andre_vuski

what are the hints of domination and abuse here?

thanks

andre

that's a good question. though, if she is this out of focus at f22, how blurred would she be at f8 or lower??

originality......yada yada yada. yes marshall i believe this tiresome debate will go on endlessly. which is too bad. if i were a teacher of photography (and i am most certainly not, i am a student) i wouldn't mind at all letting students dabbling in mimicry, in replicating and borrowing ideas-both in vision and in technique. there is much to be learned in doing so. to look at an image and wonder "how did they do that???" is a great feeling, and going out and trying to do it is even better. you can realize just how hard it is to replicate a shot. you can copy someone out of true intellectual curiousity just as much as you can out of artistic laziness. marshall, perhaps this is the line drawn when you say "up to a point".

can you mimic robert frank and his irony?? or dorothea lange and her dignity?? lewis hine in his humanity?? if you can, kudos to you!! how many of us have tried to capture "the decisive moment"??? paul simon was asked whether he believed in guitar students studying formal music theory as well as studying other guitarist and their style. his response was "absolutely!! why re-invent the wheel??"

i take this to mean that it is possible to take elements, learn from them what they have learned, and strive to make them your own.

andre

i think you have a respectful question, and i do trust that you can ask this question without taking away any credit and glory due to this great shot. does auto focus and exposure make this image easier to capture? probably, would be my guess. it does make me look at all the national geographic shots of lions, cheetahs (fill in sprinting animal here) that were taken twenty, thirty years ago with due credit. (and wonder how many rolls they took to get the just right moment)

but i would say that even with the right equipment, it's still pretty darn challenging to grab a shot like this. i mostly shoot with my F100 which, i believe, has the same AF tracking as the D1, as well as the same fps. even with this great camera, i have taken plenty of fast action shots of children, race cars, my dog, that are frankly worthless.

it has been said before this that even with a great camera (such as the D1) there is still the photographer behind the camera, and there is the rub. it can account for some technical proficiency, but there is much more to a great shot isn't there? creativity in composition, timing, intent, spontaneity, execution, even sense of humor; you cannot fake these things. (check out joshua's great folder)

people with equipment less than "the latest and greatest" have nothing to fear.

andre

lovely color and tone. purists will undoubtedly decry the ever so slight uneven horizon line. i only noticed it after staring at the shot for a while. but then again, you got me staring at the shot for a while...

andre

i believe two great questions STILL stand. i think it was nick who, what seems like eons ago, asked to some some effect (and morwen who succinctly broke it down) :

*when and why are we able to overlook technical deficiencies in an image?

i also wonder about tris' beef with the focus. when is lack of focus excusable? i don't know his work very well, but about Robert Frank?

and Tony's question (who should get extra credit, by the way, for excellent use of the word "cockamamey"):

*when is a candid a candid?

andre vuski

couple of observations:

-is it just me or are there alot of new voices, new posters this week?? if so, welcome to all. don't let the mean-spirited posts get to you. choose to ignore as you will, i do. (or enjoy as you will, some of the posts leave me rolling!)

*absolutely fascinating what this image is bringing up in people!

-feelings of manipulation from the man's sign

-whether this guy is "for real" or not.

-comments varying on how to care for the homeless

-whether it is appropriate to even take such images... "these people are not animals ina zoo!"

forgive me for playing OPRAH, but why is this image so volatile?? some seem unabashedly moved to compassion, while others are overtly repulsed. is it overly sentimental to some? is it purely the subject matter that is bringing out the diverse subjective experiences (naive or cynical, and everything in between) in each viewer?? or does this have anything to say about the quality of the image??

andre

I speak on behalf of my client, Andre Vuski, who has informed me that the allegation brought forth by Dennis are, indeed, true. The boy is indeed a puppet, has no mother, and yes, Tony Dummette is wearing a GAP tee that is causing uncontrollable flare. (apparantly, my client tried to convince him to wear the soft chartreuse one instead, but Tony compromised by NOT wearing the sequin top as he threatened. imagine the flare on that one!) Andre has asked me to convey to all offended families, real and imagined, a deep sense of regret, remorse, and repentance for betraying the trust of PHOTO.NET.

As Mr. Vuski's legal counsel, I have advised him to return the POW velvet jersey immediatly, and to never let Tony Dummette into his classroom ever again.

Johnny Cochran

i think i have commented at the very top, that yes i do wonder what the image would have been like with the girls's attention. it would have been very different indeed. but i think i am still partial to the girl being oblivious the the boy and more importantly, the boy being oblivious to the girl, or anything else for that matter save, THE LIGHT. (hence the name of the image, not to mention the under-exposure) i think it makes it the stronger image. i am also curious about the responses provoked on this issue. is it a commentary on men-women relationships (or prophecy?) as some have posted?

also: knowing these two particular children, the response would certainly NOT have been fond admiration, but vague bewilderment- "what ARE you doing?????". prophetic indeed!?!

as for the composition, i am not sure what good revealing the bottom half of the torso would do, central subject or no. to my eye, i actually like the space above him, as it gives him and the light ample room to play in, as well as putting the moment in context. also, i think conjurs the conductor in front of his orchestra image-bottom torso cut off. how many times have you seen that image? the arms and hands are key. as a mtter of a fact, if i had the chance to re-arrnage this shot, i would have shot either much lower, revealing even more light streaming down from the window (still with his torso cut off), or i would have stood on a chair to shoot down (my children would have quickly frowned on this..."chairs are NOT for standing on..."), to show more of the classroom, again just with the top his body.

yes, we have heard much about the flare........

as for the amount of ballyhoo over the image, if you subtract all the tomfoolery (sp?), i think you'll find just as many posters more than willing to offer their suggestion on how to make the image stronger.

the children are calling. thanks.

andre

tony-that makes me think....

did anyone else have the writing teacher that said, "there is no such thing as good writing, only good re-writing", or "practice makes better, not perfect"?? does this still apply do you think??? are you ever done with an image?? i hear of writers who toil over the question of when to leave a work for what it is, or when to keep working.

if any or all of this is true, than all the more critiques the better for the photographer, and all the better for the community of learning.

i think i can honestly say that none of the critiques (so far) have been unhelpful, or in any way rude. i can even agree to the glaring problems (literally) as well as the comment on the grain and the fade to black borders (congrats bill hocker, i wonder who would be first to mention it). although i respectfully disagree about the cropping issue-i like it just the way it is-thanks!, and the distance between the girl and boy-they seem fine to me anyway.

it is still a pleasure to hear what people think, or better yet if there was some connection or inpspiration. (i doubt though mary, that some posters, who again shall remain un-named, need little inspiration or prodding for their shinanigans. namely tony, bill and dennis. good grief...when i gave this image to the parents of the little boy, she was in near tears. i don't think i will refer her to the post with the angels, or the one with the choir!!!)

any more posts? let the rockets red blare...

andre

you guys are absolutely shameless...

;|

mary, clearly this is what you were talking about when you said endless number of interpretations???? no wonder then that "illumination" was glossed over for this one!!

i'll take POW roasts over snide bickering any day of the week and twice on sunday.

andre

kelly, thanks for your post. all party poopers welcome.

i can only agree with you when you say that it is near impossible for anyone to keep their nostalgia about childhood from coloring their work. (i would say simply impossible) but i am not sure i would conclude that the end result always be kodak moment, hallmark card, anne getty, or sentimentality ruling the day. (people i am sure make a hard earned living with this, so let me apologize now for any offense) shots like these are easy, cheesy, and FOR ME, often times, shameless and just unsatisfying. but lord nows i have taken them. for these are the cliches, the nostalgia that i am sure you speak of. and they are easy to take. when some parents ask for me for work, that is precisely what they are after, and when i am feeling lazy, it is a very sleepy default to snap smiles, and giggles, and all things fuzzy. hell, it even makes me feel fuzzy sometimes!!

but working with children (which doesn't make anyone an expert) i know that it is much more complex than that-as any subject becomes more complex the more you look at it. the shots that i love to give to parents are the moments that they would really have absolutely no chance of ever seeing anywhere else. moments. revelations. connections. these, i think are much harder to take.

i would also raise the question kelly, (and this to me seems a frequent land mine of-a-topic when it comes to photographing children) when is it ever possible for anyone to not color their work with their own biases and experiences about anything??

thanks again.

andre

by the way, graham was right about the flare off of the boys head. it comes from a table right behind him. i don't mind this so much as the flare to the right.

funny that tony should bring up the discussion of how an image is realised, and if and how it suceeds in it's realization...

when i first posted this shot, someone asked me the story behind the story. it is at the beginning of this thread, but i should tell it again anyway.

i was, as a matter of a fact, busy shooting "illumination" - a shot i had dreamed of, and when i came to school and saw the incredible light coming down from the windows, i knew this was the day and that i would be ready. i took nearly the entire roll of this girl (she is working on a plant diagram) with about three shots left when this boy crossed my view. i looked up and he started playing with the light coming down from the windows. my first impression was not so much of a child conducting an orchestra, but of a child messiah calling forth light. i didn't have time to burst out laughing, but quickly recomposed and finished the roll.

in the six years i had been at this school, i confess that i would never have imagined this image. as they say, it just happened. i was simply glad that i had the eyes to see the moment happening and that i took it. is it flawed in it's composition? probably so, as most have mentioned.

all of this to say: i hold "illumination" as a shot that i am proud to say i thought about, planned for, and executed. what should i say is "light" then? a candid moment? merely a "snapshot" as some would derogatively say? i am not sure, but i like them both equally for very different reasons, although they were taken seconds apart. illumination isn't perfect either as some have duly noted, although in my heart of hearts, i do wish they would have chosen that one instead. simply because it was the premeditated shot. the girl stands illuminated as she focuses on her work, illuminated nearly as much as from her table than from the light coming down. and then there is the boy. the boy who is SUPPOSED to be WORKING, but is goofing off and entirely mesmerized by the beams of light coming down.

the two images were two different challenges that i suspect haunt all photographers: a decisive moment captured, or an image shrewdly executed? i suppose it is the masters that can confuse the two.

just curious, which would you guys rather have?

now look. it is only monday, and i have already used up my fifteen minutes of fame. thanks for the patience. keep posting, and be constructively critical, i can take it...i think.

andre

even as i speak, i hear the children screaming in the classroom, so i cannot respond to all right now. (which sometimes makes me think, where do people get the time to keep current on the POW posts, much less respond to, much less mean what they write????? it seems like a full time job...i mean does anyone work????:)

seriously though....

thanks for ALL the comments. secondly, blessing and curses on the elves for choosing this one....

i am the first to admit that this is technically quite an imperfect image. tris, i believe this is your "work in progress" idea that people shot down last week. a very raw image.

yes, the flaring at the bottom is "visually distracting" and would be easily "fixed" in the darkroom and/or PS. yes, i believe as some have written that "visual distraction" is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from "emotional, and/or pyschological disconnection" that this image relies on.

tris and tony: i too am weary of labels such as "mysterious, or mystical, magical" being overly appplied to images (especially for the light flare in this instance). it is often too lazy a description for something that needs to be explained (at least tried to be explained anyway...) in order for it to be really mysterious.

back to the image: there is no dodge or burn in this image. unsharpen mask and a trick of feathering on the edges that my wife showed me is about it on this image. i am quite ignorant in PS. my graphic designer of a wife mocks me mercilessly for my willful ignorance in PS. so i guess i am not a "photoshop" kind of guy.

thanks. and keep posting. much more later

andre

i agree that this image has little emotional value (for me anyway), and one might be looking in vain for some emotional connection, some story of humanity as it were. perhaps this is the real "blood, sweat and tears" that some are after (for me anyway). "mysterious" only gets me so far, but not enough to be truly provocative. is there a difference??

then why don't i mind looking at it so much?? i agree with tris that this shot works for many different reasons. and the focus seems fine with me too. this image is in the "eye candy" category for me. just a pleasure to look at. and i think that is just fine.

but eye candy is just that, eye candy. all sweet and no substance. beautiful to be sure, but no meat (sorry vegans). no story, no complexity, no humanity, no emotional core. i think this was the inexplicable "beauty" of last week pic. and i think i agree. can i do that??

grant it, some would say capturing all these intangibles are easier in a "documentary, 35mm lens" shot than a head and shoulders portrait. (i would say so) but then what to do with dorothea lange and her portraits that have become icons precisely because they connect humanity, blood sweat and tears. all in a mothers face. her face is a novel, a sermon in itself. and this too is a picture that i can and have looked and looked and looked at. but she is no eye candy.

like mr. schuler, i have no beef (sorry vegans) with commercial art, and i agree that it hurts no one to "be kind to strangers on the street". (actually i imagine that it only serves everyone to do so)

but if i had a critique in this analogy, it would be that a great picture is the stranger on the street that grabs you by the shirt collar and screams "LISTEN TO ME AND CONNECT". a great picture is the stranger no more. many have suggested that they want to see more of this man's face, and i wonder too if his face, or even his profile reveals more. more that i would have connected with anyway.

alen

although i mostly shoot with triX, i am also a big fan of neopan. great looking grain. i was wondering if you or anyone has had much success with the faster rated films (ilfords 1600 i think, and tmax 3200)

what is the difference in results of using these faster films versus pushing neopan or triX to 1600 or 3200??

andre

tris schuler as poster child for free speech??? gimme a break. believe me, i am all for free speech, and down on censorship as much as anyone.

tris has written some great feed back and expressed more than valid opinion. but they are nearly always lost, and at times seemingly beg to be lost in his other comments that are at best argumentative, and at worst, patronizing and belittling to other members. whether in valid self-defense or not, they contribute nothing to the discussion, and if anything, force us away from the topic at hand.

i am told that photo.net reserves the right to pull any image that they deem inappropriate or offensive i.e pornography etc... with some of the garbage of this last week, i support any decision by the moderators to keep this site civil and free from any "abusive" posts by tris OR ANYONE ELSE. new photo.netters need to know that this forum is about photography and it's discussion. if this spirit of civil discourse is not in some way protected, then, as many have rightly prophesied, there will be no "new photo.netters". you don't need to work with fifty pre-school children as i do to know the "if you can't play kindly, then please leave..." rule. for if we behave as children, we should be treated as such. if being pulled from the site is too harsh, being put on forum probation is surely justifiable to get the forum back on track. it can only serve the forum to remove people who have repeatedly shown that they have no real interest in participating in the real discussion. talk photography or leave.

so digressing back to the POW...

i too, don't mind that there is no detail in the woman's dress. it makes her look "monolithic", a surrealistic look that seems to go with the smokey atmosphere. there was a post a while back from someone "in the biz" that said a good concert pic needs the singer to have eye contact. is this true? and that the musicians need to be interacting with each other, is this a hard and fast rule??

i like this photo. (so does my wife) i think it would be much stronger with more depth of field. more specifically, if you could make out the fence (barbwire??) in the back. the info would add to the picture alot. as it stands i think the composition and color are nice. the boy looks back; to what or whom we don't know. it's a good question that doesn't get answered. nice job

andre

i agree. more separation would have been stronger. and i wonder what it would have been like with girl looking at him. would it have been humorous?? ("what ARE you doing?????"). no this was not staged. i was actually shooting a girl working at a nearby table when his boy crossed my view. when i looked up to curse his rudeness, he literally started playing with the beam of light shining down from the upper windows. i quickly squeezed off about three shots. this was the strongest of them. thanks for the input.

andre

just wondering how people respond to the tone. is the animal too

ominous looking for the peaceful child sleeping in the background??

any tech. critique is helpful too. thanks

as a photographer who loves to photograph children, i would love to talk more about this "golden rule" of never shooting down on children. i can recall a dozen places i have read that shots of children are most effective on their level. there are times i love to be level when shooting children as it gives me, the viewer, a sense of their world; a world that i have to "look up" to see. this idea is not rocket science or biblical, it simply makes me see in a very different way to connect with children (how they would see).

as a photographer who is also a teacher, however, there are plenty of moments that i want to grab that have nothing to do with how the child sees the world. there are images i want to get that are all about how i am seeing the child. thus, the idea of me shooting down is entirely appropriate (in my view...literally) i think it is entirely possible (and usually probable) to connect with an image because the image is seeing an event, or a BABY in the same way that we would.

i personally love this image. if anything, it is the perspective that makes me curious. the look on his face makes me think of hundreds of children i have seen who are damn cute and sure as hell know it. this would have been a very different image at low level. better or worse? who is to say? in any case, this "rule" is a loose one at best, and definitly not golden in my book. and yes, working with children, i see them "squat" all the time. when i asked one child why he was sitting like that, his response was: "to be like the dogs."

great shot.

andre