Hey folks, thought I should post one of my own images before I critique anyone else's. So here's my first image post....don't go easy on it! The more criticism the better.

Thanks

Ish

It's an intriguing image. It raises lots of unanswered questions for me, and that is what sustains my interest: 

What is the white stuff smeared on the child's face? Did she/he do it to him/herself, or did someone else do it?

The child looks a bit unhappy or at least uncertain: Is it because of having had the stuff smeared on the face, or is it just being self-conscious in front of the camera?

The off-center placement of the fence makes it quite prominent, which makes it seem a symbolic element -- "I feel fenced in?" perhaps?

I feel I can come back to this image and read it differently each time. That makes it work well for me. Very nice!

There's a lot of expression in the child's face as Eric points out, but I think it gets lost from the blue shirt that overwhelms the image for me.

B&W?

Dave

B&W just might work! I will try it next time and repost. As far as the white stuff, its called "thanaka," a makeup/sunscreen/skin cream worn by many women and men in Myanmar. Only in this case its applied haphazardly...t

he most interesting thing about this child was that he(?) stared at me while I was taking his picture but his expression didn't change at all. It's not a normal reaction for a small child in my experience, especially not in 3rd world countries where DSLr's are such a novelty and you can see your own pic right away. this kid didnt care....he just kept staring at me.

Thank you Ishmael for this opportunity. I think the child's face get's lost because there are too many lighter colours above the fence. It is a pity that the fence didn't go higher up so the brightness of the background didn't come through.

I think that the suggestion of background behind the fence is unnecessary and only the fence and the boy should be in the image, but to do so would crop the boy's head too much. I had a play doing this and the boy had a lot more presence with just the fence without irrellevant visual data, but as I said, the cutting off of his top of his head was not satisfactory.

Keep in mind that the background of an image is just as important as the subject.

Julie

I agree it's distracting. I wonder if either a layer mask with strongly toned down brightness would take care of that. On the other hand, I feel like some careful cloning could manipulate that fence into being a few inches taller than it actually is....but I wonder if that pushes the limits of integrity.

"limits of integrity"... hmmmm now that really opens a can of worms, considering the historical evidence regarding photojournalism and processing images in photoshop; and the nature of the 'reality ' of a photograph. Tweaking colour hues, sharpening, local contrast enhancement, cropping, the use of healing brush and cloning tools, use of various filters...etc..etc... what is the boundary of 'integrity' with a photograph?

This could undoubtedly be the topic of a new thread, which would probably create a deal of discussion yet no clear consensus. Ultimately, it is your choice and how you think 'integrity' is manifest through and by your photograph.

In this particular instance, it is only a fence after all....and in my opinion, having the boy able to speak to us more effectively without visual distractions is far better than having an image which loses impact because of them.

Julie

I agree with Julie. After all, this is a portrait of a kid, not photojournalism or street photography. If manipulating a portrait were illegal, the only portraitist not in jail would be HCB.