Bushfire - the new language of climate change

John A - " language or disability barrier"?
I know Australians may have a poor image overseas but Jeez, you blokes play rough......
If I could just get myself unstrapped from this wheelchair and pull out the sedative drip, I'd get in my paddlewheel canoe and come over to see you in person about that remark! Hang on. Forget that. Stand easy. The nurse has just turned up with my left-handed braille comic book and some CDs of Andre Rieu jamming with Frank Zappa. They really look after me in here.

"It doesn't happen often. Sometimes, we need to recognize that there is a language or disability barrier."
Of course, that comment did not apply to you, Ford. It is an explanation as to why some photographers do not participate in the discussion of their work.
I remember one gentleman that had his wife enter his responses because he had a disability that made it very difficult for him to do so. As I recall, his photograph was quite inspiring as was his participation in the POW discussion. If english was not my first language, I would find it challenging to interpret much of the discussion let alone respond to it. That is one reason why I try to keep my input brief and concise. The downside is that it often appears terse as a result.
Got a chuckle from your response, though.

Setting the current Photo of the Week aside for a minute and addressing this more generically . . .

That's because the photo often is NOT a good representation, no matter what the photographer thinks or says. Exposure, focus, depth of field, blur, heavy shadows, shooting into the sun, backlighting, can all effect what something looks like. Different ways of taking a photo will greatly affect whether light rays look natural or not, whether someone's skin will appear realistic or not. We sometimes forget that how we handle our cameras can determine what a subject looks like long before we ever even think about the darkroom or Photoshop.

Even real life scenes sometimes don't look natural in real life itself, never mind the camera, causing us to utter, "Wow, that sunset doesn't look real" or "The color of that water is just unreal." Imagine, then, a photo of either of those.

I have taken many, many pictures that don't accurately represent the subjects . . . even when first viewed before any post work. A camera is a mechanical device taking a picture of something. It is NOT a duplicating machine.

There are MANY, MANY ways a camera can see to it that something doesn't look real or natural. A photographer telling me he didn't use Photoshop in a particularly manipulative manner won't change what I see. It may still LOOK unnatural . . . and how it LOOKS is what viewers are reacting to.

[Of course, "natural" is way overrated. It might be terrific that a photo of a particular subject or scene looks unnatural.]

[Addition to previous]: It actually can sometimes take very adept post processing to make something look natural.

Where did you get that I said anything like this?

What I referred to in my last comment is just that you have an experience and perspective on something that might make your words fit with your image for you (has nothing to do with where you are from, but is a result of your unique, personal experiences) while there are obviously others who don't see those words and the work as being connected because they lack your perspective and experiences--even with your attempt to explain it. I wasn't suggesting any innate deficiency in you or anyone else, just that we need to pay attention to the feedback we get if we hope to clearly communicate.

Hope this is clear.

John A, I think Ford mistakenly attributed my comment to you.
After all, every house should have at least one John.

Sorry John A, I did mistakenly use your name in vain. I'm just thankful that I didn't call you Frank Capra.
Fred G. (I hope I got that right) - You points are well made and I agree entirely, with a minor exception. Namely, I think the camera is a duplicating machine. The divergence of what the observer "sees" and what is recorded comes from our eye/brain probing what is before us, placing different emphasis on the elements within the field of view and interpreting the beauty/significance/implications of the particular view. (The hierarchy of viewing shows this process.)
Data is thereby turned into information that can be acted on/appreciated/ignored/stored. What we "see" is so variable - it can even be influenced by our mood or even who is with us at the time. The camera sensor on the other hand, is just a dumb robot, that under a constant set of circumstances, will record the same data with precision, over and over without interpretive bias.

Ford, I have a feeling we agree on the larger issues but I have to disagree on your point about the camera being a duplicating machine. If I take a picture with a particular shutter speed and aperture opening and take that same picture with very different settings, which picture is the duplicate? If I use a very slow shutter speed and the image comes out with motion blur, have I really duplicated what was seen when the shutter was tripped?

I do agree on this:

As you suggest, there are many fascinating things we as observers do with the visual information we're given, both at the scene and when looking at a picture of the scene.

Let's get back to the image at hand here. The politics of experience tells us that what we experience may never be interpreted by

others no matter how hard we try. BUT this image for me conveys the experienced described perfectly, possibly because I have been

privy to this experience. How many of you have driven a country road in AU and come across back burning, or experience the burning

carried out by the aboriginal people's? If you had you would appreciate the significance of this image and the context to which it is

placed. This is both a natural and unnatural scene in AU and all those familiar with it would convey a similar reaction, that of

experience. I think the image is strong in conveying what most of us see nearly every spring early / early summer, and we are

thankful we see this activity occurring. This is not a full fledged bush fire. Thankfully, as the destruction and misery caused by a lack

of control devastate lives.

An absolutely fantastic shot.  Great job!

The old debate is real ity better than fake.. well usually in the end it is much better for you.Is truth better than lies? For the most part yes. Fantasy is ok for awhile but it can only get you so far.....

The rays of light obviously make this image something special. But the abrupt change in the background light from yellow to  blueish white is distracting, points toward a Photoshop job. I might be wrong on this, I've taken pictures that a simple white balance adjust has had a similar effect, but it seems a bit abrupt. Still it's an impressive image. I'd be happy to have it in my portfolio.