DSLRUsers.com

Can anyone tell how children using compact auto cameras can get such exquisite images?

In case you don’t know what I’m taking about ‘Born into Brothels’ is a great doco about 8 children who live in the red light district of Calcutta where their mothers work as prostitutes. A New York based photographer gives each of these children a camera and teaches them how to take pictures. It makes you wonder about the value of having tons camera gear and technical knowledge.

You can find some of the images here:
http://www.kids-with-cameras.org/kidsgallery/

Interesting site Ricpic

I highly recommend this movie. There's something to be said for not understanding the limitations of your equipment. quite ironically, for these kids having a camera literally opened a world of artistic expression without limits. That sounded cheezy, but you have to see the movie, real genuine stuff.

I agree RICPIC - these are root level photos and photographers that have not been tainted with the avarice of the western world.

So Chris - you going to sell your D2H and D70 and go back to basics

Oneputt wrote:So Chris - you going to sell your D2H and D70 and go back to basics

Very interesting, thanks for posting.. maybe more incentive to get more kids shooting and posting on the forums ? (But let's not send them to Calcutta).

I'm scratching my head here, cos I may be the only one who doesn't get it.

I reviewed the site, and thought the images were quite to very crap. Should I have viewed them with more leniency because they are kids in a third world nation? Or is it because the subject matter they shot are 'foreign' to alot of viewers that it's the source of fascination? These images don't intrique me or hold my attention at all... what am I missing?

You’re not missing anything Chi - when I looked at the pics my mind went back to the very first time my hands touched the keyboard of a computer - the wonder - the excitement - the fear. Through this I imagined these kids having in their hands something quite alien to them and through this wonderment - excitement and, of course, fear.

Yes, the pics in my own minds eye are crap - but I have thought that about many pics posted on this forum and by some of the world’s greatest photographers - and last, but not least, a lot of my own efforts

Onyx, I think the phrase here would be "Each to their own". Compare it with Leigh's photos, some ppl love them while others loathe them.

For me, there are some which stand out while others aren't that great. I dont' think it's anything to do with the composition or repetition or any of the artistic concepts which you get taught or learn about, but the raw emotion and life stories depicted in each of the photos that grabs people.

I think one of the key reasons why some of the photos stand out so well is that they photograph what they see and dont' get too caught up about the technicalities about each shot (ie. aperture, shutter speed, iso, vignetting, etc). They just pointed and shot.

Great link Ricpic, definitely refreshing!

I've got to say after seeing the film I found the images on the website a bit disappointing. Of course the story behind the photographers adds to the impressiveness of the images.

The film implied taking excellent pictures came naturally and simply to these kids which is no doubt true to a degree but I suspect the main character’s (the New York based pro) technical knowledge in setting cameras and using the right film helped a lot.

I highly recommend seeing it. It’s kind of humbling to see how influential and powerful photography can be.

I think they are amazing sublimely refrshing, an intimate peer into the innocence of a child view in the 3rd world wihtout the influence of modernity.
Bear in mind those places have an inherent seductive beauty. It's like going to india a puicture taken there no matter by who looks strangely different and wonderful.

I think Chi no disrespect bro if your missing the beauty in these images your not seeing them for their artistic quality, it doesn't matter anyway one day the beautiful thing is that you will see these images with new eyes and that's something to look forward too.

the documentary is wonderful too.

Oneputt wrote:So Chris - you going to sell your D2H and D70 and go back to basics

Rumor has it that Chris is going to buy an old Nokia camphone and go stalking around Manly Beach with a Sigma attached to it.

gstark wrote:

Oneputt wrote:So Chris - you going to sell your D2H and D70 and go back to basics

Rumor has it that Chris is going to buy an old Nokia camphone and go stalking around Manly Beach with a Sigma attached to it.

I told you that in absolute confidence

Sorry I have to second Chi on this one. I looked at the photos and was bored and quickly pressed the next image to see if my boredom would lessen. Nope!

For some reason with all the hype over how wonderful they were I was expecting some sort of Kevin Carter style emotional, heart wrenching images. But no instead I got a horse with the riders head cut off. Wow!

I quite liked the horse with the rider's head cutoff. So clean, right at the neck. I love the street shot of the old man glaring, the pictures of the women and kids carrying buckets up the stairs, kids smiling etc. I too found them refreshing. I didn't bother with the distracting details, but let myself for a second view this totally foreign life through a 8 yr olds. Not all of them are fantabulous, but many of them I find have a lot of depth.

What I'm trying to say is that Onyx and kipper are both dead on the inside, and that is why they aren't "feeling it"

What I'm trying to say is that Onyx and kipper are both dead on the inside, and that is why they aren't "feeling it"

I'm going to let this one slide.

Ok Dooda, tell me what I should be feeling?

Kipper, I was only joking. A bit rash to say that you're dead on the inside just because you don't like the same photos as me.

Just poking fun. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Yeah, well I do feel for a lot of people that do live a life less fortunate than us. However should I adjust my bar accordingly to the work they produce? I think not. As for what I said about Kevin Carter in one of my quotes, do I judge his work differently because he comitted suicide and that in itself makes a tragic story. I don't think it does as his peice is a very emotional in itself. Personally, I don't think photos/art should be judged any differently depending on the predictament the artist is in. If you do then you're taking pity on them.

Not at all, it gives me the chance to see through a child's eyes again. The man's cutoff head sort of illustrates it. So does the man that looks like he's scolding. Much of it isn't that pleasant, but effective or whatever. I think that once you've seen the movie, it's easier to connect emotionally to the pictures. I'd agree that, had I not seen the movie first, I'd probably find them second rate snaps. I don't believe that you can separate your own emotional bias from judging a photo though. Not sure if I'm disagreeing with you or not, and I'm not familiar with your comment about Kevin Carter, and I don't believe I ever hinted that you should adjust your aesthetic bar over pity (if that's what you're saying).

I really was being ironic. My brother told me once that he doesn't like fireworks anymore but his kids go coocoo over them. I told him he's dead on the inside, and he agreed (jokingly).

I've got over the quote, but what I'm trying to understand is why we should be emotional over the circumstances of the author? Most of the pictures/photos that I have viewed are about the subject not the author.

Well, in my opinion emotion is pretty damn hard to get rid of in it's entirety. And I don't view the whole subject and author thing as that different. It's their home, their life, it's filled with chaos that's both good and bad, and it's being viewed through them. I find that invigorating. And when you see the movie, you begin to see something compelling and real about their photos, as a sort of documentary in itself. The naked picture of the baby takes on meaning when the backstory of the lives of the women prostitutes is revealed. That was emotional.

Things take on meaning. I remember watching "the Pledge" with my brother who had a baby girl (movie is about a guy who kills little girls). For me the movie was okay, but for him, it was quite emotional, and the whole thing took on a different meaning for him, eventhough it was the same movie.

I don't think, however that you should feel emotional, it's more a matter of, you're feeling a connection or you don't. And you didn't. I'm not sure if you saw the movie, but had you maybe that would be different, or maybe not.

I find that a lot of art tends to be fairly controversial. Hate it or love it. I find that postcardish stuff tends to be more universally liked, but there's less emotion in it for me (sunset vistas of mountains etc). NOt sure if any of that made sense.

So I should rate a lot of images higher in my standards if I watch a documentary? I don't get it , a photo is suppose to convery what the author intends and shouldn't require a doco, a 100pg thesis or whatever on what they intended the audience to feel.

Exactly.

 LOL it's like American Beauty all over again... (it's a flippin' plastic bag flapping in the wind, what's all the fuss about beauty so overwhelming?!)

I viewed the site again, this time trying to place myself in the eyes of the child - trying to see what the child would have seen and experienced when taking the photo. Maybe I am dead on the inside, and heartless... cos I still can't get over that these children's mothers are prostitutes.

My mother was a servant - that does not make me a servant Oops - I suppose I am a servant of the State

I too, see nothing more than a bunch of photos that I would have deleted and been embarrassed to show anyone. To see that they have the audacity to charge big bucks for prints, is incredible to me. The same thing could be done with the children of prostitutes in Detroit, NYC, LA, Tijuana, Juarez, Matamoros, or anywhere else.

Seems to me to be typical exploitation of the plight of these people, for financial gain, in the greatest tradition of the greedy.

But, what do I know....

Ummm, Kerry if I remember right, the money was going towards getting the kids into school. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what the photographer was trying to do in promoting them.

dooda wrote:Ummm, Kerry if I remember right, the money was going towards getting the kids into school. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what the photographer was trying to do in promoting them.

Dunno, Dave. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can't help but think that he and others are making a pretty penny off the plight of those people. He will certainly have gained exposure that will allow him to advance his career, perhaps significantly. Will he then put the ill-gotten gains into a fund to help those people? Again, my cynical nature says, not a chance.

It's probably worth checking the film out for yourself before passing judgement. The photographer lived amongst these kids for years and the photo idea only came along as way of trying to help them out of their predicament.

It's hard to say how much benefit the film producers gained from it, it won an ocsar, but i don't think personal gain was their motivation.

And, as I suggested earlier, the images on the website are lousy reproductions, they seem to lack contrast and depth of colour.

ric

Well I looked at the pics and thought they were way ordinary too, but didn't bother to post. Having read the subsequent discussion I have a question to pose:

Is an image a better image because you know the context of it's genesis or should the image stand on its own?

And two corollories:

What if I lie to you about it's genesis and you don't know I've lied?

What happens to your appreciation of the image when I tell you I lied?

"Depth of feeling is more important than depth of field"

these photos have an amazing vibrancy and freedom about them.

I love the innocence and freedom, It is a good cause teaching children that they have skills a voice and a vision.

If it saves one child than it is a worthwhile project.

It may not be to your taste, OK, but do not dismiss the work of others.

I would love to be able to recapture that vision from so many years ago.

Dug wrote:
It may not be to your taste, OK, but do not dismiss the work of others.

heh, we dismiss the work of others all the time. That's what happens when something isn't to your tastes.

You and Ric see something in those images that I don't see. I don't see anything different with these images than what I see when I let the neighbor kids play with my cameras.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. NBD.

RICPIC wrote:It's probably worth checking the film out for yourself before passing judgement. The photographer lived amongst these kids for years and the photo idea only came along as way of trying to help them out of their predicament.

It's hard to say how much benefit the film producers gained from it, it won an ocsar, but i don't think personal gain was their motivation.

And, as I suggested earlier, the images on the website are lousy reproductions, they seem to lack contrast and depth of colour.

ric

Dunno, Ric.

Where I live, there are a ton of folks in bad conditions. I don't equate detroit to calcutta, but I've never been to calcutta. I've lived here for over 20 years. I've seen a ton of people use the unfortunates as puppets, for personal, political and financial gain.

I've also worked with real charities, real people that do volunteer work, where their only reward is the smile that they sometimes get from the people they're trying to help.

My BS detector goes on high alert, every time I see something like this. Some hollywood folks get an oscar and the photog gets famous. What happened to the kids? More importantly, what happened to the way of life there?

Millions of dollars and untold manhours, volunteer and otherwise, get spent in detroit, every year. It is no less sad or disturbing to me, than the plight of people in calcutta. As I said before, the guy didn't have to go to calcutta to see strife. He could have seen a ton of it right in NYC, where he's based. The difference is that it's more exotic in calcutta, more prevalent and not so embarrassing to the various governmental bodies spending money in NYC.

I've just looked at the pictures and I found a few of them really work for me (colours, composition, subject). The fact some shots are pretty bad technically makes it more 'believable' that the local kids took the photos - that implies an insider's vision, maybe distanced from the adults' concerns (do the kids actually understand what job their mums are doing?).

I think I would be more interested in seeing what the prostitutes themselves would have shot if they were given small camera...

Link.

KerryPierce wrote:

RICPIC wrote:It's probably worth checking the film out for yourself before passing judgement. The photographer lived amongst these kids for years and the photo idea only came along as way of trying to help them out of their predicament.

It's hard to say how much benefit the film producers gained from it, it won an ocsar, but i don't think personal gain was their motivation.

And, as I suggested earlier, the images on the website are lousy reproductions, they seem to lack contrast and depth of colour.

ric

Dunno, Ric.

Where I live, there are a ton of folks in bad conditions. I don't equate detroit to calcutta, but I've never been to calcutta. I've lived here for over 20 years. I've seen a ton of people use the unfortunates as puppets, for personal, political and financial gain.

I've also worked with real charities, real people that do volunteer work, where their only reward is the smile that they sometimes get from the people they're trying to help.

My BS detector goes on high alert, every time I see something like this. Some hollywood folks get an oscar and the photog gets famous. What happened to the kids? More importantly, what happened to the way of life there?

Millions of dollars and untold manhours, volunteer and otherwise, get spent in detroit, every year. It is no less sad or disturbing to me, than the plight of people in calcutta. As I said before, the guy didn't have to go to calcutta to see strife. He could have seen a ton of it right in NYC, where he's based. The difference is that it's more exotic in calcutta, more prevalent and not so embarrassing to the various governmental bodies spending money in NYC.

The photographer, a woman, didn't go to Calcutta to save these kids but ended up caught up in their lives. No doubt she could have stayed in NYC and got a similarly tragic story. She could also have spent her time at home making a hell of a lot more money working in her established position. But I think we're hypothesizing about her motives and we're not likely to be accurate.

Like I said earlier, I'd recommend seeing the film before passing judgment

RICPIC wrote:position. But I think we're hypothesizing about her motives and we're not likely to be accurate.

That's pretty much my point. I'm simply a lot less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, when lots of money and fame is made in the process. Whether or not her primary motivation was to do that, it was the final result. As I said, it would be more telling, if we knew whether or not all of her gains, current and future, were redirected back to that cause. OTOH, if she becomes rich as a result of this, then she's no different than any of the others that made money off of it. It's easy to be a lipstick liberal. It's not so easy to put your money where your mouth is, as is demonstrated by the rich and famous in hollywood. Actions speak far louder than words.

The movie is just now out. She did succeed in getting many of the kids out, many of them were pulled back, or went back, a few of them stayed. The movie is representative of brothels all over India that are littered with children born out of the business, and forced back into the situation. It's only exotic in it's national consistancy all over India. The brothels in New York etc aren't overun with kids that are forced to work there, and subsequently forced into prostitution.

Kerry, I find it strange that you have so much prejudiced opinion developed before viewing the material. I understand that your BS meter may vary given what you see, but, and this is the way I see things, I always keep them to myself before the judgement is out.

It also serves the point that we never or rarely opinion a photo without some kind of prejudice based on our interrelationship with it's aesthetic. It's an interesting point, what if I lied, then a flood of emotions would absolutely taint the picture, whether it be good or bad, it will absolutely affect the picture. BTW, the sample on the website doesn't really give you a good idea of all of the photos they took. Some of the examples in the film were far better than those in the website (I thought). I think it also has to do with lack of autofocus, autoflash etc.

dooda wrote:Kerry, I find it strange that you have so much prejudiced opinion developed before viewing the material. I understand that your BS meter may vary given what you see, but, and this is the way I see things, I always keep them to myself before the judgement is out.

I don't understand what you mean, Dave. I had no opinion, until after I viewed the photos. I didn't like them. I had no opinion of the photog and still don't have a concrete opinion, until I saw the photos were for sale at ridiculous prices.

I've made no comment about the movie.

Given that I saw the photos and the prices, before I made a comment, how is that being prejudiced or an untimely judgement?

It also serves the point that we never or rarely opinion a photo without some kind of prejudice based on our interrelationship with it's aesthetic. It's an interesting point, what if I lied, then a flood of emotions would absolutely taint the picture, whether it be good or bad, it will absolutely affect the picture. BTW, the sample on the website doesn't really give you a good idea of all of the photos they took. Some of the examples in the film were far better than those in the website (I thought). I think it also has to do with lack of autofocus, autoflash etc.

That's the other issue. Photography is many things, to many people. It's mainly an art and a method by which memories are captured. Common photos of friends and family are not as meaningful to outsiders as they are to those in the know. Artistic endeavors require no relationship between the photo and the viewer, to have a meaningful impact.

I viewed the photos with only the comments here as a precursor. The photos were said to be brilliant, exquisite and other high praise, including the comparison of compact auto cameras to the best gear available.

When I viewed the photos, I saw nothing even close to any of those descriptive adjectives. So, why was I not also enchanted? I separate the photos from the photographer. The photographer's life and times have nothing to do with the photos being presented, thus they stand or fall on their own merit.

My opinion of the photos has nothing to do with my sympathy or distress at their plight. I need not view the movie to imagine the hell those kids are going through. I have my own experiences in that area, with which to draw conclusions.

There is no correlation, IMO, photographic excellence. It was something used to give the children a distraction from their daily lives.

Fair enough, it only seemed to me like you were judging the agenda of the people that were trying to help before you actually saw their presented material, or witnessed their story. I also think that the photos would appeal more to people in the Westernized world, as opposed to an East Indian or the like that live there or near there, but that would go the same for someone witnessing a sweeping view of the Sahara, or the North Shore Mountains for that matter. Every person is going to have a different opinion on subject matter based on their own experience. As far as technical savy goes, I guess I'm a little easier to look through that as being they're children.

As far as distractions from their daily lives, I'd say that probably applies to more than just kids that are born into brothels. wouldn't you say? I know that wasn't the point. Your point was that their photography serves no greater purpose than the afore mentioned distraction. But I believe that in witnessing the story, the photos take on meaning, much like reading a good book. Take Lord of the Rings. In the Hobbit, the ring takes a back seat. In the trilogy, it takes on meaning. I think that as art takes on meaning, the technicalities that you may notice become somewhat more irrelevent.

dooda wrote:Fair enough, it only seemed to me like you were judging the agenda of the people that were trying to help before you actually saw their presented material, or witnessed their story.

The agenda is undetermined, AFAIK. What they present for material and a story isn't always the truth. Lots of schemes to separate people from their money and/or gain some sort of support, or both, use such tactics. To determine the agenda, you need to look at the end game, as I described earlier.

matter based on their own experience. As far as technical savy goes, I guess I'm a little easier to look through that as being they're children.

You and I view these things much differently. I often think that I am the antithesis of the pro or serious amateur. I have never tested any of my lenses for sharpness, etc. I refuse to pixel peep for defects and refuse to care about so many of the things that are sacred to the gear heads and pixel peepers. I don't believe that only Nikon lenses are worth having and that everything else is junk.

I tell you this because it's directly related to how I view photos. Although I've learned a great deal about technical savvy, with respect to images, I never view them with that in mind, until I've simply looked at the subject of the photo.

I always look at photos with an eye for interest. If I like the photo, I don't worry much about technical matters. If I don't like the photo, I decide whether or not it's a technical matter that is bothering me, rather than the subject itself. Most of the time, it's simply a subject that isn't presented to me in a manner that I find appealing.

With the photos in question, I simply did not like the subject matter, as it was presented. The technical mistakes simply made it worse.

a back seat. In the trilogy, it takes on meaning. I think that as art takes on meaning, the technicalities that you may notice become somewhat more irrelevent.

To me, you're describing friends/family/memories photography. You're describing an emotional involvement with the subjects and photographer. Generally, I don't consider that kind of photography to be artistic, although it could be.

Consider the group of people that have gathered here on dslrusers. You and many others that frequent this site, I consider to be friends. I have an emotional attachment to you, that I don't have for most people. But, when I'm looking at the photos in the Image Reviews & Critiques forum, I don't look at the photos with that prejudice. A photo will stand or fall on its own merits.

I would never tell you that I liked your photo, if I didn't. That serves no useful purpose, IMO. If I don't judge the photo on it's merits, regardless as to who the photographer might be, that's not being true to myself. I either enjoy the photo or I don't.

Boy this is gettin complicated. The fact is, to judge the sincerety on there presented story, no matter the motivation, is a better educated judgement than assuming it not having witnessed it. Of course they can spin it the way they want, and all of our information is spun some way, but we still seek it out and then form a judgement, usually based strictly on emotion.

When I spoke of technicalities, I was speaking more on composition, as you've never seen me pixel peep, claim that Nikon is the only way, dwell on techie stuff either.

I wasn't talking about emotional friend stuff, I was talking about real artistic stuff that you internalize and then process. I was reading a flannery O Connor story recently, a story about a woman with a fake leg. At the beginning of the story it was just that, an artificial leg, but a fake bible salesman began to take interest in it, and suddenly this leg began to take on meaning. For me it related to my own insecurities and fears in life (making a decent living and whatever). For another it may have been physical etc. This is what I mean by taking on meaning. So much of art these days is meaningless at first glance, and when you understand the story behind it, it takes on so much meaning. A friend of mine did a painting project about his heart valve transplant. At first it looked like a randomn abstract. As you began to explore his story, what it did for him and what the story was that the painting represented, the art show took on meaning for many people.

Personally I don't find most of the photography pictured here as all that artistic. It may have aesthetic merits as a photo, but nothing much deeper than well caught subjects of this and that. Mine own included. Mostly superficial. I found these pictures, with all there inperfections to be an exciting vehicle into these kids lives and how they deal with circumstances most of us couldn't dream of. Once again it's only through viewing the movie. I'm sure I'd have thought the same had I not seen the movie.

Forgive me for not using the quote button, I'm tired and need to go to bed.

dooda wrote:Boy this is gettin complicated. The fact is, to judge the sincerety on there presented story, no matter the motivation, is a better educated judgement than assuming it not having witnessed it. Of course they can spin it the way they want, and all of our information is spun some way, but we still seek it out and then form a judgement, usually based strictly on emotion.

heh, it's complicated because there are several issues involved, all of which are complicated.

I can only say that an offering of opinion, based on limited facts, is not the same as passing final judgement. In general, I try very hard to separate emotion from any such opinions or judgements, of motivation.

When I spoke of technicalities, I was speaking more on composition, as you've never seen me pixel peep, claim that Nikon is the only way, dwell on techie stuff either.

Agreed. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I only wanted to clarify my position.

physical etc. This is what I mean by taking on meaning. So much of art these days is meaningless at first glance, and when you understand the story behind it, it takes on so much meaning.

I don't know or understand the class of art that requires an explanation. That sounds like an illustrated story, rather than a piece of artwork.

Personally I don't find most of the photography pictured here as all that artistic. It may have aesthetic merits as a photo, but nothing much deeper than well caught subjects of this and that. Mine own included. Mostly superficial.

I'd be surprised if you found otherwise. Photography is a lot more complicated than that, from being extremely subtle to outrageous. A photo is supposed to tell a story or invoke some kind of reaction from the viewer. A photo of a bloody, bullet riddled body, may not be "artistic" to you, but it will tell the story and each viewer will have a unique reaction to the photo. Is it art? Yes, if that's what it was intended to be, by the photographer. Viewer appreciation doesn't alter that fact. It may not be your preference, or mine, but it is what it is.

Thanks for the interesting discussion Kerry.