Valley of thoughts

I like the flip. In most cultures the eye will travel left to right. The flip adds a more comfortable path for the eye

Cred ca am nimerit la o zona romaneasca. Am dreptate Simona. Si mai cred ca esti o mama ce isi iubeste copii atat de mult incat a facut o pasiune din asta. Iti doresc tot ce e bine in lume tie si copiilor tai.
Eu ma ocup cu apicultura si miere de albine ecologica

I find this to be a very expressive photograph, one that is all about interpretation and meaning. It starts with the title --- Simona as led us to view the photograph as one that embodies a story. The fact that the child is fully clothed while contemplating the pool is not normal -- something is going on in the child's mind regarding the pool. It may be the abyss as interpreted by John A, it could be the child is coming to grips with the loss a recently deceased friend, it may be a purely symbolic representation of lost childhood innocence, ....any number of possibilities. For me, that's the key feature of this POW: it's open to so many possible stories or interpretations. It can express what an individual viewer is feeling about a significant event or series of happenings in that person's life, and each of those interpretations can be unique, very different from interpretations made by others, and totally valid for the individual viewer. It's a very open photograph for assigning meaning.

Relative to the power of the photograph to provide a series of stories for individual viewers, the technical issues are almost an aside. While the flipped version may better lead the viewer's eye to the child in those cultures that read from left to right, that's true if we look at the composition as being static; i.e., that child is not going to move. If, on the other hand, we view the composition in which the child is about to take some action regarding the pool, or that the composition is not static and is about to change, then perhaps the original composition is more appropriate, because the action can flow from left to right and into the frame.

For me, any other technical aspect is too trivial to mention, because I'm struck by and don't want to detract from the most significant aspect of the photo, that of the powerful ability to tell one of a number of stories for viewers.

I like the picture has its own broadcasting perhaps at bottom right is a little darker than it should

It's a photo that doesn't lead me to assign meaning or to specifically interpret. Rather, it bathes me in its atmosphere. It could as easily be set up as come across, so the child's clothing seems appropriate, to the photograph if not to the "real" scene, which seems less important here. It's the photographic scene that draws me in. Thoughts of an abyss or a child possibly contemplating a forward momentum into the pool didn't enter my mind an still don't. The blurred line of the pool frame stands out and, in that sense, doesn't work for me since it calls attention to itself in a photo that seems generally more subdued than that. It does help, however, to establish a mood to the photo, so I might miss the blur were it sharper. The strong, deep shadow in the upper left and the darkness of the pool makes the feeling here quite heavy for me. The lighting seems to lead me out of the frame to the right, on the walkway behind the pool. That's an interesting approach. I wonder how different the feel would be if the light, just as subtly, moved toward the child.

wonderful shot and processing. The atmosphere you created almost instantly makes you feel like you are the one standing there...

Dorin

Sorry, while a lot of folks apparently like this, to me it seems contrived. Like when you are watching a movie and you are aware that the actor is acting. The word that comes to my mind is "schmaltz".

Dear Robert, first of all Merry Christmas and very Happy and Peaceful New Year to you and to your loved one as well as to every one else on photo.net.
My friend, I look at the child pose very original and there is no sign of him being acting for the sake of taking his/her photograph,I been shooting adult and children for a long time and I am aware of such conditions, and to me also the child is in a very good sharpness, the surrounding is unique an as I said earlier this image do have a remarkable atmosphere to it, might sound simple image technically as the camera set up been used but thats not the only thing which makes a photograph successful, the success of this image is its content and the way it been all brought out.
Wishing you all of the best.

It may or may not be contrived or staged. No one except Simona really knows; any opinion by anyone else is just speculation. For me personally, it doesn't matter at all whether it was staged. If a photographer want to say something with his/her camera and has conceived of a composition that will illustrate or impart that message, then more power to that photographer. If you really want to see contrived or staged photos, visit the "nude" forum; no question there regarding staging.

At the first step,the great view is very well.The wonderful tones and light managing with nice shadow play,also.IMHO,this is a great shot for POW.I think the only matter is the title and it is a little strange.
Best regards(Bobby).

BOBBY! WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS YELLING AT US ? We can hear you just fine if you speak softly like everyone else does.

Robert nailed my response to this image with "schmaltz"... laid on thick and sloppy with a large trowel.
Whether the child was posed or not is irrelevant to me. What does matter is that the sappy dramatics, from the title on through to the heavy handed post production, feel imposed upon the image. It seems more like an afterthought or a salvage attempt than a cohesive vision. Minus the cliche dramatics, there is not much here to look at.

What an idea !
Were the Elves dreaming when choosing it ?!
What's special in it ?!
A breed near the pool...
Elves, please reconfigure or think again !

PS: The awaited comment:
"Great, Spectacular !
Genial !
Simona, you are Buna !"
:)

Most contemplative, dark and perhaps a touch innocent at the same time. I like this.

I tend to agree that the processing is so heavily applied that the image approaches melodrama. But I do like the idea and I think a gentler treatment to free things up a bit would make for a very nice photo. The title I see as a short statement by Simona about how the image reads to her. The combined effect feels like an attempt to canalise my response - in other words to force me to respond to the image in a particular way. Being a bit contrarian and prone to emotional constipation anyway I tend to rebel against those kinds of things so it loses power.
Dismissing it as Schmaltz without addressing the underlying story is an interesting response - I think people tend to label something as schmaltz as an act of emotional repression as much as anything. But I'm sure others here will disagree!

Well, I might buy the title as being a bit schmaltzy, but to me it is a bit too dark (does it border on sick?) to be schmaltz otherwise--but to each his own schmaltz.

I can't figure out the flop of the image--do we read shadows? The subject is on the left and facing right, what more do you need? Besides, the shadow comes in from the right and then pushes right (its called motion)--bottom line it is pretty much a non issue, however, the fact that we do tend to move right puts this child in some danger given the blackness of this abyss!

And Stephen, innocence? I am waiting for the head to start spinning............but that may have to wait for the resurrection.............

"does it border on sick?"

No. (Though I understand it may have been a rhetorical question.) ;)))

When I subtract the written and visual schmaltz I am left with an unsharp photo of a kid kneeling beside a swimming pool .... not much of an underlying story in my book.

I know Gordon, but you seem to take pride in your capacity to dismiss rather than to engage. There's no schmaltz without sentiment and no sentiment without emotion. When you subtract the emotional content of anything you're left with nothing but a bunch of stuff.

John, sure, I can see "lost innocence" as a possibility. That's not the interpretation I would give it -- I'm just trying to think of the possible thoughts that Simona had in mind and was wanting to illustrate. I think there are generally two parts to interpreting a photo: the meaning that the viewer gives to the photo, and the meaning the photographer had in mind for the photo. Often (but not always) we can get a hint about the photographer's goal via the title that has been given to the photo. Personally, I like titles; they don't dictate how I see a photo, but they sometimes help me see a photo from the photographer's point of view.

Richard, rather than making broad and inaccurate assumptions about my motives I had hoped you would illustrate the " underlying story " as you saw it. I am genuinely curious as I find nothing going on here beyond a heavy handed attempt to wring emotion out of a swimming pool.
That we differ in what we find engaging has nothing to do with what I do or do not take pride in. I dismiss what seems contrived and hollow as I see little value in doing otherwise. I engage with what I find engaging.

Point 1 - Contrived. By far the largest part of the worlds greatest art has been contrived one way or another.

Point 2 - Art vs happy snaps. Mona Lisa vs duck on grass centered in photo.

Point 3 - Artist naming their art. File name is all that is really required so you can find it again out of the thousands you have on one storage medium or another. If you need to explain the meaning of your art then perhaps the art fails to tell a story. An example of art having an impact on the beholder. I showed a poem to my teacher (this was for a dip art, professional writing and editing), she later told me that the poem made her feel suicidal. My work had had a reaction. Yes, I got my dip art with distinction and an award from the Fellowship of Australian Writers. Ascribing a name to your art often spoils the meaning it will have for others.

Point 4 - Post processing photos. As a photographer I, and thousands of others have spent hours in a dark room trying to achieve an effect beyond the simple happy snap (see Point 2). Digital is no different except you get to work with the light on. Art is what artists do, if an artist can produce a photo that makes you feel something, even if it is suicidal, then they have touched your soul. There is no better outcome for an artist.

Point 5 - Yes, the photo is a bit out of focus, may well be contrived, even post processed, but it has produced strong feelings in people. Positive and negative, but strong feelings none the less. And that is the whole point of art. It is not the point of happy snaps taken with the sun behind you and the subject centered in the picture.

George, I'd like to say something about your points #1 and #4 where you categorize photographs as either happy snaps or art, with the artistic photographs being the result of processing, whether in the darkroom or on the computer. This was probably a very generalized and simplified summary on your part, but it brings up a subject that's important to me. The implication in your response is that if a photographer doesn't apply significant processing to a photo, then it's more of a happy snap than an artistic expression. The reason that I take strong exception to that view is the fact that I find many landscapes to be so interesting, so intriguing, so powerful, and so beautiful that they can be jaw-dropping just by seeing and experiencing them. If I can capture powerful scenes with a camera when I see them with my eyes, then I feel I'm a successful photographer, and many who see photos like that are satisfied viewers. It also goes the other direction, and many photographers produce photos in the same manner so that I'm able to view and enjoy them.

A lot goes into finding and making these photos, with the main elements of course being great light and a striking assemblage of elements in a great composition. Those are artistic decisions that are being made, and they're really no different than the artistic thought processes that you may go through in the darkroom or on the computer when you are processing a photo. It's just that I and many others choose to do our primary processing through the viewfinder. Those photos often require relatively little processing after the shutter is released other than what's required to transform a raw photo into a tiff or jpeg. So I think there's a third alternative to your "happy snaps" and an artistically processed photo, and that's an artistic photo that has relied on a "decisive moment" when light and composition have come together to produce an image that doesn't rely on extensive digital manipulation to make something that has meaning to viewers or that may move viewers emotionally. I think many portrait photographers, nature photographers, street photographers, and perhaps others who concentrate on different aspects of our world also approach photography in a manner that doesn't rely on extensive manipulation to produce a striking, emotional, aesthetic, and/or artistic photograph. Where you concentrate on producing an artistic image, I like to concentrate on finding an artistic image. The added benefit of finding such an image is that I get to have it in front of me, see it with my own eyes, and experience it directly, because it really exists very close to as I've photographed it.

Steve
Thank you for your thoughts on artistic works.
This was probably a very generalized and simplified summary on your part, but it brings up a subject that's important to me. The implication in your response is that if a photographer doesn't apply significant processing to a photo, then it's more of a happy snap than an artistic expression. The reason that I take strong exception to that view is the fact that I find many landscapes to be so interesting, so intriguing, so powerful, and so beautiful that they can be jaw-dropping just by seeing and experiencing them. If I can capture powerful scenes with a camera when I see them with my eyes, then I feel I'm a successful photographer, and many who see photos like that are satisfied viewers. It also goes the other direction, and many photographers produce photos in the same manner so that I'm able to view and enjoy them.


Yes, very generalized. Your "strong exception" is valid, to be sure. But a happy snap is a happy snap. There is also the category of "recording" where the picture is a record of an event, wildlife, architecture etc. Still not art, no matter how technically correct the image is.


A lot goes into finding and making these photos, with the main elements of course being great light and a striking assemblage of elements in a great composition. Those are artistic decisions that are being made, and they're really no different than the artistic thought processes that you may go through in the darkroom or on the computer when you are processing a photo. It's just that I and many others choose to do our primary processing through the viewfinder. Those photos often require relatively little processing after the shutter is released other than what's required to transform a raw photo into a tiff or jpeg.


I couldn't agree more. Still, there are certainly many who look at a possible shot with the thought that it doesn't matter if they get the best out of the tablou because they can photoshop the resulting picture. Sad but true. A good eye for composition beats any amount of post processing. My post processing covers a wide range from minimal to alot depending on the photo and its intended use. Try a HDR panorama of 180 degrees without a certain ammount of post processing, on the other hand a portrait correctly lit can be a breeze to process.

Where you concentrate on producing an artistic image, I like to concentrate on finding an artistic image. The added benefit of finding such an image is that I get to have it in front of me, see it with my own eyes, and experience it directly, because it really exists very close to as I've photographed it.

Yes, I do concentrate on producing an artistic image. This process starts with finding an artistic subject. Perhaps your thought here was a bit of a generalization.

George and Steven raise a number of good points none of which I would disagree with, despite some of the tone seeming a bit dogmatic, however none of that changes my view of this image.What matters at the end of the day is the image not the process. Either it works for you or it doesn't.
There is a significant difference between an image being contrived in the sense that it is a conceptual construct produced to create a specific response from the viewer and being contrive in the way I intended contrived to be meant in my comment, that being my impression that the title and the post production where laid on thickly as an afterthought in order to make something heavy and thoughtful out of a mediocre snapshot.That in itself would be okay by me if the result felt organic and unified but it does not, instead I am left more aware of the attempted steering of my response than having the image itself evoke the sentiment.
Richard sums this up better than I have so I will quote him here.

Hi Gordon
That is point 3. While I might like an image, it often gives me the Jimmy brits when the artest feels it necessary to tell me what to feel. Still, as I said I like the image, the composition is good (flipped) if not technically perfect (focus). Ah well, the eye of the beholder and all that. I'm going to bed.