Yes, That dog must be a very fast at escaping!Yes I was wondering about the dog too?
We do see the shadow of one dog, James!
But in fact there are two dog leashes, one in each hand. The dogs are not lit by the car or street lights!
On second thoughts it’s even more complicated!
Look at shadow directions. One can see this is lit mainly from the left as the shadow of the tree comes from a light source behind the left shoulder of the photographer! That can’t cone from camera flash. A second light source appears to be making the old fellows shadow. The light there is coming from behind the photographer’s right side. That could be flash!
Or the headlights of several cars passing!
Asher
There’s a ring next to the walking stick handle! What’s that there for then?Asher
I see one dog leash not two and a strap for holding his cane in his other hand but I do not see a dog. Without the dog this image is a miss.
James
Firstly, let me reassure you.
The image is complete.
It may not satisfy your expectations but it does mine.
Those who seek technical details, on the other hand are looking in the wrong place. Nothing about camera settings will provide you with understanding beyond your own limited vision.
This photograph is one, for me, when all things appear to be interconnected in my thoughts. Often, when this happens, I simply point the camera and shoot. A fraction of a second later or earlier and the coexistence of my thoughts and vision will turn to muck.
Of course the dog is there. It’s external to the frame but we all know it’s there somewhere, in your thoughts. To see the dog you must look beyond the frame and into your memory.
Only an idiot needs to have everything in the frame.
The lighting is as it was. It’s not necessary for you to understand how, just to accept ‘is’.
Firstly, let me reassure you.
The image is complete.
It may not satisfy your expectations but it does mine.
Those who seek technical details, on the other hand are looking in the wrong place. Nothing about camera settings will provide you with understanding beyond your own limited vision.
Now to another strange picture!
Who thinks this is “incomplete”?
If I said the title of it was “Basking Seals”, you might point out that no seals are visible.
But the artist might just want to annoy you are have you think about the deals that used to be there or that should be there but life isn’t fair to out ignored empty dock!
Actually, I find it open ended and allowing me to muse and think of “Waiting for Godoy” or tree to become a book!
We get to react freely, according to our nature and education,
..... but unless we commission the work and have to pay for it, we have zero say in its composition!
Asher
Agreed! We can say we like/hate it and why. But saying it’s complete is the sole right of the artist unless we hire him/her!Asher
Sure we do! If one wants to make pictures for their own desires they should not bother posting it on the internet. They would be better served by taking it to bed with them and dreaming about it,then put it under the pillow and look at it again in the morning upon awaking. When one publishes a picture it becomes an image for an audience the same way when one publishes a book for all the critics to comment.
James
Ho là là!
Asher
Sure we do! If one wants to make pictures for their own desires they should not bother posting it on the internet. They would be better served by taking it to bed with them and dreaming about it,then put it under the pillow and look at it again in the morning upon awaking. When one publishes a picture it becomes an image for an audience the same way when one publishes a book for all the critics to comment.
James
Asher
I see one dog leash not two and a strap for holding his cane in his other hand but I do not see a dog. Without the dog this image is a miss.
James
That’s a bit harsh, James. I’m not desperate, just disappointed. I’m sorry I crossed your intellectual line in the sand. It’s so barren on your side.Tom
The picture is incomplete regardless of how you want to desperately rationalize its meaning. "Go sell crazy somewhere else".
James
That’s a bit harsh, James. I’m not desperate, just disappointed. I’m sorry I crossed your intellectual line in the sand. It’s so barren on your side.
Tom
Photography is not about tricks,gimmicks, gazing inward,looking beyond reality, or contaminating them with our own ideas. They should teach us to look more closely at things through a corrective lens to our own flawed vision. Nothing harsh or disappointing about it.
James
“Should”?
James, my friend,
In the human brain we make connections: that’s how we are wired.
...and there is no simple “should” associated with taking pictures or choosing the ones to share: as each instance of a “should” we conjure up, as a rule, would be itself, conditional on something else!
Photography is merely the activity involved in making and exploiting the camera to record a scene from a viewpoint.
Beyond taking pictures, it’s already “photography”, even if the results are never seen!
So, as to what constitutes “photography” we should avoid “shoulds”!
But you still can list your own preferences and you can even report that you like or hate mine and why!
Asher
So you you agree!Asher
I will decline to disagree.
James