Whatever remains...

That’s a great photo

It is.

For me, photographs like this are what make me chase the Black and White.

@ Ludmilla & Moving On - thank you.

I was obviously 'in the zone' that evening. Something that happens too rarely these days.

@ samstevens. I almost entirely agree. Most Westerners are brought up with a Judeo-Christian moral compass and attitudes, whether we like it or not. It's hard to put aside the attitudes of an entire society, no matter what one's depth of religious belief, or lack of.

I'm not sure I'd have even bothered to capture that effect of light, had it been a couple of trees or some other object being 'spotlit'.

The “symbolism” was not the striking part of the photograph for me even though my personal conscience might indicate such.

I saw the photograph first as a print from an old Black and White Classic movie.

Then shortly I was impressed by the thought of the highlighted subject representing an undimmed Lifelong Love between a Husband and Wife.

Like I say, sometimes the personal contexts we impose upon a particular photo elevate them beyond an already impressive instant, initial perception.

I suppose this is why others sometime express appreciation for photos many might view as less than impressive.

The stuff that makes Art personal......

Projection and personal interpretation is a part of any viewers art perception. This does not diminish the potential affectiveness of symbols. In this case I saw the graveyard marker as dominating the cross as symbol.ic. Setting, lighting and ambiance lead me there.

I consider a cross a very dynamic example of symbolic power in a narrative of the artist's intent, the creator. But here i saw graves, death. Another poignant symbol with the means to impact a viewer.

LOL. Depends which photographer you're talking to.

 

I don't care if Nikola Tesla himself said it. It's still wrong. Adams would have been right if he said that deliberation often comes before a great photograph.

I don't care if Nikola Tesla himself said it.

I don't believe he did.

Adams would have been right if he said that deliberation often comes before a great photograph.

He did say something similar: “The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”

It's still wrong.

Well, I'd say what we have here are two opinions. One is more compelling to me. The other is yours.

In any case, if being right is important to you, sure, go ahead and consider it done. That and two dimes would have gotten you on the subway in 1966. Today, not so much.

:rolleyes:

"....whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

- A quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through the persona of Sherlock Holmes. But is that itself true? Is 'whatever remains' always the truth?

 

 

(snip)

 

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is: Does anyone else think it's a phenomenon worthwhile to ponder, that the negative-positive process actually 'throws away' the true image and leaves us to gaze at the space left behind, or in-between?

Somehow this reminds me of hole conductivity in solid-state physics.

It seems that it should be just the motion of states not filled with electrons,

but if you actually try to follow that, using the empty seat in the auditorium

analogy, it still fails.

Closer to photography, if you have a large block of some transparent solid,

with a bubble in the middle, you will see light scatter or reflect from the bubble.

You are seeing what isn't there, not what is.