Piccoli segreti

Just to take on the idea of removing the electrical box, I would ask what would be the reason to do so? From my own perspective, the only reason to remove it would be to somehow "perfect" the vision of an old world setting or to make an image the way we think it should be. (should we redress the little girls as well?)

I am not against cloning certain types of things out in certain types of situations, however here we are looking at a mix of old and new, a sense of time moving forward. This is not a portrait of little girls nor is it a portrayal of a pristine old world setting. This is a vignette of a specific time and the life of this place as it exists--a slice of life if you will.

As such, the electric box serves to inform the image, to let us know that this is not a backwards little town but one that has moved forward while keeping its old shell. Even the girls clothes suggest that they are current and with the world as it is. The electrical box allows us to be more certain that these girls might actually live here and not just be visiting or tourists passing through--a fact which can affect the reading of the image as well.

My point is that instead of running to make things better it might actually be better to study and read what has been presented and what it might represent to the meaning of the image. If we do think something should be cloned (or cropped) like this, then maybe verbalizing the reason why might make more sense than just changing it--in the process, we might actually discover that it has a purpose because we thought about what it meant to be there.

Marco, I am not meaning this to pick on you, but I see too many "changes" with no rationale and so one can only assume that the changes are being made to "standardize" someone else's vision to our own and most of the time show no insight into actually understanding what was presented, only a need to make it MY WAY.

I think more respect for the photographers presentation would be a good thing, to try to read what is there and why the person might have actually done things the way they did. This isn't about just helping the POW photographer, it is about helping the person looking grow as well.

This is not about our thinking compared to everyone else's. It's about our thinking, period. This is not about the fact that everyone has a different opinion. That's kind of the obvious. Perhaps we can be a little more nuanced here. When I say there is no "right" photograph people take it to the most simplistic level, assuming I mean that no one person is more right than another. Well, of course that's true but also, of course, that's trivial. What I mean is along the lines of what John A. is also saying. Generally, judging by the kinds of comments and the kinds of crops made, people's solutions show that each of them has one very narrow-minded way of thinking about how a photo "should" look. Over and over and over and over again the kind of crops and cloning being done are to make photos easy and clean, often sterile and "presentable." It is the simplest place for most folks' vision to go. But it also removes all sense of individuality. All I'm asking for is that you don't assume that your first instinct on where to go with a photo is necessarily correct, even just for YOU. Because it's often just a matter of visual habit and not visual creativity. Most suggestions on the POW and on the critique pages of PN are about making all photos conform pretty much to the least common denominator. Make them palatable in the way all other photos are palatable. Make them look like the good photos we have come to learn are good. Instead, we should be fighting those instincts to look for different kinds of "solutions" and suggestions. Try looking for the different path sometime, not the one that will make it look more familiar and acceptable.

I'm not questioning the act of making suggestions. I'm questioning the quality and creativity of the suggestions being made.

John I fully agree with you.
However being short of the narrative of the photographer, the viewer has to "invent" his own narrative and thereafter ask the question whether all the elements he sees in the frame have their function or contradict or add unnecessary complexity. Too many visual messages in a scene like this might blur the visual message and not reinforce it.
All depends on the narrative "read" by the viewer on the basis of what is seen in the frame.
As I have already tried to formulate above the electricity or telephone box in the stone wall behind the girls can have the function as a hindsight just like the girls clothings. However, it could also be seen as just a superfluous visual message as it is obvious to all (the girls clothing) that the scene is contemporary.
I would opt for eliminating the box as I think "simplicity" of visual messages (number of elements telling the story) is a force in scenes like this. In my eyes and mind the box attracts attention of the viewer that could be of better use elsewhere in the frame - higher up for example !
However, as mentioned it would be good to read the narrative of Claudio.

Anders, my suggestion--as I believe Fred's as well--isn't that conclusions aren't valid for each person but that many times the conclusions weren't formulated by ever considering the actual presentation's meaning--only the thought that things should have been done differently--by some formula or rule.

Even in a case like this, assuming that the electrical box is distracting, what is the purpose of removing it? Why can't an electrical box be distracting--especially if it is there and, in fact, distracting? Personally, I think the two girls sitting are more interesting that the one standing, should we clone her out? This isn't my photo, but Claudio's, so let's show him respect for his presentation, even if we don't think it is best presentation, let him decide if our words have any merit and find his own solution to whatever problems he might discover from our discussion to fulfill his vision.

I have no problem with arguments and discussion over why something should or shouldn't be included as long as they are thought out, but the point I was making, and Fred as well, is that many times it is just a matter of making things easier for the viewer and not about making an image better or even trying to understand what was presented. I think a healthy argument over why something works or doesn't is much better than posting a redux of an image--The former creates thoughts that can be catalogued and considered in the future in our own image making while the latter only reinforces standardized ways of seeing.

Are you sure John? or are you just believing you can be the judge of concluding what "meaning" to take as measure. and even more whether "some formula or rule" have been guiding conclusions (if "conclusions" should be the term or any narrative of a viewer). I'm obviously less convinced of my own authority in the field, than you.

Personally I think, I show more "respect" to the presentation of Claudio, being short of a narrative of the photographer (this picture intends to show....) by seriously considering whether the narrative of the photo works on the basis of what I, as a viewer, would believe could be the message of the presentation and on that basis eventually make, or not, my suggestions of possible changes that eventually could 'improve" or "strenghtening" presentation. I'm much less attracted to comments where the viewer total appropriates the image for his own ends of leisure and memories like: the image reminds me of, when I was a child....

Believe me, I'm all for complexity, John, but som scenes use very simple visual means for simple or complex messages. The visual means in Guernica of Picasso was made to be complex as was Manet's "Ball of Folies Bergères" but not Warhol's "Campbell's condensed Tomato Soup". Each of them have their strength, but the choice of visual means (our case of the "box" for example) is a choice made by the artist in relationship to the message the total scene intend, or is perceived to intend, to convey. Adapting the visual means (like the choice of elements) to the message of the image, must be worth a discussion including, in some cases suggestions on elements that could be candidates for deletion.

First, Anders, I wasn't attacking you and I feel somehow you felt that way?

Anyway, when I say many times I don't mean all the time. I don't know Anders, but I think most of us read these things enough to know when someone has made a considered attempt to understand an image and when someone has rushed to a better version--maybe I am better at it than you, I don't know. But I know I see it--as do others. Of course, there are also those that consider their suggestions and discuss why. This allows more meaningful dialogue than a quickly posted crop with nothing other than "this is better".

Do we disagree on your second point here (second quote of me)?

I don't think we disagree on the last point either. As I said, discussing these things is more fruitful than making them concrete. You may thing something should be deleted, others like it and maybe someone else just thinks it needs to be subdued a bit. All could be good solutions and yet, as the creator of the image, I may want it as it is. The exact reason others don't like something may be the reason I included it. Discussing things is wonderful in this way.

No John I did not see any attack at all. Just a vigilant way of writing. Sorry if I was too direct.

Sorry one more thought.
Where we might differ John, is that I believe to have a fairly well developed acceptence to different ways and abilities of written due to my professional background and experience. Some write in foreign languages, others have little experiences in expressing themselves in writing. We cannot expect all to fit to our own expectations when it comes to detailed arguments, analyzing and critics of works of art (read Photo). To participate in discussions like these we have to accept different ways of writing.
Where I react more violently, it does happen, is when I see writings of some, that are known to be able to do better, that obviously, in my eyes, upload inconsistent formulations and half-thought ideas and in-explained opinions. In those cases my tolerance escapes me, I must admit.

Well John, your comment ignorantly stating my lack of effort in understanding the image is quite offensive and arrogant...
The choices I made in my exercise were throughly thought in the context of my interpretation of the photo (a bit different from yours, as later we have discovered). The reason why I didn't comment much further on the alterations was because my opinions had already been repeatedly stated in other posts. This way, there wasn't much of a point in going circling around the same subjects. (Excuse me for the possible lack of originality)
And I totally disagree with you when you say that verbally discussing things is the only valid way of sharing experiences here. Whether you agree or not with the different versions posted, I find interesting to see the practical effect of people's arguments. Maybe this is because of my relative inexperience in the field, but I like to learn things observing and experimenting, not only speculating (I'm not saying that argumentation isn't crucial!).
I liked the result of my exercise and I thought of sharing. For example, I thought that a previous re-cropped and re-balanced version posted didn't work, yet I found very informative observing the practical implementation of it (as opposed to just a statement of it over again).
And please... of course the purpose of removing the box isn't to make the environment 80 years older, the modernity presented is crucial to the photo. I believe the dichotomy between the modernity presented by the children (by their clothing and maybe also pose) and the aged buildings is reenforced by removing the box, as a distracting, ugly and irrelevant element in my interpretation of the photo).
And again, no one ever intended to state that "this is how the author should have done things". Everyone is just sharing interpretations and sugestions, no more, no less.

Sincere best wishes,
Marco

Golly gee, everybody is so testy around here!

Marco, I thought I was clear that I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing the idea related to the electrical box which happens to be something you cloned out but which was addressed by many others. I was trying to suggest that possibly we need to remain more open to why someone leaves something in an image--that they did not in fact remove it and so rather than consider why it should be removed, consider why it might be important to the person to have left it. In doing so, we might actually expand the way we look at things, even our arguments against it can move us forward.

Sheesh!

The photo does not need to be cropped, normally it would be a distraction but in this case it provided for dimension. The whole photo looks natural. The children seem not to be aware of being photographed and it has captured their natural actions. The colors are natural. Everything in the picture blends with nature. It looks like a beautiful painting
Cons:Unfortunately the box in the center looks out of place. Also the photo looks a bit too sharp.

Well, all right. This business borders on pictorialism and sentimentality. All right, it is sentimental. This is how those of us who do not live in Europe and wish we did see Europe in our minds. This is Italy and I know Italy intimately enough to know this seemingly happy and idilic moment does not define Italy, or any other place I know.

It is not a brilliant photograph but it is sympathique. I shall say no more.

I will say a little more. The title translates into "Little Secrets." It adds an unnecessary and distracting sentimental cast. It would have been better to have left the photo untitled. With the title this photograph makes itself a candidate for a "get well" card, or something like that.

Una foto magnifica. Muy bonita.

Saludos de Miriam