Using landmarks, monuments, or famous natural elements in a photograph is a core technique for evoking a sense of place.

The photographer selects the focal point not only by focusing the camera but also through other techniques.

shutter speed to bring only one element into focus immediately elevates that to the most important part of the image.

one element in the photograph is strongly backlit, it may seem to glow and thus draw the viewer’s attention.

What is the photographer’s thought process as she composes, frames, shoots and selects an image? Listen as photographer Lisa Maizlish narrates the decisions she made in photographing the students featured on the PBS reality show American High.

viewers have to decide how to interpret a photograph’s context

information about the people, events, setting, and so on are made explicit by the photographer — there are distinct visual clues that tell us who the people are, what they are doing, and where and when the photograph was taken.

implicit — implied but not clearly communicated by the photographer, or left to be inferred by the viewer.

identities of the people

unclear

their purpose may be unknown

time and place may be difficult or impossible to discern.

Viewers may not even realize that they are making those assumptions

Just as successful written communication requires that the writer and reader speak the same language, successful visual communication requires that the photographer and viewer share a common "visual language" of signs, clues, and assumptions.

Were your assumptions correct? Can you always trust your first instinct? (And even having read the caption, how much do we really know about these girls and their lives?)

a different culture might ask why this round brown object is

we have to be careful that we have enough cultural background in common with the photographer to correctly interpret what we see.

The photograph by itself tells us very little about what’s going on; we probably could have invented any number of captions, and you’d have believed us!

The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an average of fewer than one rule.

“Emphasis was placed on the development of one’s own ethical code.”

parents didn’t dream of raising superstar kids. They weren’t drill sergeants or slave drivers. They responded to the intrinsic motivation of their children. When their children showed interest and enthusiasm in a skill, the parents supported them.

A majority of the tennis stars remembered one thing about their first coaches: They made tennis enjoyable.

Research reveals that the more we practice, the more we become entrenched — trapped in familiar ways of thinking.

what motivates people to practice a skill for thousands of hours? The most reliable answer is passion — discovered through natural curiosity or nurtured through early enjoyable experiences with an activity or many activities.

In fashion, the most original collections come from directors who spend the most time working abroad.

winning a Nobel Prize is less about being a single-minded genius and more about being interested in many things.

Relative to typical scientists, Nobel Prize winners are 22 times more likely to perform as actors, dancers or magicians; 12 times more likely to write poetry, plays or novels; seven times more likely to dabble in arts and crafts; and twice as likely to play an instrument or compose music.

“Love is a better teacher than a sense of duty,” he said.

You can’t program a child to become creative. Try to engineer a certain kind of success, and the best you’ll get is an ambitious robot.

If you want your children to bring original ideas into the world, you need to let them pursue their passions, not yours.

When you separate the different types of screen out, the effects start to vary.

Passively watching TV is not the same as learning to read on a touchscreen, which is not the same as killing monsters on a console

First of all, lumping all screens into one category is not helpful. "Screen time is a really enticing measure because it's simple – it's usually described as the number of hours a day using screen-based technology. But it's completely meaningless,"

"Children will learn from what they watch, whether that means learning letters and numbers, slapstick humour or aggressive behaviour,

But they found no effects at all for those who played computer games.

"The best research suggests that the content children view is the best predictor of cognitive effects,"

The study found that all the children enjoy reading more when they look at stories using books and a touchscreen compared to just books.

But they found no effects at all for those who played computer games

rise in BMI

hard to tease apart whether screen time actually causes the effects or whether they are linked in some other way

"It is impossible to determine with certainty that TV is causing obesity, and it is likely that other factors are involved in the complex problem of childhood obesity,

Her own studies have shown that children who struggle to learn using books often made more progress with iPads.

research in schools also found that iPads made children more cooperative and helped quieter kids to speak up

children receive immediate feedback

children who watch age-appropriate, educational TV programmes often do better on tests of school readiness.

What is becoming clear is that it's not the technologies themselves we should be worried out but how they are used and how people interact with them

A lot of it is common sense. Don't unthinkingly hand over your device. There are educational apps whose benefits are backed up by research, says Flewitt.

Five hours sitting in front of the TV is not the same as 5 hours of some TV, a couple of hours playing on Dance Dance Revolution or some other kind of active game, followed by a Skype session with a grandparent.

second group, most of the kids chose to take the test

Ninety percent of the kids who heard “you must be smart” opted not to take it.

second test

equally as hard as the first one

third test was given

The first group of students who were told they were smart, did worse.

The second group did 30% better.

Eight Steps Toward Healthy Leadership

Help them take calculated risks. Talk it over with them, but let them do it. Your primary job is to prepare your child for how the world really works. Discuss how they must learn to make choices. They must prepare to both win and lose, not get all they want and to face the consequences of their decisions. Share your own “risky” experiences from your teen years. Interpret them. Because we’re not the only influence on these kids, we must be the best influence. Instead of tangible rewards, how about spending some time together? Be careful you aren’t teaching them that emotions can be healed by a trip to the mall. Choose a positive risk taking option and launch kids into it (i.e. sports, jobs, etc). It may take a push but get them used to trying out new opportunities. Don’t let your guilt get in the way of leading well. Your job is not to make yourself feel good by giving kids what makes them or you feel better when you give it. Don’t reward basics that life requires. If your relationship is based on material rewards, kids will experience neither intrinsic motivation nor unconditional love. Affirm smart risk-taking and hard work wisely. Help them see the advantage of both of these, and that stepping out a comfort zone usually pays off.