Some people like kids. Some don't.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 11, 2000

Answers

The subjects are not prominent enough, and the object that is prominent isn't very interesting. I don't understand the title, and maybe think that titles, this one in particular, can do more damage than good.

But this is the kind of critique that I fear the most, and so I commend you for suffering this one. Keep going, Struan. My response here is offered with the greatest of respect, and I await an equally straight-in critique from you some time!!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), October 12, 2000.

I'm one of those people who don't automatically find kids adorable. But I think the kids in this photo really are the center of interest; their "poses" are quite dynamic. The foreground plant stand doesn't hold much interest for me.

The title doesn't really work for me, either.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 12, 2000.

Thanks for taking the trouble to look. One of my points in showing this was to see if people would give me the benefit of the doubt and wonder why I would post a superficially awkward photo. Thanks for doing so.

The title, presentation and composition are deliberate, and reward those who look closely. This is one of those spotty dog things. Either you see it or you don't. Once you have seen it, you can't not see it.

If you still care, try this page with auto-image loading turned off for a clue. Otherwise, a state-the-bleedin-obvious version is here. I prefer this one for all sorts of meta-reasons.

Playful, not snide,
-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 13, 2000.

That wasn't a bold tag, but a line break that got the chop. Gotta love that Greenspun sense of humour. Hope this turns it off

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 13, 2000.

We have a winner!

Thanks James. I'll admit the bird is clearer with a bigger reproduction, but I actually worried that it was too obvious here. I suppose there's nothing like knowing the answer to help get the question right, and it probably helps to know that there is a question in the first place :-)

This was taken at my brother's wedding. Apparently the duck (a mallard hen) nests in one of the flowerpots on the hotel terrace each year. I can't imagine any self-respecting cat not being able to jump up there, but I'd guess the nest is safe from rodents and mustelids.

Semi-tame mallards are pretty tolerant of humans nearby, and she just did the typical duck thing of keeping one eye open while she slept. The kids were much more mobile, and there was really only one moment where they lined up nicely as a background.

Apologies to Shawn. Had there been a Duck Photography Forum I would of course have posted there.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 16, 2000.

For some inexplicable reason the question "is that a mallard?" strikes me as absurdly funny. Monty Python-ish.

Perhaps it would make a better title? "Hide and Seek" didn't ask me to look so close, since I thought it was about the kids playing. "Duck and Cover" makes his american baby boomer recall the advice we got in the 1st grade during the Cuban missle crisis, "Duck and cover... and kiss yer ass goodbye" sort of thing... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 16, 2000.

I'll be. Even after looking at the color version, I still didn't see the duck. I just didn't "look" at it. Lesson learned. Interesting experiment. I'll know better next time!

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

Sorry, but this is one of those images that doesn't seem to work for me in B&W. As a B&W, I don't notice the bird at all. Even when I know it's there. In color, it is subtle, but noticeable. Maybe it is due to a direct Photoshop greyscale converstion from a color scan. This would have been a much more interesting post if you had presented it in its original color version.
This would have been a much more interesting image if it had been shot with a fish eye with the bird dead center. That would have brought attention to the hard to see bird. The children would then be cheerfully playing "all around it"

-- John Thurston (John_Thurston@my-deja.com), October 16, 2000.

This would have been a much more interesting post if you had presented it in its original color version

Life would be boring if everybody agreed with each other. It's true that the bird is more obvious in the colour image, and the different crop also helps by placing it in the frame where most western viewers will automatically go looking for a main subject; but more interesting? That depends on what you're interested in.

I was playing games by piling on the camouflage when I made and posted this. Not with the intent to show how clever I am, but because I think these sorts of images are fun, and because they touch on deeper issues such as how your expectations narrow your vision, and how the context in which you meet an image affects the seriousness with which you treat it.

Kids often see the duck long before their parents, even if they are not told that there is something to find. It's similar to the way adults read words rather than letters, and so often miss spelling mistakes and puns unless they're explicitly told to go looking for them.

How context imposes an authority is one of my favourite topics, and not just in photography. Here, the existance and nature of the forum give people a basic reason to look at the picture, but it was interesting just how far I had to go with the title, hints and alternative presentations before James hit the jackpot.

Tom mentioned Monty Python: one of the interesting things about M.P. style humour is how many people only find it funny if it is safely compartmentalised and clearly labelled.

A technical note: my original motivation to make this black and white was the poor way my scanner handles Kodachrome. I simulated a green filter with channel mixing to bring out the geranium foliage and tone down the gravel and bridesmaids dresses. This also made the duck stand out a bit less. But: now you know it is there, can you avoid seeing it? I can't.

In slide shows of the wedding I usually prefaced this with a straightforward shot of the duck (though I draw the line at fisheyes :-). With photographers I like to be more sneaky.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 18, 2000.