luminous world

Not to get too Freudian, but I do find it interesting that the only person who uses the term fraud is the photographer himself. 3 times. I like the image. I find the strength of Leon's response odd given the non-confrontational tone of the posts that precede it.

the picture tells enough of a story, with enough detail, that I find myself being drawn in and wondering about small details. With the perfect lighting, what purpose does the small tiki lamp on the floor between the two men serve? citronella for bugs? And where is the son's left hand? I can't determin how he's holding what appears to be a pad of paper without any portion of the hand showing.

I can't decide if the pattern on the object in the top right is distracting or not. I'd love to know if the use of a fish-eye wide angle was an artistic choice or merely the lens on hand. The slight distortion it lends, with the floor falling away slightly from the child and the lines in the tile being distorted from being parallel give the image a surreal feel, which I like along with the post processing effects which have been added. Congrats on POW!

I like the image, not crazy about the cutesy title. I'd have removed the footsteps; i find them distracting and although the title suggests the photographer's intent was to demonstrate the act of traveling, i'd prefer the solitary image without the footsteps which opens up the image to different interpretations as to how they got there, where they're headed, etc. I like the fact that the photographer left so much negative space between the tree and subjects rather than outside, it works well this case I think.
Congrats on POW.

I'm sorry, i have to agree with Xiao. I love the concept and the story the image tells. But the light draws the eyes to the TV in the corner, not the "puppet", the father/son or the person on the floor who are all very dark. There are details that are lost in the dark, like the cigar the father is holding, the bottle of drink, etc. One can assume from the apparent care taken in staging the scene that almost every item was chosen with care, but many details are lost due to the lighting.

I don't care for the image. But by the posts it's apparent that for some it has spurred imagination rather and elicited thoughtful contemplation. Regardless if the impressions match the artists intent or not, that's always something to be valued. So I congratulate Birger on a successful image.

I would encourage those that don't like the image to visit Birger's photo.net Gallery Portfolio. In the context of his other images they may appreciate this image more as part of a set.

I agree with August, actually. I just posted my first comments as a counterpoint to those who expected the baby to be interacting with the landscape. I feel that regardless of the photographers intention, the image is more striking because the bay isn't noticing the surroundings.

And it seems apparent what the subject is the baby, not the landscape, if only from the perspective chosen. If the landscape was the point the baby would probably appear smaller.

A human lacking a connection between itself and the natural world, seemingly oblivious to the scenery and surroundings, completely self absorbed in the maginficense of itself and its own creation as if it was all put there just for him.

Works for me, see it everyday.

I'm so nauseated by the prevalence of real, genuine 'good but not overly produced and processed' shots in the less popular galleries and people's knee-jerk non-reactions to them.

I see this type of scene every day on my way to work and see nothing noteworthy about it.

I've always felt that the 'rules' proposed by many regarding 'nature' photography seem arbitrary at best. I'm not criticizing anyone's aesthetics, and I for one use very little manipulation or filtering in my images. But I've seen 'rules' around PS filters vs in camera filters, etc, and it all seems silly. I think images which contain subjects derived from nature should be labled either as representative or interpretive and leave it at that.

I think this is a very stiking interpetive image.