grave

flowers will grow and birds will dance on our unmarked graves...

I like the light of your photo.

I too did a shot on flowers and grave, but your is better.

A soldier

I find this image fascinating. I see a ghostly imge of a woman on the gravestone. She appears to be letting go of her spirit in the form of the flying bird. Very well composed- congratulations

GT

Original shot.

Grandiose work great image !!!!

Great grave yard image. Very somber with perfect lighting.. Love the life vs death. How old is this cemetary? And where is it located? Cheers Cole

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Yes I would say this photograph works and what makes it work is obviously the pigeon. Without the pigeon I think the shot would seem quite flat visually although the sunlight coming across the daffodils and onto the grass helps it no-end.
The dead area (no pun intended) bottom left does not help the overall ballance and it would be easy to suggest the photo would be better if Ugur had been further to the right. This may have filled this dead area and meant the pigeon was infront of the light coloured monument in the background. That said, we dont know what else may then have intruded into the shot and that would rely on the pigeon playing ball and flying through the same space.

Depth of field looks good in as much as more DoF would mean we were not drawn in the same way to the bird. This would then also mean a slower shutter speed and the pigeon would then be quite blurred.

If Ugur knows/knew any of the people "in the photograph" it would obviously be a very personal shot to him but even if not I think he should be proud of his efforts.

I think the seemingly startled pigeon makes the shot work. It keeps the eye still in a photo, I feel, Has too many elements. I like the lighting. The tilted tombstone I find a bit distracting. Overall, I think it works well

I do like this one, and I base that "like" more on the photograph's impact than I do on compositional elements. It's a very metaphorical or allegorical (or whichever term you prefer) for me. I also think the viewer should view the photograph at the larger setting, the better to feel the elements in the shot.

I think it could be argued whether the pigeon is "startled" or whether it is actually flying into the frame...perhaps to visit one of the graves. The pigeon is illuminated by the light just as the daffodils are, just not to the same degree. The light and the pigeon suggest to me that even in death and the darkness of eternity, some light can still fall. The pigeon is also the only thing moving in the frame, and I think the photographer did a great job in capturing the motion while stopping it at the same time.

There's also a lighter area to the right of the pigeon, on one of the gravestones, that if you use some imagination looks a bit like an elongated skull. Don't know if that's intentional or not, but it works for me. The darker areas on the gravestones (mold? mildew? moss?) suggest that these are very old graves.

I don't have an issue with the little bit of empty space on the left. That space is, after all, graves...so I wouldn't expect to see the space filled with other objects on top of them.

This is one of the few colour POTWs I've seen over the past year or so that would not work for me in black and white.

 

Jim Adams: You make a good point of the startled pigeon. It could very well be flying into the frame. I also agree fully with your last sentence of color vs. B&W.

When I see an image like this, I look for symbolism in what has been included--and maybe what hasn't. While birds can often bring readings with them--a crow/raven for darker things and doves for uplifting, spiritual things--I am having difficulty with what a pigeon might mean.

Anyway, and maybe it is just the pigeon, I don't take a lot away from this image. I think it is a nice exercise in lighting--and maybe compositing--but I don't get much of a hit from it otherwise.

The Composition-- I find it a bit generous off to the left where nothing is happening nor is it offering more insight into the image or information about the location. Physically, that space is also divided from the rest of the image. For commercial use, this area would provide a nice background to text but as a standalone, it is probably a bit distracting.

I think the light has been handled nicely except that the pigeon does seem less organic to the scene that I would expect. The direction of the lighting on it makes sense, so maybe it isn't a composite. Anyway, it just seems less part of the scene than maybe what would be ideal, IMO.

 

I agree with most all of the comments. To me, this capture evokes a good level of symbolisms. The graves, ghostly shadow, and overall darkness of the shot symbolizes death while the daffodils (with the light shining on them) and the bird symbolizes life. Another great selection for discussion by the elves! Just a little more exposure, IMHO, would have added to the shot. Great capture ugar! Best regards.

The image is interesting for me as it is different from many graveyard scenes we see. I often opt for images in which a reductive approach has been applied, "less being more", however, here instead I think that the very well chosen lower angle should have included more of the gravestones to the right to complete the feeling of the place. The lighting is extremely well done I think. The image would have worked more for me if the pigeon was not there. For the same reasonning invoked by Joghn A, I feel that the pigeon or dove adds little to the image. For me it is extraneous and doesn't go with the mood of the image. It is just there, and is neither forboding or enlightening in its symbolism. This of course is debatable as the pigeon represents life rather than death. But even with that purpose I think it takes something away from the shot. It is also a bit unfortunate that the massive fence and monument in the background could not have been thrown a little more out of focus - like the nearest gravestiones - as they add to the atmosphere but make for a rather hectic composition. The out of focus near gravestones don't bother me at all, and in fact they seem to create the atmosphere that much of the image seems to be trying to convey. Did the author try making other image of this place? It suggests the potential for much that might also be realised. The portfolio of the photographer is a fine one and shows what is not so usually encountered, a strongly personal vision... in addition to a popular one.

I'm often drawn to contrasts within a scene, especially so if symbolism can be found in the contrasts, and such is the case with Ugur's photograph. One doesn't have to delve very deeply to find an interpretation of old, dark tombstones (the tilted angles and lichens/algae on the stones contribute greatly here) with limited and focused light coming from the side to illuminate a small plot of daffodils and a bird just beginning/ending its flight. It's the contrast of color, light, and life/death that I find so intriguing in this photograph. If a viewer is so inclined, different meanings can be derived; life from death, life amid death, the tenacity of life, hope, or even more pessimistic meanings such as futility, pointlessness, the inevitable tyranny of death, etc.. Whether and however one chooses to interpret the scene, the contrasts remain striking to my eye, and the more technical aspects of exposure, chosen shutter speed and aperture, and composition seem very appropriate to the scene.

While I agree that the photograph might be just as effective without the pigeon, I'm glad it was included. It's a different kind of living thing, quite different in its nature from the daffodils, and the fact that it was caught in flight adds a touch of dynamics to an otherwise static image. It's a greater contrast to the tombstones than could be provided by the daffodils alone.

The presence of the pigeon also tells me how quickly Ugur made the photograph. What was in front of him for literally a fraction of a second is quite different from my experience of sitting in front of a computer monitor carefully examining all of the details of Ugur's completed photograph. Perhaps the camera could have been panned a bit, perhaps Ugur could have stepped slightly to the right, perhaps there's a slight tilt downward to the left (which I'm not sure I'd correct), but given the overall success (IMO, of course) in the split-second capture of the scene, and given the various but related symbolic interpretations that might be derived, I want to be willing to give Ugur some slack and not look so closely at relatively small aspects that I see only on extended consideration and which Urur dealt with in that split second on site in the dark with one fast-moving object involved.

This photograph digs up many grave issues. First, is there anything extraordinary about it? Second, if it is, what makes it extraordinary? Third, is the pigeon, if it is not in fact someone's soul rising to Heaven, a distraction or an asset? I would prefer not to discuss how the artist might have shot this photograph but what we have in front of our faces.

Frankly, the tombstones are not interesting, even though their uniform structures have a certain ironic dynamism. The dark shadows only glop up the image with a dull obscurity. But does the pigeon save this image? The pigeon is an asset in that it adds something unusual to an otherwise humdrum image, but there is simply not enough pigeon and too much of everything else to save it.

This image is straightforward and the pigeon adds a dash of the unusual. It is not an altogether bad photograph. It is just that it is not very good.

This is my problem with most cemetery photos. The symbolism and pathos are way too easy. When I first started photographing, I did a cemetery photo (a pretty good day for night scene but also somewhat vapid) and I remember a good friend and mentor telling me to try and elicit the same feelings, mood, and atmosphere without using a tombstone or cemetery. It was a good challenge. I keep it in mind always.

Symbolism is tricky. In some ways, it does sort of hit you over the head, but in other ways it can be more subtle and sublime and less obvious. I think it's a tricky balance to strike. Shakespeare did it well. Often, cemetery photos feel lazy to me. The symbol substitutes for the emotion rather than inciting it. This photo makes me think about the emotions I'm obviously supposed to feel. It doesn't make me feel them.

There's a surreal quality which I wish were pursued more. I think it could be a great over-the-top or satiric piece, especially given the pigeon and the way the pigeon almost feels pasted into the scene. Because we have strong sunlight or the suggestion of daytime lighting against a black sky, we have a good set up for irony or a sort of out-of-character experience. Seen through, I think that would make this a more interesting photo. As it is, it just feels like it's relying on the cemetery and a sort of incoherent bunch of symbolic gestures that are trying too hard but not getting off the ground.

Ahhh, the enigmatic pigeon, citified roof rat or metaphoric soul.
A ghost inhabited phallic parade of headstones thrusting their souls into the beyond.
Beautiful light but a little too bright for a graveyard.
The daffodils, the color of the sun...it's what we leave behind

Fred, I feel the same about sunsets. The spectacular and dramatic beauty of a red sky is way too easy. Much easier than finding pathos in a cemetery. But that doesn't negate your feelings about photographs of cemeteries, and I can understand your sentiment. I happen to think this particular cemetery photograph is better than most (perhaps because it is so different than those we have here in the Pacific Northwest). The fact that the symbolism is near the surface doesn't make me appreciate it less; symbolism that I find deeply buried simply causes me to appreciate it more. Also, even though I used the word in my first post, I could enjoy this photograph without the need to pin symbolic meanings on it: an apparently old graveyard, at night, with interesting light, and bright flowers and a bird in flight lit by that light. The light and composition might be enough for some to carry the photograph without it being a vehicle for a larger message or story. Often the word "snapshot" is used to describe that photography, and it is seldom meant to be complementary. But attention to and success in finding great light and a great composition is, IMO, a fundamental aspect of photography and can often stand on its own if achieved. I understand the desire to go further, but is that mandatory?

Nothing is mandatory, IMO. I like to quote Avedon who said he likes to go no further than the surface, which holds more than enough clues for him. His portraits get a lot out of surfaces and textures.

As for message, I think some photos are purely visual and I get no particular meaning from them nor do I desire a meaning from all photos. This one just doesn't interest me that much visually. It seems to be about message but very unsure of itself, more ambivalent than ambiguous. It seems to be messagy but without the message.

Cemeteries have that unfortunate characteristic of sameness. There are some, but not really very many, variations in the way the way they are constructed by man and their stones are quite often uniformly grey and simple (monotonous) in form. They are part of an inherited dogma that is in part religious, in part social. Quite apart from any symbolism of pity or sadness or inevitability they may portray, which one can represent in somewhat limited ways, attempts to photograph them with any originality of view is a task not easy to accomplish. White tombstones in geometric patterns in military cemeteries do convey a message of heroic, collegial and patriotic deaths, but they are also perceived in traditional and somewhat invariant manner by the photographer's lens. Animals in cemeteries seem to me to be incongruous with the subject. Presence of living humans offers more possibilities for strong statements, but the mixing of living and dead subjects and artefacts is not an easy challenge. Nature, on the other hand, provides infinite forms, shapes and unexpected experiences for the photographer. I think that only when the much more predictable presence, form and shape of a cemetery is reproduced in an image that is unusual and not predictable, yet within context, can the site be photographed with any success. The Montparnasse cemetery in Paris (or is it Pierre Lachaise cemetery?) has a double tombstone the upper part of which is in the form of a bed with sculptures of the two deceased, man and wife, reading in their nightclothes before they go to sleep. An artist friend tells me that the upper part of her future gravestone, to overlook the river, will be in the form of a park bench so that others can profit from the view during a stop to the visit her grave. These are of course hardly related to the challenge of photographing cemeteries, but I mention them for their originality which is not foreign to the originality and the panache that I believe are necessary to successfully combine the idea of living and the dead in a cemetery image. The present image, ostensibly “taken on the fly”, at least makes a college try to evoke something different than what we normally see in cemetery images, although with limited success in that sense.

Arthur, your examples from the Montparnasse cemetery seem to me to contradict the characteristics of "sameness", because it illustrates something that we can all experience by visiting and shooting cemeteries in different countries with different cultural, historical and religious traditions. Cemetery shots are like street photography of great variety if you succeed in catching the particularity of the place.
Compare shots of the old Jewish cemetery in Praque, with shots of Assistens Cemetery in Copenhagen and you are on different planets (merely 400 miles apart!).

"What was in front of him for literally a fraction of a second is quite different from my experience of sitting in front of a computer monitor carefully examining all of the details of Ugur's completed photograph."

Actually, I doubt it was much different in reality. This is not a randomly captured image, a moment that just happened, this is a well planned shot. The bright light on the flowers and pigeon are apparently coming from a strobe not a "natural" light. Our clue, unless this is a composite, is that this pigeon has been frozen and that just would not happen if this were only made in ambient light. The pigeon seems key to the "capture of a moment" and the light or the possible composite both belie this as a split second composition (I don't minimize that working with animals is not easy).

But this also brings up a relevant point. Because we see a moment and capture it, should we then not evaluate that image as we would any visual? Certainly, props can be given to someone who was there and caught an action with skill but if the photograph is flawed otherwise--and the action isn't of a historic or significantly rare occurrence (think Bigfoot)--then it still should be judged based on the outcome not the effort. Applaud the effort but edit and evaluate your images for their visual impact and strength of vision.

Technically and artistically perfect. Congratulations. A favorite.

I don't like this photo illustration. The staging, execution and post work is very well done, but the sappy sentiment is tired. The winged bird, as metaphor of spirit, rising above the grave is a pretty short reach creatively. A good technical display of an idea that needs work.