Children in a hilltribe village in northern Thailand.

-- Henry Richardson (henry_richardson@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

Lovely picture, great exposure, fine printing, amazing expressions on the subjects. The lights in the background are a bit distracting, but it's one great image! Well done.

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 16, 2000.

Thanks for the comments. Yeah, those bright spots in the background are a bit distracting. They are gaps in the wooden wall of the small hut/house. I could probably tone them down a bit by reducing their intensity. What do you think? I also wish I had used a slightly wider aperture to throw the background a bit more out of focus.

-- Henry Richardson (henry_richardson@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

that is a fine image. congratulations. i really feel that the background gives the principal subject its context, and the overall impact might suffer if you had presented a "grey screen", avedon sort of backdrop.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), March 16, 2000.

You can try to blur the background highlights a bit. A quick modification gave:

(Obviously you would use more care in blending the highlights...).

Would such a modification be an improvement? Possibly. What do you think?

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 16, 2000.

This image really engages the viewer. The eyes of both children give strength to the picture. I'd like to hear about the focal length and film used. Do I detect a bit of fill flash? Thanks for sharing this image.

-- John McCormack (jpmccormac@aol.com), March 16, 2000.

Personally, I find the "lights" in the background less distracting (because I realize what they are) than what I take to be a Caucasian guy to the left of the picture. In the blurred pic by Allan, he is removed, which improves the impact.

But, yeah, nice pic!

Stuart

-- Stuart Hamby (stuhamby@uswest.net), March 16, 2000.

Yes, I used a touch of fill flash -- I think I had it set to -1 stops. This was taken with a 50mm lens on Fuji Superia 400 film and converted to black & white with a digital imaging program.

-- Henry Richardson (henry_richardson@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

Your photograph is excellent! The fill flash worked perfectly in illuminating their faces and brightening the whites of their eyes. One thing I always have trouble with in my own existing light photography is getting the whites of the eyes white enough. I never use flash but I think you've done a great job here. I personally like the original crop because it is simply perfect; just tight enough. A tighter crop makes me think that it is tight. I also like the more rectangular format. I like the original brightness of the lights for the same reason that Wayne mentions. I also think the lighs help to balance the picture and provide depth. I think the use of fill flash is great, but there are two things: I don't particularly like the hard shadows, as subdues as they may be, that are cast onto the kids from their heads. It's not natural looking, but this is a true NIT PICK! The other thing is that the kids are so separated from the rest of the people. This is good for showing the kids, but not so good for showing the environment they're in. But that's another nit pick. As flash pictures go, this one is very successful in my view. Don't kids make great subjects?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), March 16, 2000.

Part of my answer didn't make sense! (so what else is new, Rowlett??) About the subjects being separated from their environment, I meant to more intelligently say: The use of fill flash, while perfectly illuminating your subjects, has the effect of separating the two subjects from their environment and other kids. It just adds a bit of unnatural feel to it. But really, I think your photo is great.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), March 16, 2000.

Agree with all the positive emotional reaction. Looking for nits to pick.. I agree with Stuart - the caucasion detracts (another "superior" foreigner come to help the poor ignorant natives "get it right"? ... maybe not, but I don't want to have to think about it. Just let me look at the kids!). Background hi-lights? Alright, but a little blurring doesn't hurt. Good shot!

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), March 16, 2000.

Just took a another look at the "caucasion". Maybe he ISN"T? Maybe Stuart and Larry have egg on their faces instead? (yolk-casions?)

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), March 16, 2000.

I like the third face in the background, appearing behind the younger child in the foreground. Together with the direction the eyes of all the children, there is an appealing sense of "depth".

-- fw (finneganswake@altavista.net), March 17, 2000.

Maybe he's Caucasian, maybe not, but once I noticed him, he's all I see in this photo. I mean, I see that it's a great shot, and I really like it, but I keep going back to see if he is Caucasian or not. It just distracts me from the rest of the photo, is all I'm saying. But then, I've been known to study photographs for reflections of softboxes in eyes, or camera equipment on reflective surfaces. (The best one was the reflection of a tripod on the spoon on a Corn Flakes box, but that's a WHOLE other story.)

Any egg I have on my face is from this morning's breakfast...

Stuart "Tha Yolk-Casian" Hamby

-- Stuart Hamby (stuhamby@uswest.net), March 17, 2000.

I feel I should append to my last post, because I truly think it is a great shot. I think it is a wonderful portrait of these two children, and reveals a lot of character. I also think the line of eyesight (from the girl in the background to the baby brother to the older sister) works extremely well. The only thing that bothers me is that guy in the corner, but not so much that I think it's a lousy shot. Far from it.

Stuart

-- Stuart Hamby (stuhamby@uswest.net), March 17, 2000.

A very nice photograph, though I do concur about the Caucasian at left rear. Henry, does the content gain or lose as a result of desaturation? My guess is that you desaturated for a reason, is that true?

-- Paul Ashton (prashton@focalplane.com), March 17, 2000.

Yes, I thought it looked better by converting it to grayscale because the color didn't seem to add anything so it seemed a distraction to me.

-- Henry Richardson (henry_richardson@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.