I've already recognized the major differences between Ut's photo and Moore's and maybe most photographers and some others will claim, in a kind of academic way that's not invalid by any means, that there's no remote similarity. I suspect many laypeople who are going more on gut will feel some level of similarity. At least I've heard several personal reports online and in the news today that bear that out. They're not necessarily thinking with their photo-critique hats on, just going with their gut.

I want to acknowledge that Bill's post influenced me some as my thinking was already starting to evolve from my initial post. There are important differences in the two photos and the two photographers. There are, to me, less important differences in the two situations, even though there are clearly differences. Ut's photo is more iconic and, to me, a better photo overall. It shows more and shows more context as well. It's a stronger composition. The comparisons I'd heard on the news had influenced me, probably a bit too much, and my emotions influenced me greatly. Because I hate what's going on so strongly and relate it to so many other horrific camp detentions through history, and feel so impotent to effect change except through protest which, as I said, I intend to do for whatever it's worth, I'm reacting quite emotionally here to the photo because of my feelings about the situation. My reaction to the photo is more about the situation than the photo. In a sense, that's fine with me, since I spent many of my earlier decades reacting more intellectually and academically. This feels better, even if I get things wrong from time to time and imbue a particular photo with more juice than it might actually have. Ut as a photographer was kind of incomparable in his willingness to get involved to the extent he did and I, again, thank Bill for making that point. I'll take a minor exception to the "not remotely similar" comment, since I think the photos are remotely similar in some important ways, though not really comparable in others. As to comparing the horror of a village being bombed to the horror of a child being forced away from her parents and kept in a detention camp jail, I can't and won't do that, because it's unnecessary here for me to do. While there may be reason at times to compare the world's evil atrocities, and degree is often an important thing, at this hour, for me, the evil currently being perpetrated by my government has crossed a line that's in the same direction of other atrocities and that's where I'm at with it. I don't need to compare this to worse atrocities to help myself feel better about it.

That's what I was trying to do. Kill debate. This is not about debate, for me.

Not even remotely? That's definitive. Thanks.

Fascinating how not much has changed. I can just hear Donald Trump echoing Nixon in wondering if the pic is faked. Except instead of just wondering, Trump would just declare the photo was faked and probably convince himself of that alternative fact. What that has to do with the price of beans, I don't know. This girl is not crying because she lost her lollipop. Yes, clearly rainbows are about to bloom. [sarcasm icon] The child is not smiling. Why bring that nonexistent hypothetical up? What I hope the picture does is wake people up to the reality of what our government is doing to kids, or at least reinforce that knowledge. Actually, it's not just my hope. It's already having an effect, going viral, and is all over the news in the U.S. It's not a matter of what the picture depicts vs. what it represents. It's obviously both. This is not an academic debate, much as that might be someone's default mindset. It's about real lives being torn to bits.

THIS PHOTO is going viral. It's by John Moore of Getty Images. It's being talked about in terms of the Nick Ut image, Napalm Girl, taken on June 8, 1972, almost exactly 46 years ago. Do you think it will become as iconic? More importantly, do you think it will affect us as much as Ut's photo has? Do you hope it does? The main difference I notice is how much more subtle, if you can call horror subtle, the picture of horror of what's happening now is compared to the more dramatic and in-your-face depiction of the child in 1972. Yet, in a sense, maybe that subtlety will move us as much or more. Certainly the photo's ability to go viral will have a power that Ut's photo couldn't take advantage of in the same way. How moving and horrifying are this little girl's tears as she stands under her mother being searched by American border guards? And, while excuses (mostly bad ones) can be made for border guards searching mothers fleeing from their home countries, no excuse can be made for what this photo represents, which is that such kids and even younger ones are now being torn from their parents and families and put into warehouse detention camps, similar to our shameful practice with Japanese Internment camps (photographed so eloquently by Dorothea Lange and others), where volunteers aren't allowed to touch even those who may need diapering. So, while the image may be a bit less traumatic than a naked screaming girl running, scorched by bombs, the association today's photo has is to something not very subtle at all, but rather a fantastic evil. Is the picture helping whatever humanity is left in the U.S. come to grips with what our government is doing? Can a picture help effect change? Can it help mobilize a people (or at least a sizable portion of a people) horrified by the immorality, callousness, and wickedness of an administration committing atrocities in our* name? You tell me? [Though I use "our" in referring to Americans, I hope and know those from other countries will care as well, as fellow human beings, and talk about the power and potential of this photo.]

Don’t do that! You obviously want something different or you wouldn’t be asking the question. Don’t let anyone talk you into complacency. Your gut is telling you to challenge yourself and that’s a great and rewarding thing to do. Most photographers find a comfort zone and wallow in it. You want more. That’s a good thing. By the way, there doesn’t necessarily have to be something wrong with your current work in order for you to move on and grow. But there’s also nothing wrong with finding things wrong with your current work that you’d like to change. Both critique and self-critique are powerful tools.

Of course, good film noir lighting is rarely confined to talking heads in silhouette and often requires a bit of skill and technology as well. Take a look at the cinematography of Gregg Toland (who collaborated with Orson Welles) and John Alton who worked on some of Anthony Mann’s incredible noir flicks. _______________________________________________________ I find no compelling reason why simple is better than complex despite the multitude of cliche quotes about the virtues of simplicity.

In some important ways, the 21st century has nothing on the 18th. In any century, however, any one of us could take a lesson from William in clear and informative writing on the subject of both photography and Photography! :)

I'd start by being more descriptive, with yourself and with us. You've used words like "amateurish," "WOW factor," and "professional level," but none of those really describe either visually or emotionally what you want out of your own photos. What would a wow factor mean to you? What makes you say, "Wow," when you see others' photos? Is "Wow" enough for you? Remember, sometimes a wow is just an initial reaction, but fleeting. Do you care if something stays with you and even grows on you slowly and what would that be like? Whenever someone tells me they want to be "good" at something, I react by thinking, well that's just a start. Making a "good" photo simply often means making photos that look like other photos that you know to be good, but it doesn't really personalize it much. If you want to simply imitate what you already find "good," look carefully at the photos of people you think are good and do your best to study and mimic them. How rewarding would that be, though? Study the use of light, color, perspective, depth of field, notice textures, how they use the edge of the frame, how they use negative space and spatial relationships in their landscapes. Read up on how they did it, what processes they used. Look carefully at your own work and critique yourself, in as explicit terms as you can. Are your photos interesting in terms of their use of light. If not, how can you improve them? Which ones do you like because of their light? Could you have improved others by learning from the ones you think are better? What about your angles? Do you like predictable, straightforward angles or might you prefer off kilter, more strange angles? What kind of energy is your perspective providing? Are you getting low enough to the ground at times to give your foregrounds some energy and presence? Do you consider framing your landscapes at times through tree branches or with foreground tall grasses? Are you going out in all times of day and challenging yourself sometimes to work with very difficult light as opposed to light you find more easy? Importantly, is there a project you might consider that would inspire you? Something a little personal and maybe a little unique or different? Barren landscapes? Solo tree on a landscape? Landscape with old barn? Landscapes with crops and maybe even farmworkers worker on the land? Landscapes being watered? Rural churches on the land? Landscapes that show ecological degeneration? Landscapes in transition? Landscapes ruined by electrical plants? Landscapes that provide homes for particular animals? The best thing I can think of to improve your photography is to challenge yourself and be honest with yourself. I think you will also get much better advice if you get specific and personal about your work when communicating about what you think it's missing.

LOL. There is, indeed. And I’d love to take artistic credit for the surrealist touch, but I’ll instead tell you it was a careless error. Thanks for pointing it out!

I think the point of this thread is to post process the photo as we see fit. No mention is made of artistry. An "artistic rendering" would be up to each individual if that's what he or she chooses. Others might not want to be "artistic" at all, and that's ok, too. But that wasn't my point. As I said, had you told us you were going to show us your artistic interpretation, I doubt I would have responded. Instead, though, you chose to introduce your photo by saying this . . . Just because we're each interpreting the scene as we want doesn't mean we each have to suspend all matters of taste and criticism. If I think you overdid the processing, which I do, I won't be told by you that's not true. And, when I'm told in advance that my disagreeing with you is automatically untrue, and you post something processed in such a way as it destroys many of the original's finer details, I'll speak up. I've had my own work critiqued in this way, more so when I've talked about my work somewhat cluelessly, which I've also done. In the long run, it benefitted me because I was open to listening to all opinions, even when I felt I was being creative. My creativity has never been and never will be immune from criticism. If it was immune, it would be no fun at all. I don't want my stuff blindly accepted just because I think of myself as an artist.

Yes. But I'm not sure what your point is. That doesn't mean your renderings are near what the human eye or the camera saw. I'd say they're not. Look at the sky, for example, of your original. Sure, the camera may see the sky differently from the human eye. But the camera didn't magically create those red, lighter wisps of clouds in the upper right of the sky in the original against the more magenta background. Now look at your reworking, where those wisps of clouds have all but disappeared or at the very least look artificially smeared into the sky. Again, the redder color you've chosen may be closer to the color of the sky you saw, but your rendering of it has caused the texture of the sky to be greatly undermined and it is no longer showing either the sky as the human eye would have seen it on that day or as the camera saw it. If you were billing this as merely a creation of your imagination based on what you photographed that day, I'd accept it as such even if I didn't particularly care for it. But you've billed it as being more accurate (and that you know it's more accurate) because you were there than what the raw file showed, and I think that's not the case.

My dad's gone but not forgotten, and my favorite photo of him was taken with my digital camera, no film, and manual focus and exposure, as if any of that matters in the least. Here's to you, dad! dad, florida, july 2009

Also, JR, notice a third fairly important thing. In your original, and I imagine at the scene, there's a nice separation of the haze from the water in the thin strip of water in front of the mountain. Your reworking gets rid of that separation making it seem like all that could be seen was a fairly thick strip of haze. The delicacy of the haze above the stronger glare of the water in the original is quite visually nuanced. Look at all the other versions posted, and you'll notice that separation between stronger water and more atmospheric haze above it is preserved. I suspect that in saturating the reds, you lost that distinction which, to me, is a sign of photographic over-saturation. That doesn't mean the sky wasn't as red as what you're remembering. It just means that your method of rendering that red caused other unnatural occurrences in the photo.

JR, looking at your reworking of the photo, I’d question two things, both in terms of what the actual scene may have looked like and in terms of how the photo looks regardless of the actual scene. My guess would be that the quality of light, shadow, and atmosphere was more like your original than the reworked version, which opens up the shadows more than I suspect they were at the time and more than I think the mood of the photo itself might warrant. The other thing I notice is how similarly the quality and saturation of the red light on the road and the sand are in your reworking effort, which I don’t think would have been the case at the scene and I think would make for a better photo if the sand reflected that light and color more differently from the road.