There is an Angel in there!

[kundalini]

I hate to burst your bubble, but in that photo it looks like he has autism.

Max, I have to take issue with you on your critique. In the thread you posted on "The Whole Series" you stated (in part)

"All I'm saying is that whenever I'm critiquing anyone's work (and this even goes for when I'm critiquing a beginner), if I see something that looks like it might be an error, I always ask, "did they do that on purpose?" And if in doubt, I ask them when possible."

I don't want to bore the audience here with all the BS strewn there, that's why I put in the link (hope it worked). But you kept ranting how much effort you put towards a critique instead of just a hit-n-run approach.

So with the first entry of your critique, it does pose the question; Do you happen to value you own words?

Personally, I like the third on the strip Marian.

 

[Alpha]

Well no, I don't believe it occurred to her that it might come across the way I perceived it. Besides, when push comes to shove, asking that question isn't functionally any different than my stating it, in this case. How would you propose I ask in a way that made it distinct? "Did you intend for them to look like they have autism?" says the same thing as my comment.

 

[kundalini]

Well no, I don't believe it occurred to her that it might come across the way I perceived it. Besides, when push comes to shove, asking that question isn't functionally any different than my stating it, in this case. How would you propose I ask in a way that made it distinct? "Did you intend for them to look like they have autism?" says the same thing as my comment.

I can't say that disagree with you on the final analysis, but to answer your question, NO it doesn't. Your comment was without quantification. I think that was what you were moaning about in your other thread. Responders need to state why they think this way or that, particularly if they feel strongly objectionable to the image.

Have a look at post #14. That's a quantifiable review of the image posted. Your initial assessment, was that of bully tactics. If you had bothered to understand the OP's general feeling about the photo posted (clearly noted), stopped to consider their feelings (since this is not a contest), you may have had held your tounge slightly and given the decency to choose your words more delicately.

We are all guilty now and then to give a curt response to an image that does not please us. However, I make it my concern to apply descretion to heavy posters. It's nice to be nice.

 

[Alpha]

Dear Kundalini,

Thank you for expressing your concern. I'll be sure to file it away under "L" for "long-winded diatribes from bleeding-heart white knight trolls whose opinions on the matter I couldn't care less about."

Just think of all the energy you could have saved pressing the "ignore user" button instead of picking a fight.

 

[wildmaven]

Whooooooooooo..........18 posts and maybe 2 tips I can actually use. It's a grand day at TPF.

 

[SpeedTrap]

Wildmavin, Great try, working with kids can be tough.
I think the image could have been made stonger by moving your light more to the side. and reducing your fill light. The lighting on the face seems a bit flat, give a bit more tone separation to clean it up a bit. And try to shoot into the shadow side for a bit of a different look.

 

[kundalini]

See Max, there is the great difference between you and me. I would rather take on board some bits and pieces of what others opinions, critiques and criticisms are of me without prejudice. If I digress into a long dark tunnel, I certainly take notice of other peoples words on the particular situation, in an effort for me to continually search for the light. If I only give even a moments thought to what characteristics are being forth told in my juvenile behavior, that moment is worthwhile. There is a possibility I may learn. That is the certain distinctiveness between you and I.

While you may genuinely make yourself feel better by throwing temper-tantrums, pigeonholing people and rebuffing the ideas of people that have a broader view on life and what is actually important in the end, the fact of the matter is that you seem to be an angry young man. It is my hope that one day you are able to focus this negative energy into a more positive outlook on life.

Feel free to succumb to the lowest levels of childhood by resorting to the last chance of redemption by name calling. “Bleeding-heart” - certainly not, “white knight” – when a stand should be made I will intervene, “troll” – I’m still trying to figure that one out, where that come from? – you don’t even know me!

All I said was to (possibly) get you to consider your words – past and present. A fight is the furthest thing from my mind. People’s confidence as photographers is at the heart of the matter. I’m no pro, by any stretch of the imagination. But I would like to think I have the people skills to get my point across without propagating any further injury to the recipient of my critique. In the final analysis, we are here to learn as well as to have our delicate egos stroked every now and then.

So if I may make one final suggestion before my contributions to this thread have ended, instead of filing this under “L” for “long-winded diatribes”, please consider to have it placed under “F” for F**K OFF you ungrateful little tw*t.


My apologies Marian for the above. Still like the third shot of the strip!

 

[nossie]

I don't see any signs of Authism there at all probably because I find there are no signs of it around the mouth. Just looks like a kid messin and goofin about to me.

I hate to burst your bubble, but in that photo it looks like he has autism.

Max you are not so stupid that you can't say this in a more polite way. "I don't mean to offend but it really looks to me like the boy has a touch of authism in that photo". You can tell from responses to your comments that people are losing respect for you - that's a bad thing. I want you to behave in a more respectful and respectable manner.

Back to the photo.
The big one looks out of focus\soft to me, maybe a touch of sharpening in PS? The lighting in the BWs appear to work but in colour I think it needs to be warmer with a different muslin. The greyish white makes me think of a passport machine photo so I'm thinking someting warm like the brown muslin used in the blonde angle shots on another thread.

 

[RMThompson]

While I wouldn't say he looks autistic, I would say that it is not a flattering pose or photograph.

The entire top of his head is out of focus, we're staring up his nose, the crop is too tight, and the look in his eyes IS vacant, maybe even animalistic!

However I can appreciate the soft moment... and that's really what you were trying to capture, this silly boy, making silly faces, who pauses and probably subconsciously appreciates you and the fun he was having with his father.

I think part of the problem here is that you wanted to capture that moment. You were there, you REMEMBER those few seconds, and this picture brings YOU back there... however it does NOT instill the same emotions in US the viewers.

To me that's sort of the point of photographs, conveying thoughts or emotions, and this picture unfortunatley does neither. HOWEVER the photos above do. I see a happy kid, a goofy kid, and I like the photographs above the picture in question a WHOLE LOT more!

So I will critique those by saying a BACK LIGHT reaaaally would've made a huge difference here. I am the biggest proponent of one source lighting (not one directional, but simple non complicated lighting), but even bouncing the light off of the back wall would've helped here.

I'd love to see more portaiture work.

 

[JaimeGibb]

I think part of the problem here is that you wanted to capture that moment. You were there, you REMEMBER those few seconds, and this picture brings YOU back there... however it does NOT instill the same emotions in US the viewers.

I totally agree. That was the perfect way to put it. I often have that problem too. I see a picture I took that reminds ME of what happened, so I see something a little different than what an outsider sees. It's a hard barrier to get over.

And PS, I don't think he looks autistic... I can see where someone may pick that up, maaaaybe something in the eyes, but even so, who cares? Those are just the physical characteristics of the little boy, not a statement about your skills as a photographer.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Sharpness has got to be the most over-rated photographic issue bar none.

The shot is o.k., it's not a pose I would want to see from my own boys. The question (as in most portraits) is does it capture the character of the subject? Is this what this child is really like, or is the beatific look an atypical snap, a lucky shot, something projected upon the subject by the happy customer/parent? Both are valid reasons to like a shot, btw. It's just more fun to be honest.

 

[wildmaven]

Sharpness has got to be the most over-rated photographic issue bar none.

That, and the Rule of Threes. :er:

 

[Alex_B]

That, and the Rule of Trees. :er:

Coniferous or ... ?

 

[skieur]

I hate to burst your bubble, but in that photo it looks like he has autism. from Max Bloom

Well, since no one asked the rather obvious question, Max:

"How much experience do you have with autistic children that you can identify the look from a photograph?"

skieur

 

[The Phototron]

Sharpness has got to be the most over-rated photographic issue bar none.

The shot is o.k., it's not a pose I would want to see from my own boys. The question (as in most portraits) is does it capture the character of the subject? Is this what this child is really like, or is the beatific look an atypical snap, a lucky shot, something projected upon the subject by the happy customer/parent? Both are valid reasons to like a shot, btw. It's just more fun to be honest.

That shocked me! Coming from a guy with Leica M8 and a max 1 aperture lens. :/