Oh boy, this forum is busy - I hope I4m not breaking some unwritten law of conduct by posting here? ;) What I wanted to say - I participate in a number of online critique forums and I seem to have noticed that while the critics are absolutely merciless in their demands for photographic perfection in every other genre, they go all soft and blubbery as soon as there4s a kid in the picture. You can post a badly focused, badly exposed and badly composed snapshot and still have everyones admiration as long as your subject is a cute child - why is this? Do childrens portraits adhere to standards of their own that I haven4t been informed about, or would it actually be within the scope of good judgment to ask that they possess a minumum of artistic and technical merit? Just wondering...

I have a 3-year old son and I take dozens of pictures of him every week. So far I have reserved them for the family album, but I would like to explore the possibility of creating "kiddie shots" which would be of interest to somebody outside the circle of family and friends. How does a good childrens image look? If you know any good examples or have any thoughts on this subject, I would like to know about it. Personally I would like to convey a mood or atmosphere, presented in a way which is pleasing as well as a challenge to the eye and mind (which is what I aim for in all my pictures anyway)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 15, 2000

Answers

Hi Cristel, the most important (for me) pictures I have ever taken are of my best friend's daughter, to whom I'm--in her words--a surrogate father (what a wierd thing that just did to my tummy. yuck. or ugh. or hummm.).

Unfortunately, however, I think a lot of photographers get WAY too sentimental when photographing children, either their own or others. Indeed, as per your title, I think many view children as something other than 'people', more as blank ideals upheld moreso to satisfy the photographer (his or her vision of Utopia)than capture the child. Of course, children being children, in the typical photographic sense, is cool. But children cry, think, feel, long for, hurt, etc. just like other 'people'. And while I may not wish to capture certain aspects as these, I still want those aspects to be seen in the child's eyes when I'm photographing her deceptively innocent smile...look at Sally Mann. Those children are people in the fullest sense of the word, occasionally they are even to real for me to bear.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 15, 2000.

Here's an interesting comment on this by RIT Professor (also photographer and experimental camera maker) Andrew Davidhazy:

There is sometimes too much "baggage" associated with photographs of babies. Entertainers talk about never following children or animal acts (is that it? i don't remember) simply because the likelihood of falling flat on one's face are high. Photographs of babies often are difficult to critique and maybe the best thing is to just not even try.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to substitute "children" for "babies" and answer your question.

Although I have thousands of photographs of my son, I have only a few that I display publicly (online or otherwise), and none of them would be considered traditional kid pix.

Copyright 2000, Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 15, 2000.

Sorry, just ending the centering, which I forgot to do above.

However, since I'm here, here's another, from a short conceptual series I was working on last year:

Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 15, 2000.

I find getting good children shots to be very difficult. Unlike a tree or a rock, they can't hold that moment while I reframe, wait for different light, or remove foreground clutter. There are days when I watch my children and think about images I could make if I were "over there", or "down there", or "from in there". But being in those places would interfere with their activity or moments and spoil the image I would be trying to make. It is a problem that I think Heisenburg would understand.

I find that I want to use "nature" photography techniques with my children. To capture the moment without destroying it. Like I said, it's hard to do. My camera is slow (Canon Pro70 digital) and the lens is clear and sharp but too short (70mm) to be able to stand off for long distance compositions.

With that said, I'll offer a link to one of my better images that I posted in another forum (Hand in hand).

John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

-- John Thurston (john_thurston@my-deja.com), August 15, 2000.

As a grumpy single guy, I'm not one of those who think children (and their pictures) are automatically adorable. I do, however, occasionally see kid pictures that I like. Usually, these are photos that capture something about childhood; they, in some way, express the distinctions between children and adults. The picture of the child and shovel (by Tony Rowlett, I think) in a thread down below is a good example.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 15, 2000.

I haven't seen many critics who are "merciless in their demands for photographic perfection" (except me). Most critics fixate on some compositional element, minor detail, or subjective feeling - which is natural, considering that most posts are completely without context.

Children's pictures are usually much like your album pics - personal snapshots, whose emotional value outweighs their artistic value. That being said, there are children's pictures which are quite powerful. (I can remember quite vividly a number that I have seen of Somali and Kosovar children - among others.)

The larger problem is that, when we take children's pictures, we usually take them out of their true environment and pose them in grotesque kitsch tableaux, using them to symbolize some sort of innocence which we think we once had (failing of course to remember the reality of childhood).

I think that it is that combination of the transference of our subconscious desires onto our children, along with our refusal to see their lives as they truly are (with all their fear, wonder, emotion, and naivete), that has created the vacuum that you note.

It goes without saying that our view of children needs to be emancipated from its fairytale prison, but the how is another problem. Perhaps the first step is to recapture your own childhood.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), August 15, 2000.

cute kids

I'm one of those people who don't see the human being very well photographically. I like images of people but I don't take good pictures of them. I take excellent pictures of girls at the beach and blading on the boardwalk but that is a different idea to me. Anyway, I do think that children make good subjects. But the poses showing the Kodak Moment are great but seldom happen unless the kid is naturally camera aware. My all time favorite is the 3 girl scouts selling cookies. "Got Milk"? The redhead and the latina are adorable. Oh and the other one with the little 3 year old with the chocolate frosting expertly smeared around her face. Those eyes are so beautiful. But most people respond to kid pictures. I think it is genetic in nature. Young animals have to be cute to survive. Young animals get away with actions that would cause viscious behavior between older animals. Just my view but it's what I see. And some people are just good at photographing kids. Being in the PP of A I feel that women seem to excell at producing the good but cliched pictures of kids. I'd like to be able to do it. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), August 15, 2000.

Thanks for the replies everybody - lots of different approches here. I really liked the Sally Mann photos - esp. this one
Jeff, I like your images too and esp. the last one really stirs something. It4s one of those "look twice before you get it" shots that I love so much.
John Thurstons "Hand in Hand" is a classic. I would have liked to do the same when my kid was a baby - he was premature and hence very small. Somehow I never got around to it and that4s a missed opportunity if there ever was one :)
I just put up 5 images here
Please use your backbutton because most of the links don4t work ;\
:) Christel

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 16, 2000.

I liked #4 for the defused light on the face, and #2 is one of those rare pictures that makes my black&white mind say "hmmm...why don't I shoot some colour?" Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), August 16, 2000.

I like the one in the tunnel, and the one outside at dusk. Is denmark (.dk?) one of those scandivian countries where they tunnel in rock everywhere?

If I may step close to a live wire (my hair is standing up already!) let me suggest the amazing photographs by Jock Sturges (2 books 'The last day of summer' and 'Radiant Identities', aperture press). They are eerily peaceful and open photographs of people from the nudist colonies he lives at. Radiant identities is a beautiful set of informal environmental portraits and semi candids shot w/ 8X10 view camera.

They are somewhat controversial in the US where people sometimes conclude that a picture of anyone under 18 without clothes is child pornography.

Sturges is not without a skeleton or two in his closet, but man, what pictures.

Andy

-- Andy McLeod (andrewmcleod@usa.net), August 17, 2000.

Thanks for looking at my pics - the blue and the tunnel one are my favourites too :) This one just happened to come out of my camera today - Canon PowerShot Pro70 with infrared filter - I like the softness of the features induced by IR.
To Andy - nobody tunnels in rock in Denmark because we don4t have any bedrock. Denmark is basically just a muddy appendix to Germany :) This particular tunnel is from a marine life centre/research facility. It runs under part of a natural inlet and has windows to different types of marine biospheres - very interesting actually, if you4re into that sort of thing :)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 18, 2000.

I like the tones on your IR shot. What filter were you using? I'm trying to find an IR filter for my Pro70 that I can afford.

-- John Thurston (john_thurston@my-deja.com), August 18, 2000.

John, the filter is #89B. You might want to check out Larry Sabo . This guy is an expert in infrared with the Pro70.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 18, 2000.

Christel - thanks for the tip on this site! I am going to post a couple here.

-- Art Sands (sands@msn.com), August 23, 2000.

Excellent photos of your son BTW!

-- Art Sands (sands@msn.com), August 23, 2000.