Great many thanks, Eric. I will have to read your reply more than once
to see if I can fully comprehend it, but I can tell you already that
from two readings I've gained something extremely important and useful
for me. The most difficult thing remains then, to put what I gained in
thought to practice.
But really - I do appreciate your explanation, it is most valuable.
Boris
On 1/23/2011 7:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Jan 23, 2011, at 3:18 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/22/2011 9:03 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
http://pentax-ways.blogspot.com/2011/01/peso-2011-03-object-formerly-known-as.html
Depressing. But perhaps capturing one of the inevitables of life -- death.
Even all that BS aside, just as an image it doesn't appeal to
me.
Thanks, Eric. But could you please say few more words as to why
this image does not appeal to you. I'd like to learn from that.
Thanks for asking, Boris. Obviously, from others' reactions it's
something peculiar to me. I've struggled with the question since
reading it. I'm sort of at a loss. It might just be a purely peculiar
emotional reaction. Some of the things I reach for -- the muted
colors -- won't do because there are lots of photos with muted colors
that I've really liked, e.g., Christine's foggy day in Chicago shot.
Others -- composition, focus -- aren't a problem with this photo.
Gets me wondering what it is -- and it may not be one simple thing --
that makes a photo speak to us.
A thought that comes vaguely to mind is that maybe it has something
to do with the fact it presents things to us that otherwise we might
have overlooked -- e.g., Vivian Maiers' candid shots of the
"non-ordinariness" of ordinary people, or the patterns and
juxtapositions that she captures -- or when it presents something
with which we're familiar in an unfamiliar way, a way that forces us
to see it differently, to find it interesting or attractive when
before we might not even have taken notice, e.g., an image that
someone shared with the group that was a real sharp close close-up of
a metallic ornament on the side of an automobile.
So, that's where your question led me. I don't ascribe much validity
to my top-of-the-head musings, but I guess if I had to say why at
this point it would be that I don't know what you're saying, or what
the photo is saying. I don't see anything I wouldn't have noticed
without the image. I probably wouldn't have known that it was
"formerly a palm" if you hadn't told us, but beyond that it just
looks like a former palm.
One thing that's caught my eye in the process of thinking about this
is the way fronds of the palm that have broken off sort of trail off
into the upper right hand corner of the image, and I kind of wonder
about that. But it doesn't leap out at me.
Again, setting all the BS aside, this is the first of your photos
that I haven't liked. Always in the past they have been immediately
attractive. Some, like your shots of Jerusalem have been pretty muted
color-wise. Some -- maybe all -- have had a particular perspective,
like the one shot looking up a high-rise building from close to the
base.
Bottom line: I really don't know. But I sure am glad you asked the
question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA [email protected]
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
