Two Girls and a Machine Gun

Thanks for the explanation, Ken, it does change my reaction to the image knowing the background. As a Brit, our attitude to guns is generally somewhat different to our American cousins. However, if the principal purpose of any photo (and this is a photographic forum) is to provoke emotion, thought and reaction, then this sure did! In one sense I don't particularly like it, but in another I admire it for its thought proving quality, and I congratulate you for posting - it's the arguement for free speech! - I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

I agree with mr rusty above. He speaks my mind perfectly. While I am against the use of guns in almost any circumstance, I have steeled myself against my emotions, and I'm trying very hard to see it from other people's perspective.
As noted by others, the picture certainly does provoke, and in that regard, it is very successful. Thanks for posting.

This photograph has certainly provoked much response. When I first viewed it before reading any of these posts, I read the gun description, looked at the image and thought how surreal. There are many other pictures by noted photographers that show children in a sexual context that I find far more offensive.

Great photo. When I first looked at it, my reaction was it was a brilliant capture of complete contextual disconnect. Then I started noticing the technical brilliance. From the darker grass on the upper right, it looks like their faces would have been in pretty deep shadow. The flash really brings them out. Spot on focus. Nice detail in the sandbags, individual grass blades, clothing wrinkles. Inclusion of the M-18 smoke grenade adds an historic touch. The repeating of the crossed feet. I'm amazed that you had the presence of mind to capture such a fleeting moment with large format. You seem to have channeled WeeGee. He would have been proud of this photo. It even fits his MO for shock value.

pbromaghin said:

Great photo.

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter.

You're the first to even mention the technical side of the photograph. I was really happy with the way it turned out in that respect, given the harsh backlit circumstances. That darker shadow was cast by a large restored military truck parked behind the girls. It covered the rear sister, but not the front one.

The 622 Super flash is rated by Sunpak at GN200. This is more or less the same as the Sylvania Press 25 flashbulbs used in the Graflite units I own. At a dollar a pop for bulbs I often substitute the 622S to keep the costs down.

In this case I knew my synchro-sunlight distance that day was 12-feet at f/22. If I'd had a bit more time I would have moved in closer to use more negative and then turned down the flash's power setting. But I didn't have that luxury, so I just went with 12-feet and cropped into the big negative like photo editors back in the old days.

The lighting turned out very nicely balanced, I think. But if you look closely at the muzzle of the gun you can see both light sources. The shadow from the sun of the muzzle falling in front, and the shadow from the flash of the raised front sight falling behind. The sun was to the upper left in the composition.

And when I first noticed the mirrored leg positions by the girls I thought to myself, yes, they really must be sisters!

Oh, and the children at Sandy Hook were not killed by a Machine gun like this. That is as inaccurate as if somebody said a Leica M2 was a TLR. Neither a Glock, a Sig Sauer, nor a Bushmaster, all of which were used, are a machine gun. Machine guns are much more deadly, illegal, and harder to carry around. The M60 is just an historical artifact, nothing more. It's just a picture.

Many thanks to everyone who took time out to look and contribute their opinion. It was especially gratifying to see and read the longer and more in-depth points of view. Too often we merely skim past something interesting and can do no better than to leave a hastily scrawled "Great!" or "Sucks!" before quickly moving on. I am guilty of this as well.

While they are indeed convenient, one-word responses do little to illuminate the nuance of any observation or situation. To render a well thought out argument in writing is becoming less and less common these days, so I appreciate it more and more when it does happen. It's becoming a lost art.

That viewers were carefully evolving their thoughts and reactions to this photograph, as I certainly did before and after posting it, was indicated not only by the higher than normal view count, but also more subtly by the number of posters, including myself, who reworked their posts after initially submitting them. In many cases, through several iterations.

Indeed, we all had our thinking caps on, regardless of our very different reactions and points of view. And I for one found that extremely gratifying.

Ken, one final word, I agree that the context helps me feel better about YOU as a person, I got a little worried I had misjudged you, as do some people when they see some of my models I'm sure. I am still disturbed by the mother, and I agree with the poster who asked if they were boys, would we still be so upset, probably not AS upset, but if they were dressed in such innocent clothing, probably still would have bothered some.Ken I have to say, this is one of your BEST photographs. As another said, the idea is to invoke emotion from a single moment and perspective. This certainly does that. I think, this is the kind of image that could end up on a museum wall very easily. Have you considered submitting this to some magazines, this would be a great header photo for many different article topics that deal with guns and children.Cliveh said something interesting about nude children images often being more offensive, however my GF (now my ex) got me Sally Man's book for our 1 year Anniversary because her best friend (also a girl) had gotten her the same book because her best friend was also an amateur photographer and appreciated Sally's work. Anyway, I did not at all have a negative reaction to even a single image in the book. This image really disturbed me, or disturbs me still, it really bothers me, both the idea of the mother and the whole scene. If they weren't so happy I think that would make it better, and if not in those sun dresses and bonnet hats, they just look so quaint, and innocent, and that's what bothers me.But I agree children should be taught good gun habbits. To show I'm not a total hypocrite I will say as a kid I shot my uncles rifle (Uncle Nick pictured in my first 4x5 image on here) and that was fine with my mother because it was in context of hunting and learning, and I was not giggling, nor wearing a cute dress (which would be disturbing in a different way hahahahaha), and as an adult, I believe in the idea of the right to bear arms, and out of concern for new anti-gun legislation I went out and got my pistol permit, to be grandfathered into the system just in case. And I also considered getting a small hand gun for home defense, but there are so many more interesting shiny camera's to buy first... so I'm not totally anti gun, or even anti kids with guns, or anti girls with guns.I also want to say I was drawn to the sandbags and the fuel bottles, I think what REALLY disturbed me from a subconscious level was the military helmet/hat thing, it invoked a sort of war time scene in my mind with a fallen soldier shot, laying dead, something about that kind of hat lying on the ground just brings up those feelings, and really added to the tragic-ness of this photo, "the juxtaposition of innocence and war" should be the title, I also think that title would also allow the reader to be less disturbed, at least less disturbed by the photographer, allowing some creative freedom with the image.Those are my thoughts anyway... I'm glad you posted this, even if it bothered so many of us, makes me want to post my macro parts images, see what people say...

When permission is given to photograph a person or place there comes with that permission a responsibility to do so ethically. The person who grants the permission is saying yes with the implied assumption that you as the photographer will not misuse the resulting work. They would not have said yes otherwise.

So no, Stone, I would never consider selling the rights to, or attempting to commercially publish on my own, this photograph. My sense is that the father of the girls would not have given his permission if he knew I was going to use the photograph, and thus indirectly his daughters, for ulterior motives and purposes beyond his knowledge or control. That is a gut-feeling judgment by me. Were I the girl's father, I would have felt that same way myself. I am not looking to profit from his kindness in saying yes.

It is also worth noting, I think, that my single photograph of the two girls was in all likelihood far less intense and intimidating than those made by the girls' mother. Her pictures presumably showed the girls staring menacingly down the barrel of a fully-loaded military-issue heavy machine gun pointed directly into the eyes of the viewer. And again she, as the mother of the two girls, seemed to have no problem with that. Indeed, she intentionally posed the girls in that way to achieve that very effect, and no one else in her group interceded. Nor was it my place as a stranger to do so.

As I walked immediately behind their group and watched the scene unfold, I do remember thinking along the lines of, "Wow, now there's something you don't see everyday..." As described in an earlier post by Peter, "complete contextual disconnect." And before that by Rick to me in private, "innocence and implied lethality." In my estimation that unexpected combination, at that unexpected moment, made the unfolding scene worthy of making a photograph.

And I later shared that photograph here on APUG just to see what the rest of you thought...

Don't worry about it ,the kids look happy, no problem. A perfectly inocent photo.