# There is an Angel in there!



## wildmaven (Nov 15, 2007)

This guy was full of energy and I have about 100 photos of him making silly faces:







Somewhere in the middle of it all, this photo appeared:


----------



## Alpha (Nov 15, 2007)

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


----------



## The Phototron (Nov 15, 2007)

The second shot is okay, but the eyes are soft. Did you apply blur without masking the eyes and teeth?

It could also use a tighter crop and contrast:





The pose is okay, but his smile is sort of forced or refrained.


----------



## souljourney (Nov 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


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


 
What a rude and insensitive thing to say.  First of all not all autistic kids have a "look" to them.  Second of all...that was just plain insensitive.


----------



## ShaCow (Nov 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


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



haha


----------



## gpimages (Nov 15, 2007)

something rude from Max....what a shock.......why he is allowed to dish out some of what he does is beyond me.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanks, Phototron. I like the edit, except the crop. His ear looks like it's bumping the side of the photo.


----------



## Viperjet (Nov 15, 2007)

souljourney said:


> What a rude and insensitive thing to say.  First of all not all autistic kids have a "look" to them.  Second of all...that was just plain insensitive.



Um, yea.  The first thing I noticed was that there was a cute kid in the photo making funny faces...


----------



## Alpha (Nov 15, 2007)

souljourney said:


> What a rude and insensitive thing to say.  First of all not all autistic kids have a "look" to them.  Second of all...that was just plain insensitive.



The "look" is often a defining outward characteristic of autism and its related mental illnesses. It's a generalization...precisely because it's generally the case.

I don't believe it was insensitive. It reminded me of an autistic child, and that's why I think it's unflattering. I'm not going to apologize for that. It's what struck me about the image. 

And let me preempt any argument on that point simply by saying that it's absurd to argue that one of parents' most feared diagnoses is not mutually exclusive with flattering.

You want a substantive critique? Fine. Everything from the bridge of the nose upward is out of focus.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 15, 2007)

I was trying out my new 50mm f1.4 lens, and focusing was tough on a kid who moved around that much, ha ha. I eventually switched to my 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 lens which allowed me to follow him better.


----------



## doobs (Nov 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


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



Haha, I thought that too.

Half his face is out of focus and the highlights are near blown on the high-contrast version. His nose blends in with his face.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 15, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> I was trying out my new 50mm f1.4 lens, and focusing was tough on a kid who moved around that much, ha ha. I eventually switched to my 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 lens which allowed me to follow him better.



Were you auto or manual-focusing?


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Were you auto or manual-focusing?


 
Auto, eek. He was moving too fast to manual focus. :er:


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 15, 2007)

I agree that the autism statement was brought forward like a slap in the face, since it was not wrapped into any soft padding and it was given as a minimalistic statement. 



MaxBloom said:


> It reminded me of an autistic child, and that's why I think it's *unflattering*.



... but I think he has a point here. 

I think the problem with the expression on his face is, that normally children have this look only if they are extremely fascinated and pleased by something they see ... when they see something they consider wonderful which puts them into a dream like state of admiration and fascination.

The problem with the image is, that it gives no indication whatsoever why this kid could have this facial expression. If it was just there for two seconds, well, this happens, but on a photo it is frozen then forever. And if you then look at it, it leaves a strange impression.

Silly face number 3 looks way more natural and cute to me. It seems to show much more of his personality and wins over all the other images IMHO.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 15, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> normally children have this look only if they are extremely fascinated and pleased by something they see ...


 
It was me! :mrgreen: Hahahah...the mom said she's never seen him so happy during a photo shoot.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2007)

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 (Nov 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2007)

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 (Nov 15, 2007)

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


----------



## SpeedTrap (Nov 15, 2007)

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 (Nov 15, 2007)

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. &#8220;Bleeding-heart&#8221; - certainly not, &#8220;white knight&#8221; &#8211; when a stand should be made I will intervene, &#8220;troll&#8221; &#8211; I&#8217;m still trying to figure that one out, where that come from? &#8211; you don&#8217;t even know me!

All I said was to (possibly) get you to consider your words &#8211; past and present. A fight is the furthest thing from my mind. People&#8217;s confidence as photographers is at the heart of the matter. I&#8217;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 &#8220;L&#8221; for &#8220;long-winded diatribes&#8221;, please consider to have it placed under &#8220;F&#8221; for F**K OFF you ungrateful little tw*t.


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


----------



## nossie (Nov 16, 2007)

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 (Nov 16, 2007)

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 (Nov 16, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2007)

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 (Nov 16, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


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


 
That, and the Rule of Threes. :er:


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 16, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> That, and the Rule of Trees. :er:



Coniferous or ... ?


----------



## skieur (Nov 16, 2007)

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 (Nov 16, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> 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. :/


----------



## RKW3 (Nov 16, 2007)

I like the shots.

BTW I don't like the edit, looks like the boy's wearin make up!


----------



## LeftBehind (Nov 17, 2007)

I have two cousins with autism and they've never once looked like that.  I'd say if anything, now i dont mean any offense, but it reminds me of the 'interested' look my dog gets. However I've seen many people look like this. Was he looking at flashes or something he'd never seen before the shoot?


----------



## SpaceNut (Nov 17, 2007)

You don't get better & you don't learn if you don't take the pictures. I know I learn from others and I still have a lot to learn. Thanks for posting and sharing with us.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 17, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> Coniferous or ... ?


 
Hahhaha...yeah. :lmao:

I was lying in bed last night thinking about photography and it suddenly occured to me that I said the "Rule of Threes" instead of the "Rule of Thirds." Bwahhahah...I'm such a n00b sometimes... :er:


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 17, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> Hahhaha...yeah. :lmao:
> 
> I was lying in bed last night thinking about photography and it suddenly occured to me that I said the "Rule of Threes" instead of the "Rule of Thirds." Bwahhahah...I'm such a n00b sometimes... :er:



Well, you might have read some of my posts in other threads. Then you know that I usually laugh when I read "rules" not when I read "threes"


----------



## skieur (Nov 17, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


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


 
Not for the general public who have moved from VHS to DVD and regular TV to HD TV largely due to sharpness issues.  Photographers do not buy Zeiss or Leica lenses because they like to spend money.  Broadcast quality in video and megapixels in digital photography are all marketed and purchased based on sharpness issues.

skieur


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 18, 2007)

skieur, I don't mean sharpness from a technical point of view, but rather from a creative point of view.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 18, 2007)

The Phototron said:


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


The 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux is hardly sharp at all, and I love it for its dreamy painterly effect.


----------



## The Phototron (Nov 18, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> The 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux is hardly sharp at all, and I love it for its dreamy painterly effect.


That was my point.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 18, 2007)

LOL, ok. The sarcasm went past me...


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 18, 2007)

Here are some of the other moments from this shoot:


----------



## JaimeGibb (Nov 18, 2007)

Haha I actually really love that 3rd one!! He looks quirky, happy, and adorable. And it seems as he is really expressing who he is, and I think that that's important.


----------



## souljourney (Nov 19, 2007)

I think that you have captured some nice expressions on the boy!  He definitely looks as if he was fun to work with.  All that really matters, in the end, is what do the parents think of the pose?  Do they think it portrays his true personality?  If so, and if they like the shot, well...that's just about all that matters if they are paying you.

Kundalini...You are my white knight, dear.  You always are able to say what is on my mind in a much more eloquent manner.  Perhaps it's the two year old who is always derailing my train of thought that prevents me from shooting out more than a four word comment most of the time.  Regardless, it's nice that SOMEONE on this board thinks about being nice.  I get so sick of reading sh*tty remarks from people around here...especially if they cannot take what they dish out.  Trolls...hehehe...I associate Max more with that term than you.

~peace~


----------



## kundalini (Nov 19, 2007)

souljourney said:


> Kundalini...You are my white knight, dear. You always are able to say what is on my mind in a much more eloquent manner. Perhaps it's the two year old who is always derailing my train of thought that prevents me from shooting out more than a four word comment most of the time. Regardless, it's nice that SOMEONE on this board thinks about being nice. I get so sick of reading sh*tty remarks from people around here...especially if they cannot take what they dish out. Trolls...hehehe...I associate Max more with that term than you.
> 
> ~peace~


 
Although I have put into affect a self-imposed ban due to my bad behavior on this thread, I have to admit I have lurked ocassionaly in the shadows.  I am breaking this ban only because of your kind words.   Thank you.  But I must say that it is unwarranted because of my needless drop to the depths of gutteral retaliation.  Now the clock begins once again.

BTW, wildmaven & nossie....cheers for the PMs.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 20, 2007)

kundalini said:


> my needless drop to the depths of gutteral retaliation.


 
Gutters are nasty places. Go take a shower, dry yourself off, and step back onto the sidewalk.


----------

