I don’t know much about artistic sensibilities like composition. Whether you’ve been trained as an artist or not, what works about it or doesn’t, in your opinion?
It’s a little grainy. There are interesting contrasts: dark hair/blonde hair, young/old, face hidden/revealed.
The incredibly shallow portion of my soul was trying to figure out if the woman was a blending of Paris Hilton and Angelina Jolie. But the graininess of the photo was distracting.
What’s the point? It looks like Paris Hilton doing some fucked up photo op.
And it’s grainy as all get out.
Is this your photo? I don’t really know what you were trying to achieve with it–is it for artistic reasons or personal? I guess the photo’s shapes and colors are composed fairly well, but to be honest, it doesn’t really speak to me. The subjects being a black child and white woman doesn’t really elicit any type of response for me, but I’m not sure that was an intention of this photo? Also, the “Madonna and child” motif has really been overdone in art, if you ask me.
Please don’t take my criticisms personally, but I didn’t like the oversized jean jacket on the baby, which completely concealed her face, or the way it looked like the woman was afraid to touch the fabric with her thumb. Also, by the way the photo was framed, it looks like the woman could be completely naked. Why then is the baby almost completely obscured by clothing? Personally, I didn’t care for the woman’s headband (halo?) either. I think that if those elements were fixed, the photo would be more visually pleasing. But perhaps then it would lose some statement you were trying to make?
So?
It gives me the compulsion to buy a Benetton sweater.
Thanks for the responses. I put the image out there without any explanation for round 1 to see if it provoked any reaction on purely artistic merit (of which I don’t know the rules).
Round 2: Here’s the story. A bunch of us were volunteering yesterday at a shelter for battered women and their children. We had fun things for the kids to do, like coloring Easter eggs and later, an Easter egg hunt. Candy? LOTS of it.
The woman in the photo is one of the volunteers and a little baby she became quite attached to. We aren’t allowed to show the faces of anyone at the shelter, hence you can’t see the baby’s. Also if I pulled back to wide angle, I might get others in it, but I really wanted a tight shot anyway.
She didn’t know I was taking her picture at the time (it isn’t posed). I was at about the zoom’s telephoto limit, trying to catch her as she walked with the child. I wanted an unguarded moment, which I think usually makes for the best pictures.
Grainy…yes and unintentionally so. I still haven’t figured out the sweet spot of settings to eliminate that (it’s a 4Mb capture). But the instant gratification of it is cool—no film to buy, develop, etc., and you can edit with photoshop or other programs and post your images.
Anyway I posted it because I got some compliments on it and wondered if that’s mainly because we know the woman and remember having fun with the kids there etc. or if there’s a more universal appeal. What do you think?
Not universal appeal, but then most photographs don’t. Enjoy it for what it means to you.
I really like it. I am not a photographer or artist or anything, but I am a mother, and that reminds me of some of the best quiet trusting moments with my kids. It appeals to me emotionally, more than I can articulate any of the “arty” terms around it. It feels warm and safe and captures those rare moments when I’m really totally “with” my daughter and in the moment, and the rest of the world can take care of itself for a few minutes, because we’re completely devoted to experiencing each other right now.
It does speak to me, and what it says is ‘Contrived, phony, designing and tawdry’.
IANA photographer, but I think the angle of this image detracts from its emotional impact. The baby’s jacket is too dominant - it takes up a big chunk of the image and provides the only real color (ergo, “Benneton ad”) - and the woman looking down and away from both the camera and the child makes her seem detached, like she’s posing. Also the graniness doesn’t help. Something that shows true connection between the two subjects in the shot is needed, I think.
It’s just kind of strange that it is a truely candid shot like you said but on first viewing it looks posed or contrived. And because it looks posed (which it wasn’t like you said) you wonder why the woman is wearing something without sleeves or shoulders depicting it’s a warm or hot summer day and then the kid is wearing a jean jacket like it’s a cool fall or spring day.
MaceMan: Thanks for your reply. I’m not one who asks “What do you think?” then gets pissed if ppl don’t say nice things. Au contraire: how can someone expect to learn if they don’t welcome all comments?
The black/white thing wasn’t intentional. She just had connected with that child, but visually it does create a contrast that I like. “Women love babies” would be my message. Exceptions to that sure, but, going a step further, “Women love babies, whether the child is theirs or not or the same color as they are or anything else.” Not saying this achieves that, but that would have been the goal.
I don’t know why the jean jacket is oversized…maybe or it was a hand-me-down. I kind of like it though.
She wasn’t nude ( :mad: ). Maybe I should ask if she wants to take some “artistic” photos one day? 
I think that clothed/unclothed? thing is a red herring that detracts from the overall.
Staggerlee: I didn’t notice she was wearing that thing in her hair till I looked at the pictures when I got home. Funny! She is quite a fashion plate.
WhyNot: Your reply pretty well sums up what I get from the picture. Again, I can’t be objective because I was there, I know the woman, etc., hence the post. The best aspect of the photo, for me, is the extreme zoom: the rest of the world ceases to exist, as you say. The top of her head is cut off but that doesn’t bother me. Really good art (not saying this is) should, first and foremost, have an emotional impact.
I like the photo and when I say that, I fully accept that if you gave a chimp my camera he might get better pictures than I did. I was in documentary mode. I chose to press the shutter at that moment and that’s what I got. Viewing it on the camera’s 2.5" LCD I liked it. Magnified, I liked it more.
Overall, on the subject of art, I would say I “understand” music and always have responded to it. Likewise, literature is something I’ve always been able to access. Paintings and photographs…not so much. But just as there are certain combinations of chords that are pleasing, there must be certain elements of art that can be harnessed toward a goal. The only one I can cite…the golden thirds thing, and this has none of that as far as I can tell.
fisha says, this doesn’t have universal appeal. I’m not disagreeing; I wouldn’t know, exactly. The Mona Lisa does nothing for me, for instance, but I’ve seen it called the greatest painting ever, so I assume there’s major universality in it. I saw it in the Louvre and…nope, not in my universe 
It worked for WhyNot, but not for others. How universal is universal enough?
OTOH there are probably things I like (Van Gogh’s Starry Night) that others don’t. I like some of Escher’s impossible figures but I asked an art teacher and her opinion was, “I don’t care for it. It’s technically good, but it doesn’t provoke any emotion.” I agree: it’s a neat technical exercise and I appreciate it cerebrally but I don’t bring much away from it emotionally.
The old LIFE magazine sure had some cool photos in it.
Dali Atomicus
http://colsteanne.ifrance.com/sondage/site_psp/images/halsman-philippe-dali-atomicus-7200017.jpg
It helps if you know some backstory, about how eccentric Dali was. I read that he once gave a lecture at the Sorbonne with his foot in a pail of milk. :eek:
But you don’t need any back story to enjoy this photo IMO.
VJ Day in Times Square: http://images6.fotki.com/v98/photos/1/133612/1232610/3_VJDay-vi.jpg
Again, the WWII back story helps but I think the photo succeeds on its own.
Finally, sometimes if I take a picture people really like, they’ll say, “That should be on a calendar or a poster.” At first I think that’s good because of the universality angle; then I think that’s bad because it’s too conventional, doesn’t break any new ground, etc. Just thought I’d stir the pot in here and see what artists think.
It reminds me of a paparazzi photo of Angelina Jolie adopting another kid from a third world country.
Fascinating! I swear to God/Og/Ansel Adams that the details above are accurate. We were there to volunteer, she dressed and did her makeup without consulting me or anybody. The women were handing around the babies, loving on them, etc.
I was trying to be “invisible.” I took pictures at a couple weddings when I was younger, and I used a little trick. I’d have the whole bridal party up at the altar for a shot and I’d get them posed etc. My camera was on a tripod and I had a cable release. Since I wasn’t looking through the viewfinder, they weren’t expecting me to take a picture. I’d have it already focused and set for a good flash exposure. Then I’d stand a couple feet from the camera and chat, saying something like, “OK, if we can get through this the heavy drinking can begin!” LAUGH…CLICK. Got some killer pictures that way, with natural, relaxed smiles.
That’s why I didn’t want her to know I was planning to take a picture. I just wanted to document whatever was there, guessing it would be a warm, intimate moment.
BTW the jacket thing: it was a little windy out. Not bad for us, but kids get cold more easily…and you know how moms bundle up the little ones.
To be more artistic, you would need to emphasize the smallness of the child. An angle looking down, with the adult in the foreground, would be better as this will make her appear bigger and more protective.
Being fairly perfectly split in half (you can draw a straight line from bottom left to upper right that divides the two bodies) also makes it a bit distracting since there isn’t a “center” to the picture.
I think it would have more impact if the kid weren’t wearing a jacket, which just dominates the foreground too much; and if either they were both looking at the camera or looking at each other.
But it’s a nice-enough shot. Better than some, not good enough to win the Pulitzer. But then how many are? What’s more important is what it means to you and to the people in it. Not so much what strangers think of it. Unless you’re submitting to a competition.
That’s what I would’ve said. My first reaction was, Is this an ad? Maybe a public-service announcement for adoption or racial harmony?
Wow. Even though the photographer said that it wasn’t contrived or phony?
With the graininess and that head band I was sure it was from some 70’s magazine article on race relations, lol.
I appreciate the comment. Again, that wasn’t my intention but just as a poet might think a line in a poem creates a mood, some readers may tell him otherwise.
Reading these posts I have to agree that the jacket is too dominant.