Piccoli segreti

I have a "correction" to make. Nothing Marco did is a "correction." It is Marco's vision, a different vision. It is Marco's suggestion to Cluadio, the original photographer. Seeing this as a correction and labeling it a correction misses the mark. It's as if someone else is claiming their vision of anothers' photograph is the right one. It's not. It's simply another view. There is no correct photograph. There are only the photographs we make, each of us. Every photograph we make could have been made a million other ways. There is no right way. Thinking there are corrected versions of photographs is a very limited way to think. In fact, it denies creativity. It means you have the restrictive idea of getting something right instead of the more liberating idea of getting something either unique or at least the way you want it.

If that is the case, Fred, why discuss at all. All is good and valid because it is personal. Nothing can be improved or corrected apart from by the photographer in question.

"Creativity" is never just to make whatever that happens to end up in pixels or film in your camera.

Scenes have potentialities that the photographer might not have seen, or potentialities he/she has discovered unknown to the viewers. "Corrections" might enhance such potentialities or totally miss the point - as seen by the viewers or by the photographer in question. We learn from the vision of others and might even end up shooting our very personal shots differently next time. Getting things "right" is not an option but getting nearer to the essence of what you saw and you want to express, might be.

I agree. No one-best-way is available.

Your statement is wrong Fred, if the image should not be discussed and there should be no correction of improvement to it and kept as the photographer wanted to be, then it is not a POW, as long as it been selected and posted on the first page to be a POW every one is entitle to say his words about it.
Your statement is only changing the nature of the POW and miss guiding the other members to the purpose of this issue.
If you are referring to to your own images not to be a subject for discussion then they should not be posted on the system at the first place.
Every one here is having the right to look at the image the way he think of it and we have said this time after time.

Anders and Rashed, of course I didn't say we couldn't improve our photos and that we couldn't help others improve and that others couldn't help us improve. And I didn't say it's all personal. I've repeated on numerous occasions that art is NOT whatever we want it to be or completely subjective, as many like to claim. What I said above is that there is no correct version. Of course that leaves room for their being better and worse versions and it leaves room for their being all kinds of suggestions made by all kinds of people who come to the POW. When we seek to help someone else, we are showing them an alternate vision and we may well be showing them an improvement. But we are not correcting their work, as if there were some right answer. A math problem has a correct answer. Grammar can be correct or incorrect. Changes to photos are not corrections. Yes, some are better than others and some achieve the goal more clearly than others. But "correct" implies a fixed solution, a definitive one. And my claim is that all photos have many solutions, depending on the vision. Some are better than others, but no one solution is ever right or correct. Correct, as far as I'm concerned, lives in a different realm than photographs or paintings or sculptures.

I'll give an example. Some might think this photograph would be "correct" without the electric box. Someone else, with a different sort of creative mind, might consider having photographed this same scene, not only with the electric box included but with other symbols of modernity included, perhaps even some evidence of messiness. Another photographer might have seen this scene not as cleanly as the current photographer or the photographers who would like to further organize and simplify it. That other photographer might have wanted some papers strewn on the ground, or even blowing around the children, perhaps another child running out of the scene, or half included at the edge of the frame. Then the electric box might make a whole lot of sense to more people viewing this photo. So to call the removal of the electric box "correct" is to limit the freedom found in so many different approaches to this scene. Photography is about possibility, not correctness.

My point was about correctness, not about the need and desire for critique and the great advantage that suggestions from other photographers can give us.

Fred is entirely correct: these are not "corrections," as if the original was "wrong." True, a viewer may see additional possibilities, but they are just alternative views or alternate versions, no more "correct" or "incorrect" than the original. I'd rather call them "suggestions" or "other possibilities" or some similar label. All of these suggestions or alternate possibilities provide a good basis for at least part of a lively and respectful discussion.

I think a good focal point for this discussion of "correction" versus "suggestion" is in the electrical box. Several people want it removed because it "doesn't fit the period." Yet Monika really wants to keep the box, because it's an indicator of living in the modern Mediterranean, and they are omnipresent. Still others might argue that it's there, it's real, and they want to depict something closer to reality than to an idealized version of what was in front of them. Still others might want to remove elements that potentially distract from the focus on the young girls. None of these views are necessarily "right" or "wrong." They're just different, arising from different visions and different motivations. It may be a matter of semantics, but in this case I think the semantics are very important. "Corrections" implies a mistake, not a difference of opinion or vision. The suggestions about the electrical box have been offered by people with different goals and/or approaches to this particular photograph. These differences are not "right" or "wrong." They are matters of opinion, contrasting goals, points of emphasis that others may see as trivial, a desire to idealize versus a desire for greater reality, and so forth. "Corrections" is not the right word to describe the opinions expressed in this kind of discussion.l

@Rashed and Anders

Fred didn't say the image shouldn't be discussed, he just suggested that the use of the term "correction" when making a suggestion is limiting.

The idea that anyone has "corrected" an image is based on a belief that there must be a correct version, and generally the person making the suggestion views their version as the correct one that should be followed.

That is limited, because who is to say what is correct?

In this particular image, why does removing the power box for example, make the image more correct?

There is an argument to suggest that removing the power box makes the environment less polluted and it strengthens the nostalgic and rustic feel of the image, but it doesn't make it more correct.

It's a suggestion, based on a vision of what is important in communicating with the viewer, but not a more correct one.

That doesn't mean the suggestions are not important or without merit. We all look at things differently and discussing those differences helps everyone develop their vision. Perhaps these suggestions have also helped Claudio, but only he can answer that.

From my part, I personally see the original image as the strongest posted.

To me, the original crop provides more context for what lies outside the frame and what the general area is like. It seems very old. However the power box adds a modern element to the image and shows how even old places are still alive and continuously going through a state of change.

For me, the subject of the image is broader than just the 3 children. They are important, but so is the environment they are in, which portrays a kind of slow, simple, idilic life in a modern world and all elements of the original image are important in communicating that message to me.

Just my 0.02c.

Excellent. fine job!!

If all we are discussing is the use of the term "correction" then it implies a rebuke for making a mistake; an act or expression of criticism and censure. There is no reference to a "correct" version of anything, but there is a reference to perceived "mistakes" that have been made.
However, who cares ! What is important is that we agree that any photo can be subject to critics that could eventually improve it, and that original versions of any shot can have overseen some potentialities of the seen or on the contrary highlighted potentialities that the viewers might not have imagined.
I agree therefore as already mentioned on the last sentence below of Fred and suggest to oversee what proceeds it.

There is indeed no correct version of any photo, but there are surely better and less good versions. Hopefully these discussions can highlight, with alternative views, what better versions can be suggested and explained. Then we all learn.

I like Claudio's original (although I agree that it's over-sharpened). It has a secret garden feel to it, little girls seeming so very grown up in their conversations and mannerisms. I like the asymmetric crop, the warm toning, and especially the border elements that give a real sense to the atmosphere. Sure, a perfectly cropped rock arch, centered in the frame with girls engaged in talk is fine but it's not what this photograph is about and takes away so much for me.

There's much talk about cloning the electric panel... why? It's there and it's fairly neutral. Claudio was clearly not trying to create a glass plate period piece here. The girls are dressed in modern clothes, the one standing may well have a green cell phone in her hand, there's a modern electric sconce light visible at the top of the arch, and possibly a fluorescent light in the window above the arch. I understand that the photograph has a nostalgic feel to it but I've not seen anything offered (example-wise) that improves on Claudio's original vision.

Unfortunately Anders is incorrect. And in this case the word is applicable. "Correct" was used several times by different posters to this thread, which is what prompted my comment about "correctness". I won't quote them here, because this is not about the users of the word and there's no need to draw attention to them personally. If you want to see the references to correct, however, just search for "correct" in this thread and you will find them.

Fred for once I comment on you and your writings directly and you refer to the writing of others. Before your input "correct was used four times as a verb or noun (to correct, correction) and not in the sense of "correct version". OK ! lets just try to advance in the discussion.

Anders, why not just get off my back. Stop simply reacting negatively to whatever I say and use your own mind and thoughts to formulate your opinions. Take a proactive stance rather than simply reacting to what I write when I write it. Obviously several other people immediately understood that you misinterpreted or misrepresented or misunderstood what I said. Take note of that. Lately, you've been stalking me, following my posts with disagreements even when you have to fabricate reasons to disagree, falsely characterizing my words, and thereby making it personal. Please try to control yourself. Thanks. It's well and good for you to get the last word in and then declare that we must move on, but I will not let you do that, as long as you create a false impression about my posts.

It is probably pretty easy to figure out what might make the photo fit our vision, I think the difficulty is to look at an image and actually try to understand it for what the other person presented or meant to present. Reading a photo is much more difficult than changing one and probably helps us grow a bit more.

Nonsense Fred. Come back to the subject matter and stop attacking me personally. Thank you!

What a mess I've seeded!
Fred, I believe that everyone in this forum agrees with you when you say that there is no "correct version" for any photo (in an absolute fashion), otherwise a weekly discussion wouldn't make sense, and Photography wouldn't even be an art form.
Nevertheless, I believe that your post doesn't encourage a discussion. Particularly, it doesn't encourage people to present their own interpretations and to do it in a practical way.
The alterations I made on the photo are only true "corrections", or more accurately "improvements", within my own interpretation of the photo, in the sense that (and finally going back to topic!):
1. I see the electric box as an architectural aberration. In my opinion that kind of structures should be better incorporated within the original design of villages, particularly in those with such architectural history and charisma.
2. The overexposed corner, again in my opinion, unbalances the composition, and it was no fault of the framing, as i found it to be awesome, it was just there... and could be tackled on post production.
Of course some other people surely feel differently from me, but those who interpreted these aspects of the photo as I did, hopefully will find the alterations interesting, and for them i hope seeing the alterations in practice may be fruitful.
I apologize if my first post was rude, it wasn't my intention. By no means I consider myself competent to tell what is "correct", and as you may see by my portfolio, I'm truly a beginner in photography.
Best regards,
Marco
P.S. - Tomek, I pondered on removing the electric wire, but contrarily to the box, it was nicely incorporated in the architecture and was an interesting reference to modernity in the photo.

What a mess I've seeded!
Fred, I believe that everyone in this forum agrees with you when you say that there is no "correct version" for any photo (in an absolute fashion), otherwise a weekly discussion wouldn't make sense, and Photography wouldn't even be an art form.
Nevertheless, I believe that your post doesn't encourage a discussion. Particularly, it doesn't encourage people to present their own interpretations and to do it in a practical way.
The alterations I made on the photo are only true "corrections", or more accurately "improvements", within my own interpretation of the photo, in the sense that (and finally going back to topic!):
1. I see the electric box as an architectural aberration. In my opinion that kind of structures should be better incorporated within the original design of villages, particularly in those with such architectural history and charisma.
2. The overexposed corner, again in my opinion, unbalances the composition, and it was no fault of the framing, as i found it to be awesome, it was just there... and could be tackled on post production.
Of course some other people surely feel differently from me, but those who interpreted these aspects of the photo as I did, hopefully will find the alterations interesting, and for them i hope seeing the alterations in practice may be fruitful.
I apologize if my first post was rude, it wasn't my intention. By no means I consider myself competent to tell what is "correct", and as you may see by my portfolio, I'm truly a beginner in photography.
Best regards,
Marco
P.S. - Tomek, I pondered on removing the electric wire, but contrarily to the box, it was nicely incorporated in the architecture and was an interesting reference to modernity in the photo.

Marco, if you state that Fred's post doesn't encourage discussion, then I'd have to reply that your initial post doesn't encourage submission of photographs for critique. I'm not inclined to submit something that people are going to say is "wrong" and should be "corrected" by changing this or that.

But let's get back on track here, because I know it is not your intention to make me hesitate to submit a photo for critique. In your most recent post, you used important qualifiers such as "within my own interpretation" and "in my own opinion." You and I agreed on one element that we'd like to see differently in the POW and, very importantly, we provided our rationale for our points of view. I think that constitutes a good discussion.

Single words can send a strong message, even if that's not what we necessarily intended. Sometimes we may have been in an unthinking frame of mind, while other folks may not have English as their native language (for which I gladly make allowances, having tried to learn another language myself as an adult in the Peace Corps). Nevertheless, IMO Fred made an important observation about characterizing aspects of a photo a "mistakes" or edits as "corrections," and his observation in no way hinders discussion if we remember to qualify our statements and criticisms as opinions, suggestions, recommendations, or alternatives. I think in the end that's just common courtesy to the person who posted the photograph.

Now we are back to what we are here for.
Yes, it seems that we all agree that there is indeed no correct version of a photo. What a dull world we would dream up, a nightmare, if there was one single way of seeing the world. No, we are indeed all here to show our ways of seeing the world and shooting reality.
Marco and Rashed are however correct in highlighting, as I also tried to do, the need of always encouraging viewers to express their points of view on any photo uploaded on PN and surely those selected here in this forum as a POW. It is by the view of others we learn and progress - all of us. All photographers should therefor encourage civil "critiques" of their photos and be open to see and understand what other photographers suggest as "changes" and "improvements". Whether we call such suggestions "corrections" is more a choice of words and not less of content, but I agree that some sensitivities can be disrespected by such wordings. We should however be careful not to formulate any hints of a message that each photographer is "correct" and no changes can be suggested by others.

So back to the POW. We have surely here a very good example of a photo that attracts attention; that provokes reactions; that tells a story, for most of us. All depending on the story we see and the elements of the story we identify, there are changes that could be made to cut out elements or on the contrary to maintain elements such as Claudio has chosen to do.

The color palette, is such a factor, and I have believe palettes are there as tools to convey a vision of reality. There are no correct palettes. In this case, as mentioned, the fairly strong saturation chosen by Claudio, is a palette of childhood. It is a palette I would personally seldomly apply, but here it seems to be coherent to the scene and the story frame. A palette of childhood (Disneyland, Fischer Price ..) and less of adulthood or old age - as far as I see it.

The upper part of the frame, that beyond the arch, with green leaves and the sky, again I see the choice of Claudio as well chosen. It adds to the story line and put it in perspective (wider world beyond the closed immediate world surrounding the three children).

The electricity bow ! It is right that such boxes are found in any old village in Europe (do we know where we are in the world ?) It plays its role in calling us back to reality of todays world, but one could of course clone it out and create a more idealized world of old stones. I would keep it also because also the children's dressings clearly are of present days world.

Finally, surely it is right that some strong over-sharping has been done. A pity, but it's something that easily can be corrected. In this case there is indeed a more "correct" version to make; "mistakes" that can be corrected!

Well, I find the so called "over-sharpening" interesting... it reminds me of Rembrandt (for example), drawing attention to the subjects of most matter, in the case of the children, and it gives interest to the texture of the darker arch wall (maybe in a Vermeer fashion, maintaining the Dutch painting analogies). Of course it may be regarded as an abuse of digital post-processing (as my own alterations most definitely were!), but I find the result pleasing, even if possibly degrading the documental part of the photo.
P.S.- Stephen, should I have planted "In my opinion" all the way throughout this comment? What I mean is that I thought it was implicit in every post of POW, as we are discussing art (subjective by nature)... but maybe it isn't... and I will be more sensitive on that from hereafter.

Rembrandt example: http://thefastertimes.com/overlookedhistory/files/2009/09/rembrandt_night_watch.jpg
Vermeer example: http://jamesbrantley.net/17vermeer-little_street.jpg

Marco, as far as I see it, the tools Rembrandt is applying in order to draw attention to a face, a drum, a lance, a helmet in his Nightwatch painting is light on surfaces and composition and not what we mostly see in digital sharpening, highlighting borders. In the case of the Pow, sharpening has resulted in strong pixilation around the faces of the girls (lasso tool?) which cannot be optimal if even medium sized prints are going to be made from it.
If you wish to appreciate Rembrandt's Nightwatch painting in all details, I would suggest to go here and see a very high resolution picture.

Humm, I see... I guess you're right. I thought the pixilation was an aliasing like effect due to the downsampling from a high resolution image... In that case, simple low-pass filtering before exporting the low resolution image would do the trick...
Great link by the way! Thanks.

This is not about putting a superfluous IMO before everything we say. This is about the difference between, on the one hand, genuinely reacting to a photo and sharing that with the photographer in question and, on the other hand, projecting one's own vision onto another's photograph. Whether or not we use the phrase "in my opinion" can't quite mask our attitude in approaching someone else's work.

Stephen is right, words matter. Not because we can simply avoid a certain word or add a set of other words and the problem will go away. But because words symbolize ideas and attitudes. When someone says they are correcting something, I take them at their word.

Here we are cloning out an electric box as if that matters to the photograph, right? We do that because we think it changes the photo for the better, right? An important detail! And yet, we scoff at the idea that changing a word (which represents an idea!) in a critique might be significant. Amazing!

We supposedly make suggestions to another photographer to change his work out of the goodness of our hearts and out of a desire to help him improve, certainly not to stifle that photographer or keep him from posting other works, right? But when a suggestion is made about our critiques, suddenly, we are being stifled and supposedly someone is trying to hold us back from commenting and speaking our minds.

. . .

Marco, just for the record, the link to the Rembrandt painting, leads to the Google "Art project", which Ton invited us to appreciate initially, some months ago in another forum. I agree, in my eyes also, it is very good.

We supposedly make suggestions to another photographer to change his work out.
I do not think this is correctly stated either, we do not make suggestion to another photographer to change his work out, we only make suggestions in how to improve the lay out of an image, technical and appearance wise, the way every one of us see it, not influencing any changes, no one demand the photographer to change his image, this is because every one of us is having a different personnel ideas and different opinion, that why the photographer can not make every one of us happy, other wise his image will turn to be one million and one images and then it is also not going to be his image.
I see the MCB's cubical is not a real drive in this image or adding anything related to the age or stile of this place, but thats my opinion and not every one else, who ever think that the cubical is reflecting any positive return for this place, he also get my respect for his opinion.
The cropping of what's above the Arc is also to me is not of any help to this image and I have no negative response to any one else seeing what's above the arc is of any help to the over all lay out of this image or possible enhancing its composition, again this is a personnel opinion of mine and not influencing any one else to change his mind in what he see within this POW neither to the POW photographer to do any changes to his image.