Hi David, nice image, I see a divide that could be caused by any kind of difference in our perception and as a result of that, a little apprehension.

I feel bad for the kid for some reason. I think he's going to have a troubled upbringing. But that's jut me.

What do I see? Bad composition and a bad attempt at explaining this.
Perhaps you should try saying fewer words about the photos and let the photos talk for themselves. After all, they are worth 1000 words :) .. and your viewers aren't inept (99% at least). ;)

I'd definitely have a lot more respect even for this shot, if you didn't write that writeup with it.. It feels like a kindergarten show and tell class.

This is what I see.

Do any of these people konw what is happening to photographs that you take of them?

miklos: why would what I write lower your respect for the shot? You might not like what I write, or how I write it, but why does it change your perception of what you see?

rmo: yes, I told her about chromasia.

djn: For the technical aspect of the photo, I already said I didn't like it.. but... Do you think Skauce would've said "I feel bad for the kid" if all he/she saw was the photo without you pushing thoughts into his/her head beforehand? Maybe the kid will be loved, and maybe he'll have a great upbringing :) ..

You just shouldn't assume things.. That's all.

Also I'm not too sure I would be happy if I were this woman, came to your site, saw my photo and it started with "Suspicion? Patriarchal oppression? Lack of Opportunity?"

You know what I mean?

i see a lack of trust in the photographer, (maybe not only in the photographer)

Miklos: please go away and study some essays on the critical theory of photography. If you want a reading list then ask me.

Your comment shows a complete lack respect for both Dave and photography itself. Whoever told you that a photo is worth a thousand words must be as inept as you are at writing sensible analysis.

Most photographs can be enhanced by text and in many cases it is mandatory, it shows that the image maker is thinking about his craft and is operating on a level beyond mere aesthetic value and taste.

We all know that you appear here every so often and make some scathing comments but you don't really want me to publish the other dreadful email thing you recently did do you.

If you don't like an image then why not articulate your thoughts in a more professional manner rather than the brash immature bout of obvious anger.

God knows why you ever come here. I suspect you like to gain a reaction and that it gives you a buzz.

If you can find it within yourself to grow up then maybe you will learn some respect as well.

Sorry everyone but I had to say something about this guy.

Dave delete if you want I won't be offended.

Hello, David. I have a sugestion for you: put this tag just bellow in your pages within images to unshow that horrible tool bar thats apeare on every images...

You have great pix...

John: Thanks for coming out.. I wasn't angry at all, but now I'm getting a bit irritated. This is not craft, this is derogatory.

I don't care about fame, I really could care less what people think of me. I suspect there will be a few people that will not like the writeup which instead of 'enhancing' the photo, in my 'completely inept and immature' opinion it only takes away from it. Trust me, I don't come on here periodically and leave comments for my own benefit. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

Thanks also for your outburst. Shows your level of maturity as well :) You may post whatever you want, I really don't have anything to hide, nor do I regret anything I've said.

If you'd like to continue your little pissing contest, feel free to email me. This isn't the place for it. monkey @ jui.cc

As a picture, it's probably not pleasing. As a couple of pictures, it's interesting.

I like the accompanying text, even though it's controversial (people generally say I am a controversial person). I very often look at people and try to read how they got where they were. How society operates at different levels, and yeah perhaps being somewhere in the middle gives you sight of both.

On Saturday morning, just before I met with Steve, I saw the cops around my neighbourhood talking with the homeless people who sleep in the park. They were rude, and I captured phrases like "let me have a word with you mate" - which is probably not the way the same policeman would talk to you and surely not to Tony Blair's wife.

I later realised that there was a carnival going on, which was to pass in front of this park. The cops "cleaned" the park from these "undesirable" people, but obviously they consent to not annoying them unless there is a reason like this (they are all back now).

The very same society that deprives people from opportunities once, makes sure they will remain stable thereafter. The homeless person can't stay in the park and see the carnival, but I can. I can't go to the park any night, and this won't change either. A defined space for everyone.

Thinking of the next generation, do you picture this kid in 20 years?

hmmm this is tricky. so these models are not people you know, obviously... yet, the portraits are good. you seem to be looking right through them.
now, as we all know, the impression we get by a picture says more about ourselves than about the person in the picture.

what i find interesting is how different the 2 pictures are.
in the black and white one you could, indeed, start to think about neglection abuse and whatnot. because they look grim. and her face is funny.
actually on candids it happens a lot that perfectly normal people look really funny - faces move, and with a picture you can freeze it in the wrong moment.
i throw such pictures away because they don't do justice to the person in the picture. so i do feel this picture should not have been put up.

it does make an interesting contrast to the other one. that one is posed. i mean, really posed. so posed that it looks fake. that makes you think there must be an evil side to them - just as much as the candid makes you think there must be a good side as well.

i wonder why you are showing us the evil picture in b&w and the too good one in color. probably to enhance these impressions? what would they look like if you turn it around and publish this one in color and the other one in b&w?

all in all, personally i'm not really happy about either, even though both are good portraits after all -with both there's just a little thing wrong. the rest of the series was better.

oh and i do agree with those who say that the words you start your comment with do not show much respect for these people.

miklos: i think you might have missed the point. we were lead in a directio by what he wrote, and then led in a completely different direction when he linked to the other picture. My reaction was 'sad, burdensome' for the first and that was turned on its head when i looked at the other one.

I like what djn did to us with this.

That kid's gaze (in both pics) is quite unsettling...with or without commentary.

which, incidentally, is of the partner and mother of the guy from my previous two shots... (emphasis mine)

Surely you mean partner and daughter? Or mother and daughter?

I was moved by this picture before I read any of the comments, so I say good job. :)

They look wary of you, but I can see all the things that you have pointed out too.

what I felt at first view.....a mother scolding a boy for being naughty ..when they were interrupted and they both turned towards you...mother embarrased...son ..wondering what happens next

I think this is great shot and I'm not lalking about this picture but I am talking about the details within the photo. You want us to understand that people such these who are struggling through their lives yet they are PEOPLE just like us. I know what I'm talking about because I used to be and I can relate to these people. So, I'm saying that this is classic photo and this should be one published in "LIFE" photography mag! To show how WE live and how we should respect other people's cultures. Good job!

Also I’m not too sure I would be happy if I were this woman, came to your site, saw my photo and it started with “Suspicion? Patriarchal oppression? Lack of Opportunity?”

miklos: just a couple of points: to me it seems as though both her and her son were initially suspicious of why I was photographing them. More generally, the list of things I put up were just that, a list of possible interpretations, some of which I think may be relevant, others not. 'Patriachal oppression' was somewhat speculative but might be an assumption you'd come up with from a feminist perspective. 'Lack of Opportunity' was in recognition of the fact that I've had a lucky life, and that not everybody has had things quite so easy as me. I don't see that any of those would make her unhappy.

The problem here, and I don't think this is the first time this has happened, is that you're reading my description in a particular way and jumping to conclusions about what my intentions are. Admittedly, in this case, I probably didn't explain myself all that well, but hey, it happens.

And out of interest, what, 'bad composition' aside, did you see? You've told me that you don't like my commentary – what would yours have been?

Ioannis: yes, I agree, and that's kind of been my point over the last few days, hence the title of my previous two shots, 'men make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing'. Inequality is a pervasive and structural feature of our society and, for me at least, this woman is postioned in a way that disadvantages her.

erik: yep, I could have put it better, not least because disrespect was the last thing on my mind.

Valette: thanks, I've corrected it.

Yvette: thanks.

Not read any of the other comments but, trying to ignore what you've suggested, my first impression was Latin American. Go figure.

The second is, looking at her eys, that she's actually quite enjoying the idea that some would want to take her picture.

As for the kid, well, I think he's just a bit confused by the whole thing.

After reading the comments my second one to everyone is... go rent, steal, buy if you must, a DVD of Shameless.

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/S/shameless/index.html

Oh! After seeing today's post on John's site, and seeing the size of your equipment, I'm even less surprised at the expressions. It's a bit intimidating. Assuming you were using the same set-up. No wonder the kid looks a bit phased. I think I woluld.

Here I am to disagree with some of the comments above - this is one really grabs my attention and that is, at least for me, the point.

Their expressions, especially for the child are priceless.

A naive question: how did you achieve the black background?

The mom looks slightly amused that you're photographing her. The child looks a little forlorn. I'm impressed by the details.

good job david.
i see the beuty inside the man on the kid's eyes, maybe- i think- they got the same eyes or vision.-i think-
"or leading the viewer into a particular train of thought".
respect.
are we talking about art? yes. post-moderno-free your mind and let us know or imagine us your intentions-may i say great pictures-.and david do not let the unuseful comments or anger plays at your work.

Hmm, nice that people are passionate.... This photo is almost really powerful, but not quite - Could have been more powerful though without the big comment - would have been more effective just as an image, interpretable for different people in different ways... I think.

Please forgive me if I'm repeating any points that other people may have made. I don't get why it matters what the photographer wrote about this photo (or any for that matter). The first thing we see when we come to this site is the photograph for that day. Our first impression of that image should already have registered in our brain by the time we click on comments. Second, this is a photoBLOG, right? Third, this is David's site. He can say whatever he wants. It's called free speech. Sheesh...

Anyway, I like this shot. My first impression was 'What do you want?' from the lady and 'Why are you taking my picture' from the kid. :D

Amazing to see the difference between the two photos. My first impression when your site loaded was that they had had a hard life, and the child was too young to have had such a hard life. The second image softens them up a bit, makes them look more warm.

i, unlike the masses, think your comments are entirely appropriate. similar to us (commenters) you say what you think about the photo, what you feel now/what you felt while taking the photograph and i greatly appriciate it. it is why i check in here and have been checking in here for quite some time. i enjoy "getting into the mind" of a, what i think, a ubeleivably great photographer. i hope todays reactions do not discourage you from posting more comments like this. as for the photo, it is a very striking image. it taps into the feeling of the mother as well as the little boy. very distinct looks on their faces. it feels almost like they are looking at me specifically and not just the camera.

What do I see?....when I looked at the photo before reading the comment, I saw a woman with smiling eyes captured halfway between a smile and as if she were about to speak. The boy just seemed unsure,
perhaps for the reasons Nogger suggested (having seen the equipment you carried on John's site).

It's really interesting to read your take on the image and then the viewers comments. It certainly makes for stimulating debate.

For me an image is just a frozen point in time that can have many interpretations. This exercise over the last few days shows, I think, how dangerous it is to draw any definite conclusions from looking at any one photograph. Great work David.

I think that the responses to the photo are as interesting as the picture itself (well, almost as interesting). To me, it reveals the inherent editorial nature of all photography... our choice of color, framing, focus, etc. is as 'leading' as any words we can say. I think that the photographer did a fine job with both mediums. This picture doesn't record something; rather, it says something (if that makes sense).

I also think that this photo captures the fleeting nature of our perceptions in general. Perhaps it is only in looking at such images that we are confronted with the unchecked flow of assumptions that are really quite contingent (lighting, color, background), but which we base so much on. Photography as a microchasm of human perception perhaps?

Apologies: microcosm... typing in a hurry.

hey dave, long time viewer first time making a comment. when i first saw this shot i immediately connected it with the previous days shots. your portraits are beautiful. i would love to see the whole family together. the kid in the shot really has an old face and by that i see that he has something in his eyes that's eerie, like a mature look. you're inspiring me to get out and do some portrait work, keep it up.

Looks like the female version of Lawrence Fishburn. This picture is okay; your main power lies in your still-lifes.

I did manage to form an impression before clicking the comments link, and interestingly, "poor skin" is what seemed to stick most. There's also an interesting contrast between the boy's 'clean' complexion and short hair and his mother's darker eyes and slightly unruly hair. She looks to me like a tough woman who will do all she can to preserve her son's innocence.

I can also see where nogger came up with 'latin american'. The hoop earrings, dark eyes and her expression push me in the same direction.

I've really enjoyed these recent shots and your comments on them. There is tremendous value in understanding the photographer's mindset when interpreting a complex image like this. Keep 'em coming!

Great work Dave.
Initially I saw the mother as just being caught unawares, even though she is looking right at you. The kid is full on hostility, very disturbing little blighter if you ask me. The second shot shows the mother is a much better light, but still the kid is hostile. He is just too young to have an expression like that...

Considering my complete knowledge of this family is the sum total of about 6 photos (including John's), I think it amazing how much I feel I can place them within society. And it's not a nice place. How much we can trust our perception is an open question but I think that is the real quality of the work you have showed us this week. Not only photography is interpretive, viewing is equally so :)

Great shot David. I guess, as you said it, they were very goot people, but at the same time, have had a hard knock life. I guess the two photos you took account for both of those attributes. The color one shows their personalities, or friendliness perhaps. The black and white one, on the other hand, shows their life, and sorta the expressions that their life has brought them in the past.

Mixing these two attributes together would create a Mona Lisa.

Make any sense?

Hi, this is my first comment, but I am a daily viewer and admirer of your work - on many levels, not least of which is the fact that you do actually "post a picture a day" that, to me, is amazing! What is also kind of amazing, is why you seem to feel ashamed that you have made a decent life for your self and your family?? You make no secret of your political views and opinions, so from that point of view, I guess your comments are no surprise; but I don't understand why you think someone who has less talent, less drive, less intelligence etc. etc. as you do, should have the same benefits and rewards that you do?? Anyway, I admire your work (especially the "inanimate objects"!) so if you feel you have to make some kind of "statement" with your photography, (as your friend John puts it) it's your site, so go for it!
Thanks
Mike
(Former Limey)
Anaheim, California.

In theoretical terms, shots like these raise issues about this genre of photography/portrait work, and what it signifies. I dont mean the obvious socio-political stuff, I mean why we/photographers do it. There are many different factors depending on who does it, who the person is, and what the circumstances are.

I'm not speaking about this image in particular, but generally and theoretcally.

And on that basis, this kind of imagery can have one of more of the following:

-voyeurism
- the 'other'
- OK....the obvious political stuff
- humanitarian concern
- pathological concern or personal identification - Dian Arbus devoted herself to the strange and the estranged......and eventually killed herself.
- humanity revealed more clearly in 'the street' - also with the work of Dorothea Lange, showing struggle, suffering etc

I agree with nogger somewhat, my first impressions were 'shameless'. i like the two photos together, they show, to me anyway, a woman caught unaware and in a natural fashion, the second colour photo shows her prepared and wanting to look better for the viewers, covering something up maybe? i also see her with more confidence and a hint of happiness from the colour shot as i think she is flattered by the interest in her. i think the boy is just there and isn't too bothered by you but is doing as he is told and sat there being 'good', which suggests a reasonable upbringing.

as far as your comments go and everyone elses, i consider it to be an important if not fundamental part of the site, i love to read what you see and the way you interpret and how it makes you think and feel.
In most cases its completely different to mine, but thats when you know you have something special and can be seen and 'understood' in many ways.

great job.

What a classic !!! I love this shot - it's one of my favourites. It's just so powerful (obviously; look at the debate it has sparked). This image draws one in to ponder upon these people: who are they? .. where are they coming from? There's a life story there. It's not just another nice portrait - but seems more real than that.

If the expression on the lady's face had been composed and ready for the shot, for me the image would have lost much of it's impact. Her expression and wispy hair give the image life.

Stunning! Thanks David.

Cool portraits Dave.
I imagine their lives are hard, but I also see hope in her eyes.

A striking image with some striking comments.

If an image attracts so much attention, then it works!

My first thoughts on this image:

Social sponger ??
Traveller / Gypsey stock?? (its the earings!)
Not to be trusted?

I think you rely too much on Photoshop or such like

I do think they are stunning though.

I work with the poor at my church and see this far too often. People who try to do the best with what they have. This little boy's eyes just cut me to the soul. He's seen a lot of hardship and is weary too.

I don't suppose he's more than four years old.

I also feel for the mum--being a single mum myself--I know the pressures and strains and joys that are part of being a parent alone (even if she has a partner--the fellow obviously has been in a fight and is a little rough himself--I worry for both the mum and kid)

Miklos: All I can say to you is that you're some snob of a punk. Your comments aren't constructive in the least and I'm sure you get some sort of rise out of making them and geting a reaction.

I don't peg you to be out of your twenties from your site--I'm still in my twenties and have a little bit more poise than you mate. Grow up.

I, like others, do love your commentary on your photographs and seeing the motivation behind your shots. But I, like some, have a problem with the commentary on this photograph.

When I opened up the site, I saw the photo. I liked the swing of the mother's earrings. The expression seemed fun, Latino, and "street." Regardless, by herself, she's a photographically unattractive subject. Joined by the boy, however, there is a marked contrast that makes the photo worthwhile.

Still, I was surprised by the 46 comments.After reading your commentary, I understood.

This b/w photo makes a statement. It doesn't have to be a real statement; as John's photos seem to be part of an exaggerated motif in every frame. But your commentary asks the viewers to judge the people, not the photograph.

I don't like the comparison between the posed shot and the unposed. Overall, these subjects look uncomfortable getting their photo taken. Sometimes this responsibility falls fully on the photographer. Sometimes, regardless of the shooter, the subject will never photograph well. The posed shot is not worth posting; the comparison of the two, unfair. Every posed portrait taken at Sears features a subject trying to look their best. In no way, should a viewer come away with, the mother is trying to "hide something."

Your commentary could only lead a viewer to that.

My 2 cents is that it doesn't matter what she was really thinking. It's a photo and no longer "reality." At this point, it's up to the viewer to look at these two representations of people -- this image, and the series it's part of -- and have an interaction with it. As someone said above, the reality of this image is that it comes from the photographer and includes choices (cropping, etc). The ethics are important, but that's all technical stuff when it comes to the image itself.

As for the photographer taking time to speculate outloud, why not. I personally gave that a very fast skim and went straight to the comments. It turns out I could have skipped most of the comments, too. Most people (including the most critical ones) didn't contribute anything constructive.

As for me, I think the image has a powerful pull, but it leaves me hanging with unanswered questions. Maybe it's the dark background that isolates them (why?). I just don't know where you're going with it. But it's very interesting. Maybe it would make sense if the series were expanded.

I also love the way you get the skin tones. Do you do the black and white conversion in Photoshop? With a plug-in or not?

I think this image is great. It really captures a single moment in time that leaves you wondering about these two people. Someone made a comment about there being "something missing" but I think that adds a deep interest to this photo--which the black baground enhances. I love it, great job!

Thanks everyone.

I guess my point with this one, that didn't come across all that well, was a follow up to the discussion on my previous two entries: that we bring our own thoughts to any photograph and to how we take and present those photographs. My own thoughts, as I've mentioned, were that these were good people, albeit somewhat disadvantaged (in my opinion). Anyway, I've dug enough holes for myself with this one so I'll shut up now ;-)

A little bit late, so this may not be read at all. I didn't see the first part of the descrption alone, when I read the description It had the second part of you explainig your intention so maybe that's why I undestood a little bit better, and I totally agree. Their life can be totally different to what we are thinking but the truth is that their expression at this view seems to be tired and sad in some way. Maybe not the women cause she seems to be talking but the boy's expression, sad at all for me, and it could be just part of the circunstances, who know. The fact that the picture was done in B & W helps to that mood, and it is totally the opposite in the color one. Now. I am the one who does not know if she was clear enough :p

If you were thinking about the subject and their feelings or even our feelings towards them, then you would have posted the colour shot. You were not, you were thinking about the image so you posted the more gritty one. You need too as chromasia is about the photos.
You have not changed these peoples lives by taking the photos although you have coloured how other see their lives.

I visit your site almost daily, and have never commented, but this time I have to wonder...why does Miklos keep returning? Is he not getting enough traffic on his site and hoping to poach some of yours with his resolutely negative - and usually unconstructive - comments? Because if I found as much to dislike in your images and commentary as he apparently does, I would NOT be coming back.

just for the record.
i think most of you did not recognized what david was trying to do. As a magician that first leads your attention to a point but then try to surprise you with an opposite result.
I think everything he did was all right. He got the surprise of most of the viewers.