humor End of the rainbow

This really happened. I pulled off at the scenic overlook. I got out of the car, and

discovered that though it was bright sun (late afternoon) where I was, there was a rain

cloud overhead, and a lovely double rainbow behind me. Then I saw the "Do Not Enter"

sign, and the question of what's at the end of the rainbow was finally answered for me.

I'd give you a 4 for aesthetics, a 7 for originality, and a 7 for luck. But it's still a neat shot. Congratulations.

Silly boy! Isn't that why they had the scenic overlook? And you were surprised?

Thanks for the comment and ratings. I've got to admit this was a bit of luck. Perhaps that compensated for there not being a pot of gold.

 

I'm intrigued at your "4" rating for aesthetics. I guess that's as good a number as any, but I have no idea how I would rate the aesthetics of an image like this. 3, because the road sign is ugly (and the pavement in the foreground is no great shakes, either)? 7 for the same reasons (I mean, that's kind of the point of the image)? 5, because the rainbow is pretty? I think that's a fundamental problem with the ratings system here.

 

Hence, I very much appreciate your taking the time to actually write a comment.

Just call me the wide-eyed (about f/1.4) innocent.

Barry:

 

Yes.

First, this photo is unique. I've never seen anything like it before. Had I seen this, I would have been compelled to take a photo. But along with being unique, the shot is remarkably unattractive. It is of, if possible, an unattractive dessert, with haze in the background, and a "Do Not Enter" sign planted squarely in the middle of everything and unrelated to anything.

 

So for the ugly sign and the overall drabness it gets a 4 for aesthetics. But because it's unique, it gets a 7 for originality.

 

All of this proves, as you already said, that there is something wrong with the rating system.

Thanks for the further comments.

 

Of course, the ugly (and rejecting) sign is the whole point of the picture . . . follow the rainbow, and you don't get a pot of gold; you just get . . . here. Bleah. Replace the sign and the desert with a mountain lake, and the picture gets prettier, but loses its meaning.

 

So: does the sign, which is necessary to the picture, make the picture unaesthetic? One can argue, as I think you may be doing, that it does, but by that argument, photographs depicting war or social injustice, however brilliant, however effective, would have to be rated unaesthetic on PN. Indeed, one could only have an "aesthetic" image if the subject itself was pretty.

 

Edward Weston defined good composition as the strongest way of seeing something. That to me seems to be a better definition of "aesthetic" than seems to be in use on PN.

 

So, having said that, does the picture effectively convey its meaning? Could it do so better?

Great spot to be in at the right time.

1. The color, composition and the placements of the main subjects to me...are perfect...!

2. I find nothing ugly here...in the foreground...mid- ground...and background...

3. Are ya loving the new tool...

4. After looking at this image for quite a while...I wondered (for only a short time) how happy I would have been to have been there.....

5. I think maybe the message here is you have already walked through the rainbow and are looking over your shoulder at the sign...you are in a better place...

6. Did I mention that I like it..?

Woohoo! Thanks for the review!

 

Someone I showed the print to today suggested that there really was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the leprechauns put up the sign to discourage people from looking.

Rather perfect Barry... Heaven will have the same sign for us if there is one :=]

Thanks for the look and the comment. Reading back over the thread, I'm still amazed by the guy who liked the picture, but didn't get that the whole point is the "Do Not Enter, Wrong Way" sign. Makes you wonder where those numerical rankings come from.

This is a picture that Elliott Erwitt would have loved. He did a lot of "ugly" shots, too. Sometimes people really can't see the forest for the trees.

Thanks for the Elliot Erwitt comparison. I've long appreciated the wit he displayed in his photos, and I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same sentence.