The Water Pump & Moon ( the controversial )

I for one am rather glad to see the more liberal moderation these days. The philosophical questions raised by a given Photo of the Week are certainly better than the usual congratulatory blurb. In addition, surely we can go beyond technical considerations when discussing a photograph.

--Lannie

This type of comment is not useful in a critique forum. There are many different opinions offered and tangential conversations often develop. Exploring opinions different than your own can be educational and thought provoking for some, even if they are on the OP's "dime". It's one of the purposes of this forum. If the various opinions, personalities or related side discussions are not your to your liking, why not side step those and contribute a heartfelt, meaningful critique of the image of your own. One that would use your experience, knowledge, emotions and intellect to express what you like or don't like about the image beyond the less-than-helpful "great work". Focus on giving the photographer real feedback by critiquing the image, not other peoples critiques.

You are all much better photographers, are smarter than I am and with out a doubt better looking. As photographers, you likely think visually. Perhaps this will put things in perspective.
You may think that your 4-way conversations are interesting. There are other places for them, and, they are on this site for free. There is a forum for philosophical questions.
There is a reason newspapers do not put the gossip column on the front page.../photodb/photo?photo_id=16672332

If the chart is referring to this week's photo, I'd like to see where John fits on the pie chart. At least Lannie, Stephen, Fred and Arthur devote most of their discussion to the POTW rather than just complaining about the other posters. I for one enjoy reading all the posts on the weekly forum, philosophical or not.

Richard, I'm in 'All others'. It is a count of number of posts.

Having read a good number of the posted critiques I wonder if you are loseing track of what the excercise is, and that is, offering well thought out comment both positive and negative , with the idea of giving the image maker some input in how to improve her or his photography. 

From What I have been reading in a lot of posts I do not think I want to continue being a part of this photographic forum.

As for this image, I find it a pleasant scene albeit without too much detail but enhanced with the placement of the larger than life layered in moon.

I think it is well handled and does present itself as a nice picture, but for me , no more than that. 

I'm not usually quite this loquacious, but you don't want to get me going about moon shots. . . .

I see posting here as a win-win situation: nobody's posting more forced anyone else to post less. This is not a zero sum game.

Saying that philosophy should only be discussed on the Philosophy of Photography forum is analogous to saying that philosophical questions at a university cannot be discussed in English departments or sociology or other departments. Philosophical questions cannot be contained or suppressed. Should we have less philosophy? That is a philosophical question. There is no escaping them.

I learned a lot from this particular philosophical exchange, and it was relevant to this and all photos ever taken.

Try it, John. You'll like it. It's better than the gossip column you tried to make this thread into.

--Lannie

Congratulations, Bela for the POW. A wonderful image that works for me, your technique to incorporate the moon shot at the same time with a longer lens is used impeccably here. Fred G. mentioned a peninsula that in fact does not exist - it is only a cloud formation lit by the sun, but I had the same first impression, a peninsula coastal line battered by waves far away in the distance. To me, the image conveys a calm atmosphere. The B/W rendition makes it possible to imagine that this can well be either a sand- or a snow-covered landscape. A very interesting shot. Best regards. Peter

Perception is really an interesting thing. I didn't read Fred's comment regarding the peninsula thing until quite some time after he wrote it and basically forgot about it when I went back and looked. With the familiarity of the terrain and my own reference point, I immediately saw the cloud form. But with this last comment, I went back and looked and I can decidedly see what both Fred and Peter saw here.

And maybe that just points out how we often not only figuratively, but even physically, see images differently. We all have our own filters through which we receive an image. That is the reason way up above, I suggested that "like" is not part of the determination of whether an image works or not--like is a matter of taste and something that we own and is not a property of the image we are looking at. But there is a visual language/vocabulary that can actually help us objectively determine if an image was successful or not. It is also what we draw upon when we are shooting. There's a good article on this that I found this week, it is actually a complete class on design, which is tantamount to creating great images. It's a Cornell class and relates to the whole field of art and design but the principles of a strong visual do not change between media. Here is the link to the information and a quote that I think relates to much of the conversation that has been going on here:

And for those who question whether a manipulated image is photography, maybe a bit of perspective would be of some use. Here is a link to a current show at New York's Met.

A quote here seems to not differentiate these works as outside of the medium of photography:

What, really, does the moon add to this picture? There's no tension between the windmill and the moon. It's not as though they might kiss if they got a little closer.

How about no moon, the clouds a little higher up, and positioning the camera, if possible, so that the legs of the windmill aren't obscured by the buildings?

There's skill in manipulating photos, but there's also skill in capturing reality so well that no manipulation is needed (to paraphrase something Jeremy said, in a post near the beginning of this discussion).

Some manipulation is done on the sly in an attempt to elevate a more-or-less ordinary picture into something else, and sometimes the manipulation is the essence of a very successful picture and is readily apparent (e.g., the picture of the eye in the wall in the link to the Met exhibition).

So hard to stay silent.
Hi Martin. When I get a critical comment, I always check the commenter portfolio. I my learn something. So, I did, and I excepted your compliment.
Cheers.

Ouch, I think.

Anyway, Bela, I much prefer some of the more dramatic moonscapes that you have created to this one.

Martin

My last word, and Ansel Adams famous print, "Moon Over Hernandez". The original and the edited version, witch have sen most of the time.

My last word, and Ansel Adams famous print, "Moon Over Hernandez". The original and the edited version, witch have sen most of the time.