I don't think it's an appropriate pose/outfit for a 10-12 year old. Photographically, I don't really enjoy them either. The first one looks severely cropped and therefore the quality suffers. The processing on the other two is very archaic and boring in my opinion.
i don't think it's an appropriate pose/outfit for a 10-12 year old. Photographically, i don't really enjoy them either. The first one looks severely cropped and therefore the quality suffers. The processing on the other two is very archaic and boring in my opinion.
Made me think of Sally Mann, do you know her photographs? She broke ground in contemporary times in the area of the depiction of children's bodies. Children's bodies are beautiful, most people in the world find them so, without that making them in the least perverted. The capturing in photographs of the beauty of human bodies at any age is partly a documentary-allegorical thing, in the sense that images of human bodies are metaphors for the telling of our story as mortal creatures on this planet. Unfortunately, there is a mentality that only sees bodies as things for sex, a reduction and a distortion which I find absurd and obscene.
So, you have a precedent for this subject matter in at least one highly regarded north American photographer's work. There is no reason you cannot make your photographic statement with this subject matter, if that is what you decide. The child is represented as just himself, he is not being used as a reference to something he is not, and cannot understand, so cannot give his consent to, or for you to make a joke which he cannot understand and consent to. He is quite able to understand and consent to a photograph of himself as himself.
I suggest you might need to talk to us about your shooting and processing decisions before we jump perhaps to wrong conclusions. I agree with other comments about the obviously poor IQ of #1, and I do wonder about the choice of location, light, and framing - if they are good or bad. #3 has some merit, I think, especially the frank and genuine gaze at the camera from the subject - quite unusual.
Sally Mann's images of her children gain dimensions and impact as parts of a long series built over many years. They make an oeuvre, and while many individual images of her series can stand as single images (especially with her technical and interpretive skills), not all can.
So shoot and show some more, and try to see how what you do relates to the work of others. There is a big difference between a good snap and a good photograph. Good though both are, they are not interchangeable. Which are you trying for?
You might like to look at our own lizzard_nyc's photographs of children.
The first one looks severely cropped and therefore the quality suffers.
That is due do that fact that the photo was shrunk down in size so that I could post it. What is a good size to shrink it so that it does not look fuzzy? The print looks great, nice and crisp.
Children's bodies are beautiful, most people in the world find them so, without that making them in the least perverted. The capturing in photographs of the beauty of human bodies at any age is partly a documentary-allegorical thing, in the sense that images of human bodies are metaphors for the telling of our story as mortal creatures on this planet. Unfortunately, there is a mentality that only sees bodies as things for sex, a distortion which I find obscene.
The child is represented as just himself, he is not being used as a reference to something he is not, and cannot understand, so cannot give his consent to, or for you to make a joke which he cannot understand and consent to. He is quite able to understand and consent to a photograph of himself as himself.
I suggest you might need to talk to us about your shooting and processing decisions before we jump perhaps to wrong conclusions. I agree with other comments about the obviously poor IQ of #1, and I do wonder about the choice of location, light, and framing - if they are good or bad. #3 has some merit, I think, especially the frank and genuine gaze at the camera from the subject - quite unusual.
Neil
Thank you Neil. I was just trying to capture him as he is. He was playing in the yard and I thought he looked beautiful and I just wanted to capture it. The look on his face is typical for when he doesn't want to take a picture .
That is due do that fact that the photo was shrunk down in size so that I could post it. What is a good size to shrink it so that it does not look fuzzy? The print looks great, nice and crisp.
The easiest, most versatile and best quality way to post images at Dgrin is from a SmugMugdotcom account. You might like to look into that.
Thank you Neil. I was just trying to capture him as he is. He was playing in the yard and I thought he looked beautiful and I just wanted to capture it.
That is the best reason I could think of for a photograph!:Dclap
I like #2. Try checking the pixel dimensions of your image. 800x600 will fit comfortably on the screen. You may have tried posting at original dimensions (just my guess).
"Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals-picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
Comments
+1
So, you have a precedent for this subject matter in at least one highly regarded north American photographer's work. There is no reason you cannot make your photographic statement with this subject matter, if that is what you decide. The child is represented as just himself, he is not being used as a reference to something he is not, and cannot understand, so cannot give his consent to, or for you to make a joke which he cannot understand and consent to. He is quite able to understand and consent to a photograph of himself as himself.
I suggest you might need to talk to us about your shooting and processing decisions before we jump perhaps to wrong conclusions. I agree with other comments about the obviously poor IQ of #1, and I do wonder about the choice of location, light, and framing - if they are good or bad. #3 has some merit, I think, especially the frank and genuine gaze at the camera from the subject - quite unusual.
Sally Mann's images of her children gain dimensions and impact as parts of a long series built over many years. They make an oeuvre, and while many individual images of her series can stand as single images (especially with her technical and interpretive skills), not all can.
So shoot and show some more, and try to see how what you do relates to the work of others. There is a big difference between a good snap and a good photograph. Good though both are, they are not interchangeable. Which are you trying for?
You might like to look at our own lizzard_nyc's photographs of children.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
That is due do that fact that the photo was shrunk down in size so that I could post it. What is a good size to shrink it so that it does not look fuzzy? The print looks great, nice and crisp.
Thank you Neil. I was just trying to capture him as he is. He was playing in the yard and I thought he looked beautiful and I just wanted to capture it. The look on his face is typical for when he doesn't want to take a picture
The easiest, most versatile and best quality way to post images at Dgrin is from a SmugMugdotcom account. You might like to look into that.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
That is the best reason I could think of for a photograph!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand
Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album