Chanaé

It would be good to have a statement by Chuck Turner in regard to his approach in making this photo. What did he desire to show or to symbolize? I think that the comments have generally acknowledged that some elements work well in this composition and communication but that others are more problematic. It is, as Fred says, not an easy photo to appreciate. That does not mean it is not ambitious in what it is trying to communicate to the viewer. It seems to me to be a photo made with intention (perhaps this is an obvious statement) although various differing reactions to the result seem to be experienced. Is it a raw diamond something like an unfinished symphony ... or simply an already polished statement of something difficult to perceive or appreciate?

Arthur, I understand your point, though I have varying reactions to it. This is the kind of photo I want to be left alone with. I don't want the photographer guiding me toward a way of seeing or interpreting this. Whatever he would say could easily destroy the challenge I so appreciate about this photo. For me, its not being easy to appreciate is a plus, and I wouldn't want to undermine that with a photographer's explanation. While an explanation might suggest to all of us different ways he could better have accomplished his intentions, it's not his intentions that I'm struck by here, as much as the way this photo makes me feel, which I don't necessarily want to pin down. I'm OK with the unknown aspects of it. The part of me that does understand what you're saying is that this is, at least in part, a learning site. And so learning about our ways of visually communicating can be important. At the same time, viewers can become way too dependent on what a photographer might say about his own work as being definitive in terms of interpretations and that can lead us astray as well. Whenever I'm asked about my own photos, I vary between specific and circumspect and often realize that the minute I say something I want to take it back because I know there's another way to look at it and don't want to shut any doors on any viewers' reactions or interpretations.

Yes, it is like viewing art in a museum. If we need always to read the description or artistic approach of the artist it can color our perception and original thoughts, especially when the latter are not yet established fully.

Sometime I think that being informed of the approach of the photographer (not the approach in a technical sense but in terms of his or her values and what he or she is trying to accomplish) helps in the viewing and in the appraisal of our own personal opinions of a work or a series of works. What I do find missing in some of the POW forums, including here to date, are the reactions of the photographer to the comments. We can do without that of course but sometimes having that input can add value to the discussion, and indeed, to the learning process.

Hi. My intention was to create a kind of fantasy image. I didn't really see a category that fit it well, so I chose "portrait". As for the processing, I did what I usually do in a sense, which is that I experimented with different approaches until I got a result I liked.

The composition of the model appears too staged and not natural, spoiling the overall impression for me. Also, the white sky next to the white dress is a bit off-putting. I do like the wood structure