I'm new to photo.net -- with luck, my second photo is now public. Your feedback...?

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=605424

-- Gulley Jimson (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002

Answers

Gulley, it's a well executed, thought provoking shot - as a small criticism I think that the gentleman's hands should be included and why shoot at 1/30 F8? It would almost certainly be sharper at 1/60 F5.6 or even 1/125 at F4 - this would help isolate the two girls even more.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), March 01, 2002.

Hi, Gulley:

First thing, I'll put your photo here for a faster reference.

Next, the comments: I think that THE value of your photo is documental more than aesthetic / technical. And IMHO it certainly is a valuable image on that respect.

Thanks for sharing. Keep posting, please.

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 01, 2002.

Ivan: Thanks for making me clickable. I'll try to figure it out myself in a few days.

-- Gulley (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.

This is a disturbing image but commands a look. All too many areas in the world have land-mine victims but this is especially difficult when children are involved. Most Americans only looked at these images with interest until 09/11, now we all can see what war brings forth. Thanks for sharing.

-- Don (maldos@cox.net), March 01, 2002.

Gulley, I disagree with Ivan. technically, I agree, the image is a little under exposed, and I would have made few attempts in the composition and choose the best, but maybe the situation did not allow for that. however, "artistically speaking" I think that the image is both very interesting and also very updated. you represent you subjects not in a way that invites to pitty for them, or to be disturbed by them. the girls have much more in their spectrum of emotions and their facial expressions than what their unfortunate condition put them into. they even don't lose a touch of sensuality. I think photography, in simillar ways, in the recent years has expanded the human community, in the sense that the subjects are represented in ways that contains much more of their humanity than what a mere documentary context invites. notice photographers like Hellen van Meane, and sometimes even Ellen Mark.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 01, 2002.

I agree with the folks above--there is a great story here, and obviously you had access to it, but you might have posted a more dynamic shot. Are there others on the roll? Not being able to see the faces well means that all we can appreciate as viewers is the "information" of the scene, not its emotional--or human--impact.

Maybe there's a frame on the roll seems less compositionally worthy to you, but it might also be more interesting. I would rather see a ragged, "poorly" composed picture full of human import than one shot "by the book." Humanity is messy; good pictures can be messy too.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 01, 2002.

I think it's beautiful. Very understated. Moving. The composition leads the eye around gently to the little girl's leg. In isolation - just makes me curious as to the rest of the story.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 01, 2002.

Rami:

This is somewhat funny. You seem to agree with me much more than first stated: IMHO most of your comments refer to documentary content more than to aesthetical or technical contents.

And I do agree with you to a large extent: the strongest technical point in Gulley's photo is composition. It really helps to convey the important matter to the observer's attention. I showed it to somebody else here at the office and his facial response made me notice very clearly that Gulley's photo is a very successful one indeed.

Regards !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 01, 2002.

Another great shot. I would've liked to see a second shot taken from the girl's perspective in comparison. Shot from slightly behind the girl, placing the viewer in her shoes so I could feel her emotions looking down at her missing leg Another perspective from above looking down would've also done well. I am glad you didn't do the NG technique of 20mm in your face with distortion everywhere. The 35mm perspective feels natural and real. Well done again.

PS. I would've preferred to shoot it at f/2-f/4 to exphasize the main subject while relating it to the others.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 02, 2002.

Ivan, I thought I disagree with you about one thing. (so I might agree with you more than it seems first). you stated "THE value of your photo is documental more than aesthetic / technical" so refering to the 'aesthetical', rather than to the 'technical' I though you meant that it belongs to documentary photography rather than to 'artistic' photography. I don't think there is a genuine contrast between the two unless someone means that a picture simply depicts an event or a situation in a way we sometimes do when we publish a news picture in a dayly paper. I might have misunderstood you here. hoever my impression from the picture was that it took a very "documentary" subject or situation and made a very human picture. I think the picture is about the girls and not about their legs. In looking at the picture I did not find myself disturbed by their legs in the way I many times find myself disturbed by such sights, and I think that is a remarkable achievemnt. I used your distinction in order to make thins point. I hope I did not misrepresent it.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 02, 2002.

Ivan, my apologies that I don't know how to add this little thing on top of the 'a' of your name. I feel uncomfortable to interact with someone and to use his name not the way he uses it himself. (that is what happens to my wife, which is from Russia, since we got to US, her name is Liza, and everybody call her Lisa...)

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 02, 2002.

Gulley:

I like the basic premise of the picture. It focuses attention nicely on the injured girls and the physical therapy, and (except for some technical issues) starts to have a real Magnum feel to it.

I have the following suggestions:

In shooting: The only sharp place in the picture is the highlight on the red pad just above the man's hands. I'd rather see one of the girls' faces sharp (probably the one at right, since she's the focus of the activity) and let the other stuff go soft around that. You don't have enough depth of field even at f/8 to get everything sharp, so I'd agree that you should just shoot at f/2-2.8 and put the focus, literally and conceptually, in one place. In passing it would also blur the background more.

You might have considered reframing downward slightly, cropping just above, or possibly even slightly into, the head of the girl in back, again to focus attention on the girl being treated and that center of action. You'd have gotten in more of the rubbing hands, and also lost the flare in the therapist's hair.

You could also have moved slightly left to look more directly into the smaller girl's face and hide the background person at right, but I like the three-way relationship and wouldn't want to lose the back girl's shoulder in the therapist's profile, so probably this is about the best viewpoint after all.

In printing/processing/scanning:

1. burn down the blue flare above the man's head.

2. Dodge the girls' faces to make them lighter, more prominent, and easier to read.

3. Burn the corners slightly darker to keep attention on the activity in the middle and emphasize the linked circle formed by the heads, hands and leg.

4. Bump the contrast up a notch - the midtones feel a bit dull and flat.

I downloaded a copy to experiment with - but don't want to post sample changes to YOUR picture without your approval.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 02, 2002.

Rami:

Interesting exchange of opinions. And I think we have something in common: we both appreciate what Gulley brought here for us though our verbalization of what we think/feel could legitimately differ. And it is a very human photo indeed, I feel/think too. In fact, aside from what Gulley (who is the only one who really knows . . .) could explain for us, this photo for me is not about the girls themselves nor about their unfortunate state either but rather about compasion. That is what I read from the man's hands. Though my friend at the office read cruelty at first sight.

Interesting situation: once you publish your photo you lose command upon its meaning and different viewers will most probably understand different concepts from the same image. Even opposed ones like compasion and cruelty . . . but still different ends of the same thread, I think.

And Rami, I appreciate your concern about the orthography of my name. It says a lot about you but you don't need to be concerned: I know that in order to type it with the "á" (in Spanish it only means that that is the vowel where you stress the pronounciation of the word; without it you would pronounce it the way English speaking people do: stressing the "I", instead), you need to reconfigure your keyboard and I'd hardly expect anybody to go so far trying not to disturb somebody, less so about myself. But I thank you for it all the same.

Best regards

-Ivan

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 03, 2002.

"Gulley" gave permission, so here are how his picture looks with some processing 'revisions':

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 11, 2002.