Valley of thoughts

@George: 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.
Yes, my thought here was a generalization, and it was an unfair generalization. You make a good point about starting with an artistic subject before proceeding with refining that image with further digital manipulations. The world is a lot more complex than "either - or." Trying to address a very complex subject in a short post in this forum will lead to statements like I've made that are too narrow or that sound dogmatic. If I were smarter or more articulate, perhaps I could better address the complexity of this topic. I do the best I can, and I try to keep an open mind along the way.

Another minor note: I've never considered HDR or stitching to be digital manipulations in the sense of creating a variation of the scene (I'm just addressing landscape photography here). To me, they are digital tools designed to overcome the inherent limitations of a single exposure of a camera. [However, in the world of digital tools, HDR is a wrench that is often used as a hammer. IMO, of course.]

I can't think of any other art form where "finding" is enough. Music, sculpture, painting, theater, writing, all require something more: creation. Perhaps photography is different in that respect, but it's worth taking a look at. Stamp collectors find, hunters find, and they may work long and hard to do so, using a lot of skill and knowledge along the way. But neither stamp collecting nor hunting are forms of artistic expression.

Photographers may well come across (find) amazing scenes. Amazing scenes do not make a photograph. A photograph is a creation using that scene as its raw material. A photograph is not that scene. It is a photograph of that scene. The key there is that it is a photograph, not a scene. The photograph is different from the scene in significant ways. Creating a photograph is not simply the deliverance of a found scene. When it is that, it is usually not a terribly compelling photograph.

Body of work is important here. Robert Frank found many scenes to photograph and didn't seem to manipulate them heavily in his Americans series. Yet, something about putting them together gives them a voice and is a creative act in itself. On the other hand, I usually find that random acts of beautiful scene gathering is not art.

Interesting response Gordon. Steven's response did not strike me as dogmatic at all. Now what does strike me as dogmatic is: "What matters at the end of the day is the image not the process. Either it works for you or it doesn't".

First, there seems to be a logical problem with this comment. The image is a different thing from one's perception of or reaction to the image. The statement might have been more coherent had it read: What matters is one's perception of or reaction to the image not the process. Either it works or it doesn't. Forgive me Gordon if this is not what you had in mind.

It is also true that the way in which one reacts to an image is a function of a large number of things. It has been shown that our individual view about whether something works varies massively according to personal/individual factors that vary with mood, time of day, day of the week, and a thousand other factors. The context within which an image is viewed also influences our perception of whether it works or not. And then there is a massive amount of unreliability in our assessment of artistic stimuli. What works is labile and highly context dependent. So, had we said: Either an image works for an individual right now, in the exact context in which it has been viewed and given the exact factors influencing the individual at the moment of judgment, then we would have something closer to the truth.

Who the individual is also matters an enormous amount. For instance, does it matter whether or not the person judging the image is an experienced photographer or artist? It seems it does given the way judges are selected for most serious photography competitions.

If we say that all that matters is wether an individual responds positively or not to an image, there really is nothing objective, enduring or understandable about image assessment. It just comes down to the empty, unjustifiable, inexplainable, primeval avowal "I like it". If this is how we want our work to be assessed then the simplistic platitudes we always see (and some complain about) at the outset of the POW forum must be respected as having equal value to the educated, experienced, thoughtful assessments of people like John A. If the "I like it" criterion is taken to be the ultimate criterion of assessment, then we must accept that Britney Spears is a vastly better musician than Mozart - because vastly more people like her than Mozart.

In the end then, what matters for me is the image (whether it is technically well made, creative or unusual in some way, represents a personal style or point of view, portrays an important subject at a decisive moment, tends to elicit emotional reactions, tells a story, etc) AND whether it works for me. So, there must be BOTH external (not private or idiosyncratic) criteria of assessment AND an internal (individual or idiosyncratic) response to the image. If an image passes BOTH of these tests, it is then, to me, a good one. This image passes one of the tests...I do like it....but it does not send me in to rapture though. Best, JJ

Jeremy my apologies for being vague. In the first instance I was not referring to Steven specifically or at least not at the exclusion of George, and yes dogmatic was perhaps an overstatement , entrenched may have been a better choice of word.
In the second instance I was referring to ones reaction to the image and thought that to be self evident, however given your confusion I will agree that my initial comment lacked clarity.

" whether it works for you or it doesn't " is going to be dependent on myriad criteria which I agree will shift with time, mood and a host of other possible factors. Whether or not one likes the image is one of the criteria which might be applied to determine if the image "works ". I often see images which I find clever or well conceived or superbly execute which I do not find engaging and conversely some of my favourite images are technically naive or oof or hastily made.
Again my apologies for being vague and insubstantial. In future I will leave the educated, experienced, thoughtful assessments to you clever folks, rather than muddling the discussion. You all seem to have the situation well in hand. Best of luck.

Very evocative photo, definitely. It's fairly easy to 'read', and the subject matter, I imagine, is something that most people can relate to. I generally like the tones/colours in the image, except for the pool being a tad dark (as I believe has been mentioned somewhere above). I do, however, think that the image looks a tiny bit too... posed. To me it looks too intentional. As if the child is reflecting on the darkness in front of it (a darkness that wasn't there when the photo was taken). In other words: it looks unreal. That seems to get me. Just an opinion, of course :-)

@ Gordon: I suppose "entrenched" means having strongly held views that differ from your own. Yes, I have strongly held views on the subject of digital manipulation as well as on photography versus digital art (for a great example of digital art currently posted as well as some of the confusion it can cause in viewers, see http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11957932). At the same time, I also think I have an open mind on these subjects, and my own views are constantly evolving as I consider the thoughts expressed by others. Honest opinions are far more helpful in this regard than sarcastic swipes.

Beautiful photo, it says a lot, and take your mind to imaginations, please enjoy

Very intersting photo with full of thoughts

Stephen, I was actually originally responding to the divide between your opinions and those of George, my own views never entered into the fray. At the time it struck me that you both had good points, however you seemed reticent to move to a middle ground....... but yes nonetheless I take your point and it is abundantly clear that it would be best for all parties if I found another use for my time. It matters little that I consider my opinions honest if they are being taken otherwise. I will not bother this forum further with my "sarcastic swipes" whether that be your perception or my intention.

Where's a violin when you need one.............

C'mon Gordon, if we all can't suffer a little mistreatment, then what fun would this be...........Besides, I wait all week to see what you are going to write.

Let's all just give peace a chance...............

double post please disregard

John, I do not feel mistreated and if I did, it would not be grounds for keeping my opinions to myself. At least so far this week no one has made any references to the proximity of my head to my ass, so I guess I'm still doing okay.
Despite the smart-ass comments I toss your way I have always ( I hope correctly) assumed that you know that I have the deepest respect for your opinions and look forward to the insights they provide each week. While many of the regulars here do nothing more than champion the same tired notions without variation, you actually look at the photo and let it guide your ruminations, rather than using it as a soapbox.

Here is that violin you were looking for.

Static, yet still feel so good.
Children under the guise of the noble image comes to mind.

John A as peacemaker?! Have you had a personality transplant? ;) Maybe I'm maudlin but sometimes I think we could be kinder on what is after all essentially an amateur site. Sure, have a go but also recognise the good - every photo has something to say if you let it.

Anyway, Gordon you asked me about the underlying story - various interpretations have been offered through the course of this discussion. I suppose the bulk of them revolve around pathways and pitfalls, transition points, the gaining of knowledge, or the fact that every kid is a barely disguised sociopath. Me..someone very close to me attempted suicide and nearly died when they were about this age so I think about the at times oily bleakness of life; someone else lost their father and the cap looks too big for the kid so I think about that; and I guess after an angst filled morning with my two toddlers I think about how sometimes I feel like life grinds the wonderful potential we are born with out of us, and whether I am being the father I want to be.

I think a weakness of the photo for me is that the kid is never just a kid...the treatment is so heavy that there is no neutral position to return to so that my mind is free to drift off in another direction. I need to force my mind to be free if that makes sense. That was what I was getting at in my earlier comment where I said I thought a lighter touch would make for a better image. If I were to make a horrible generalisation about this site it would be that many of the images rely on a single, often contrived as you mentioned, punchline. I wonder if that comes from a lack of confidence that many of us feel about the capacity of our photos to speak for themselves?

There's a big downside to being late to the party: too many posts to read to get the whole story!
What I really want to know is what Anakin thought back in 2007 when this image was originally posted.
And what I really want to say is to Gordon - don't go! I so enjoy and am enriched by your input.
As for this week's PofTW - don't care for it at all. That's it.

Richard, you must be confusing me with someone else.....at least I would like to think so.......maybe I just look like someone else?

One of the things about this image that I found of particular interest and it hasn't been mentioned to my knowledge (and was part of my own reading/conclusions) is that this place seems to be institutional. If this were obviously some family pool, we would have a reason to understand why a child might be seen in such a dark and vacant situation. In this case, we have a child alone in what one might consider quite a vacuous and impersonal space--a public natatorium or some such place. There really isn't a good explanation as to why a fully clothed child would be sitting beside such a pool, at least IMO. Maybe his family is incredibly rich and just aren't watching.

I do have to admit that I have certain feelings about unattended children and pools. I have worked with drowning victims and sold my first house when my 2 year old was found climbing the fence between the house and the pool.

This setting here just makes the feeling to me carry more gravity.

Oh, and Gordon, I knew you could find me one.........

Simona , daca poza ta a stirnit un asa mare val de comentarii inseamna ca spune multe si asta ii dupa mine cel mai important lucru !!! Craciun fericit tie si familiei tale.

Richard, Thanks for obliging my request. Those are some deep and dark places of the soul you visit. Having lost mt best friend to suicide as a teenager, having had another good friend become bi-polar and having been raised by a parent heavily medicated for depression, I can relate to the mind wondering and wandering into the shadows. While I have had the power of an image haul my mind both in or out of such regions, this weeks potw does not tug at my heartstrings, despite that seeming to be the intention. No doubt to some degree this goes back to personal baggage. For me water does not represent something dark and dangerous. I learned to swim when I learned to walk, there was a pool in the yard where I grew up and to this day I spend much of my leisure time in or on the water between scuba diving, kayaking and fishing. Never had a single bleak experience. Consequently an obviously blurred and darkened swimming pool only brings forth nightmares of bad photo-shopping.

Apparently others sometimes see us, other than how we see ourselves.... strange but true :-)
While I am irksome, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, you John alway seem to retain an even keel.
As for the institutional location it did occur to me and added to my impression that the image was shopped into blackness/bleakness.

Alberta, thanks.... nice to know. I'm outta here...

You all have fun with the bear and coyote show. I shudder to think of the metaphysical implications.

Gordon, there was a bit of an inside joke there with Richard, who I have known now for about 5 years or so(met on this site and then in person)--he knows me from another incarnation, as it were.........and it was not as kind and gentle possibly.......

 Caught my attention right away

It's perfect.

Hello all!

I am so honored that my picture it was chosen to be Photo of the week. Unfortunately I don't had time to enter and read the comments at the time.
I know I have to let the thoughts to fly in any directions, actually this I consider a photograph to give to the people: the power of dreaming, good or bad dreams.
But: the place is not a pool, it is a canal river and above my son is a walking bridge, from this bridge is the shadow over the kid and on the wall( yes , I accentuate a tad this shadow but not so much that you think) I was at few yards from my son, let say around 20 and I hand held my camera. I don't pose him, he sat down to look at the crow of fish in the water, because of the heat all the fish went in the bridges shadow. The title for the picture came after it was post processed, thinking what my son said to me about the fish, how they play and look at him and how he feel about them. All was happened for few seconds as the people were coming and the area become to crowded and on the river came a boat or a hydrobicicle( I wrote good?)

So, the thoughts of one child looking down on a canal river at the fish in the shadow it will be a better title for my picture? I don't think so. It was my child in danger , no way :D. It is the picture enough sharp? yes, maybe compression is not the best one , but I have printed 11x14 or a contest and yes I got first place with it :) .

Thank you again for all your words.

Respectfully,

Simona

Absolute sublime - amazing image!!