Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Chris Calohan on October 03, 2016, 04:09:26 pm
-
If anyone else has a better title, I'm all ears.
-
Since there are no replies, what is it you don't like about the image? Non responses are worse than negative ones. At least from a negative comment one can strive to do better the next time around.
-
Perhaps you can help us out. What do you find interesting about this photograph? What was your intent?
-
To me, it's a double image. The shadow of mother and child reflects a kind of guidance as in the shadows her hand appears on his shoulder. As it stands without the other implied possibility, there is still a sense of freedom though not too much. And, i think the processing helps to show both images.
-
I guess that there's just a feeling of no-no about shooting kids nowadays.
That doesn't imply anything, just a measure of current societal thought.
-
I think the title fits, Chris. Personally, I don't see it as exploitive, but then I am usually politically incorrect ;)
-
I think the title fits, Chris. Personally, I don't see it as exploitive, but then I am usually politically incorrect ;)
+1.
-
+1
I would add that I like it, the shadows sort of improve the image.
Best regards
Erik
I think the title fits, Chris. Personally, I don't see it as exploitive, but then I am usually politically incorrect ;)
-
I think the shadows are essential!
And in case I came over as some sort of guardian of PC elsewhere, I have no problem with this at all. It's true though that some people get ultra protective of their kids now.
-
Since the shadows seemed to be an important part of your intent,
1. You have cut off the woman's head in the shadow. If the shadows are an important part of the composition, I feel they should be treated as if the shadow was the person -- don't cut off limbs.
2. In PP would it be possible to darken the shadows of the two people? This would make the shadows more prevalent in the composition. The eye is drawn to the extremes of tones in a photograph. First to what is brightest and then to what is darkest. Because you had to work with the light you had, the shadows are rendered rather light. Perhaps darkening the shadows might help? Especially since the shadows are in "competition" with the tonal differences of the sand patterns.
3. Just the opposite with the shadow on the left. Would it be possible to lighten up that shadow? In my opinion, this left shadow is not dark enough to serve as a frame, but is dark enough to distract my eye. Since this shadow does not lead my eye to anything you want it to be directed, do you think lighting or even cropping that left shadow would help in your composition.
It would be interesting to see this shot in colour.
-
don't cut off limbs.
Rules suck.
-
...in case I came over as some sort of guardian of PC...
You did not
-
Rules suck.
The original sculpture did not cut off the arms, they were later destroyed.
-
You did not
No, he didn't. Personally, I detest PC and all the sadness for which it provides compensation. However, ragarding kids: I would love to snap those street kids that were open day for all those guys in Paris as well as for some in London and even Glasgow. BUT, the problem lies with this damned thing about paedophiles and their horrible abuses. So, the most innocent photography of brats leaves people open to challenge, and it's easier to 'prove' guilt than innocence. And then there's the public notion about smoke without fire, and in these cases, even the smoke is often imaginary. But the harm gets done anyway. My reaction: avoid at all costs.
-
avoid at all costs.
Rob, I fully understand, both sides of that viewpoint. But the other part of me, the artist, responds, "At what cost?"
Pedophillic photographers lurking around a playground seems one thing, obviously sinister, but once the shot is taken, can it not be appreciated innocently? Not necessarily by the same photographer ;) This is the sin of PC. Perhaps the PC Police (not anybody in this thread) should visit all the great museums of the world and be sure to cut out all the cherubim! The assumption every photographer or painter of nudes is a pervert or that images of children derive from pedophiles would lead to our being deprived of some of the greatest art the world has ever seen. And let's not forget the perversions of madonna and child! To me, Chris' image has such a quality, one of tenderness, peacefulness, and watchfulness; it's a beautiful thing.
Sorry for the rant, which was brought on by frustration with our f'd up PC culture and certainly not by any of the views posted herein. Where did my meds go? ;) ;)
-
So, the most innocent photography of brats leaves people open to challenge, and it's easier to 'prove' guilt than innocence.
Nobody has to prove guilt, Rob. If you're suspected, you're guilty. You now have to prove innocence.
Here's one from sixteen years ago, when things weren't quite so screwed up. Just a kid coming down the sidewalk with a balloon, shot with a Casio QV-3000EX. Nowadays, if you made this shot and somebody saw you making it, you'd be strung up on the nearest tree.
-
A bunch of years ago, my wife was visiting her family back in Germany. It was the year of the terrible heatwave. People were literally dying from the heat. While hanging out in a garden/park, there some toddlers playing in a sprinkler/fountain. And they were Neked!!! O the horrors! Evidently, in Germany this is not an issue (nor should it be an issue). These are toddlers playing in a sprinkler. In the process of her trip, my wife took a lot of pictures, including some of the park.
When she got back in the US, she was legitimately concerned with what should she do with the films? If she sent it to a lab, and they saw photographs of "neked kids", would they call the cops on my wife? Should she even take the chance? I think she still has the undeveloped rolls somewhere. Sad state of being.
As a US society, we are still rather puritanical about some things. It is part of our culture.
-
A bunch of years ago, my wife was visiting her family back in Germany. It was the year of the terrible heatwave. People were literally dying from the heat. While hanging out in a garden/park, there some toddlers playing in a sprinkler/fountain. And they were Neked!!! O the horrors! Evidently, in Germany this is not an issue (nor should it be an issue). These are toddlers playing in a sprinkler. In the process of her trip, my wife took a lot of pictures, including some of the park.
When she got back in the US, she was legitimately concerned with what should she do with the films? If she sent it to a lab, and they saw photographs of "neked kids", would they call the cops on my wife? Should she even take the chance? I think she still has the undeveloped rolls somewhere. Sad state of being.
As a US society, we are still rather puritanical about some things. It is part of our culture.
It's got nothing to do with being puritanical, it's got absolutely everything to do with exploitation of children, real or imaginary. I am absolutely not implying anything untoward about your wife's motivation, so don't go down that one! What I do say is this: were those kids mine, I would be less than thrilled at a stranger photographing them, "neked" or fully-clad. They are mine, not yours; reserve your photography of kids to your own!
And here's why: was a time when nobody had heard of child-molesters; as with homosexuality, it was something that never crossed one's path, and held to be a bit of an urban myth. Suddenly, at least in my neck of the woods, the 60s came along and something that could once have had you arrested became not just accepted, but a case of protected and, possibly, special rights!
Personally, as long as they do not impinge on my life or that of any minor, I have zero interest in the sexual inclinations of others; my fear, when we consider the kids, is that some day even that will become accepted as a form of norm. It has been before, and in some societies always has been - so take care the freedoms one screams in the streets to bring about.
As I said earler, nothing to do with your wife's snaps, so don't take it that way.
I have also remarked more than once that I regret the changes in public mores that brough this about; lots of my favourite photographers (I have many!) made beautiful pictures of street kids running around and playing, totally involved in their little worlds of the imagination. They are natural actors during that age of innocence, and offer expressions and drama that they will never be able to offer as genuinely again in their lives - great stuff for photographers to catch if they can. But, the audience has changed, fresh exploitative markets have boomed and a whole network of monsters awaits out there, plotting horrors for which they should be hanged, drawn and quartered. In essence, we have allowed so many other things to become accepted behaviour (drunken Friday nights on streets, dealers doing their trade...) that as a result, even innocent actions have had to be curtailed in order to prevent the acts of the few taking hold of the popular imagination and exploding.
Some balancing act, freedom and the negative exploitation of it. It can't be done: hence, the constant state of flux of our own societal mores. Maybe it will never achieve a divine equilibrium, just drift from extreme to extreme for as long as our species survives.
Rob
-
Some balancing act, freedom and the negative exploitation of it. It can't be done: hence, the constant state of flux of our own societal mores. Maybe it will never achieve a divine equilibrium, just drift from extreme to extreme for as long as our species survives.
Wisdom
-
Right, David. And right, Rob. I don't think the plan is for humans to have a nice comfortable ride.
-
If you take offense at someone photographing your naked child, then why parade them on a public beach? There is no sense to that. Perhaps, I did overstep a social boundary but I did so with her (as I see it) implied permission. She put him out there for the whole world to see and I saw and I made the shot. There is absolutely no inference of pornography or stalking or anything on my part. I was simply reacting to her invitation.
Think of the number of people today with cell phones who take pictures of anything and everything without regard to any social mores. In today's society it is far more that we go with a new adage of "if you don't want your public space to be everybody's public place, do it behind closed doors." Building cameras, dash cameras, drones, you name it they're all out there and they are often recording you without any forethought to your sense of privacy. I did not invade anyone's privacy, I only recorded their public actions on a public beach.
Oh, and I sent it to my attorney prior to posting it on this forum and she said no problem. I can be a silly boy on occasion, but mama Calohan raised no stupid children.
-
Perhaps some people feel there is a difference between being able to see something with the human eye and making a permanent record with it using a camera?
Photographers seem to presume that if someone is OK with being seen, they are automatically OK with being photographed. I don't think they should be considered the same.
-
Perhaps some people feel there is a difference between being able to see something with the human eye and making a permanent record with it using a camera?
Photographers seem to presume that if someone is OK with being seen, they are automatically OK with being photographed. I don't think they should be considered the same.
Interesting point.
My view is that they should be considered the same. If you are in public, you are a fair game (in most cases at least).
But I see your point and would like that you or someone else who shares your view elaborate it a bit further. Why? What's the difference? Genuine questions, not trolling.
-
That's easy, Slobodan: what happens on a beach, as in this ma/kid situation, should that be the relationship, is suited to the location; making a snap and putting it out to the world is hardly the same thing. If I felt the shot had to be run under the nose of a legal eagle, then that would tell me enough not to bother posting it or, better, making the shot.
As I've written before, there are some areas of photography best left undone, and anything to do with kids is, for me, very much one of those to leave well alone. Like most Dad's with a photography obsession, I have photographs of my daughter's first bath etc. etc. which was a normal thing to do within familes in those gentler years. But, I wouldn't dream of posting them in public. No way.
As I also wrote before, I do not cast any aspersions as to photographer motivation in this case, just that I think the concept is a mistake in this day and age. I wish it were not so, but the prevalance of lunatics out there makes it essential to guard our young in every way.
-
My own approach to this is to stay away from posting or displaying anything that could be used as creep fodder. I do think PC behavior often goes over the top, but OTOH it often begins as a reaction to something genuinely concerning. That our reactions are poorly calibrated to the level of the "offense" is just a consequence of us being largely emotion-led creatures.
PC is nothing new. Consider Victorian England. Or Prohibition-era America. In both cases lots of shorts in lots of knots…but over somewhat different aspects of human behavior then than now. In the future it'll be something else yet again.
I like Chris' photo but agree with the comment that it would work better with full-length shadows.
-Dave-
-
PC is nothing new. Consider Victorian England. Or Prohibition-era America. In both cases lots of shorts in lots of knots…but over somewhat different aspects of human behavior then than now. In the future it'll be something else yet again.
The whole thing cycles back and forth. Before you consider Victorian England, consider Elizabethan England. The crap is building at such a rate in the US at the moment that if we can avoid being brought down in a nuclear war eventually people will start rebelling against what's going on and things will start swinging back the other way. Looks to me, from 86 years on, as if things already are headed that way.
-
As a US society, we are still rather puritanical about some things. It is part of our culture.
No it isn't (think playboy, playgirl, hustler, etc., etc.), it is oversensitivity to normal human behavior due to ...
Now that's the issue, why the oversensitivity/hierocracy???
I'm not advocating loose moral, but e.g. criminalizing all parents from taking pictures of their children, get real.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No it isn't (think playboy, playgirl, hustler, etc., etc.), it is oversensitivity to normal human behavior due to ...
Now that's the issue, why the oversensitivity/hierocracy???
I'm not advocating loose moral, but e.g. criminalizing all parents from taking pictures of their children, get real.
Cheers,
Bart
Where is that happening? If it's true, it will be the end of camera sales!
;-)
Rob
-
Interesting point.
My view is that they should be considered the same. If you are in public, you are a fair game (in most cases at least).
But I see your point and would like that you or someone else who shares your view elaborate it a bit further. Why? What's the difference? Genuine questions, not trolling.
I don't want to divert/hijack this thread away from its original subject. I have taken the liberty of starting a new thread for this discussing the issue I brought up.
My new thread is "Is seeing someone in public the same as photographing a person in public?"
-
Hi, since you asked specifically for critiques, I'll give mine, fwiw. I like the subjects and processing, very well done. I don't like the camera angle and only seeing their backs. To me, with the shadows, rather than evoking a watchful eye, it feels rather oppressive, as if the camera is from bird of prey's point-of-view.
I'm avoiding all the issues of taking photos of someone else's naked child and just sticking to what I like/don't like about the photo.
Sharon