* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #867 / Revived #087 on 2024 11 27 *

We came across this waterfall while walking around Ji Chang Garden, Wuxi, China

While I am responding to Dan's post here and while I disagree with Dan, that isn't the point I want to make. It's a good discussion of Rich's image and the kind of discussion that makes the weekly C&C thread invaluable for me. Unfortunately, the flat thread view of DPRevived makes it extremely difficult and time consuming to follow all the points of view and see how those points of view develop in relation to each other. I know the Dprev admin are aware of this and I understand some of their difficulty in trying to change it.
I try to deal with it by responding to an entire post, without selecting sections, so everyone can see as much as possible of what I'm getting at in its full context. Then when reading Dprev I look for the latest couple of posts and hope I haven't missed too much of significance. It's a time consuming process and too easy to miss things.

You could have chosen any post to make your point but I am flattered you chose mine ☺️

We clearly disagree and that is fine; I have no issue with that.

I see/interpret images differently to you.

There is a lot to be said for this approach. Not least is; what is it that reveals the nature of the objects? If you do not remove the grain of the wood then why remove the soft creases of the cloth?

As presented, this is a beautiful image!

It's always with some trepidation that I ever tend to disagree with Roel. 😉 But here goes. I think Minniev had a great point about the effect of the clouds + reflection. I see strong leading lines producing an "X marks the spot" effect, taking my eye directly to the center of the image and holding it there. Images with a strong reflection like this one benefit from a symmetrical presentation, including a centered horizon line. If I were to make any suggestions at all it might be to play around with enhancing that band of golden color through the center, and brightening the mountains at the center. I'm not sure what the effect would be - it might be to garish, but if this were my image I would explore it.

Really nice for all the reasons already given so I won't repeat them. But I'd like some discussion about number one as "calming and peaceful." and some comparison with mtgoatee's landscape this week that is also described as calming and peaceful. I'm not being negative about the image from Andrew 546, I'm discussing the response reactions. Is it really calming/peaceful? All the converging more or less vertical lines make it dynamic. The second image, while it has one major bottom to top line, is far more peaceful. It may be the same place but the viewing of the images is quite different. I'm agreeing with the comments that note the "leading us into the scene" interpretation of 1.
Compare them to the mtgoatee image. In this image there are far more horizontal lines, it's closer in feel to the second image of Andrew if we did a reverse of Andrew's image and added it to the right hand side to create something of the same X shape as well as the horizontal lines. While the X shape does take the eye to the centre of the frame, it doesn't set the mood of the image. This is being done by the horizontal lines.
What I'm getting at is something that is considered more frequently in painting discussion than in photographic circles - the way line shapes our responses.
Generally "line" in photographic discussion doesn't go much beyond "pointing to the subject,"

That is the effect it has on me.

Obviously I can't speak on behalf of anyone else about the effect it might or might not have on them.

Know what you mean, but ultimately there is no emotion contained within the photo itself but rather it is attached to your own memories and experiences that you "draw on" when you make sense of the image/recognise what it is/decipher it, as this is how human perception works, or as John Sloan says, "there is no truth in an object."

For me I would say "dormant" the short days in winter between the weather, quite cold rather than comfortable, you have to make an effort to wrap up before you go out. But they are the memories from my experience.

I don't quite agree with you that there is no emotion within the image itself. Yes, emotion is within the viewer not the image. However, and this is where painting/art analysis comes into it, various things we perceive, especially in shapes and colours can create particular responses in the viewer. Artists and architects have used this, either consciously or unconsciously going back to Greek times and study of things like "The Golden Mean." There's nothing in the image itself that says a subject is better on a rule of thirds position, but there are things about the way our brains operate that change the way we perceive/interpret positioning. Similarly, such rules aren't to be followed blindly, but it helps if you understand how the perception works if you want to deliberately break the rules for some reason.
Example. It is no accident that cathedrals use repeating tall narrow lines. Those architects know how they create a response in viewers. A forest with repeating tall narrow lines can induce much the same emotion in a viewer. The "art" is in the artist's mastery of how to create the responses in the viewer.
Similarly, a viewer, or any receiver of an experience, can develop their understanding of how the medium is working.
Example. I might be very impressed with a piece of music when I first hear it. With more exposure to music I might realize that the particular piece is a cliche or a derivative from something else and then my response will be quite different. This doesn't make my first response invalid but if I want to deepen my understanding of the art form, I need to go further.

Again I understand what you say, but your thinking is in absolute terms, there is no meaning in line other than that which we attach, or that becomes attached through time.
Cathedral design is not really a constant though time and culture.
Popular music is popular precisely because we've heard it before. We have it in our memory and we have emotion attached already. It's what makes it accessible to a mass audience. The further you deviate from that common language the smaller your audience will get because fewer people will connect with it. What are Thirds and Golden ratio if they are not the equivalents to popular song structures?
Too much emphasis is placed on our ability to control and place because with that comes the notion that how we control and place things has meaning, and so a framework becomes attached, a logical sequence that explains the photo, and the photo has suddenly become an absolute thing because we are looking at the photo to explain the response rather than looking at our response to explain the photo.
It's like letting go of the absolute and developing a feel for it.
Not that I've got the hang of it yet...

I agree that there is no meaning other than that which we attach or has become attached through time. The creator of the image (or whatever art form we are considering) however can, use a whole range devices to add meaning to whoever experiences the art work. Some of these, such as line, seem quite universal. Others require sensitivity and experience. As far as I have seen, jagged lines in a composition , irrespective of of culture or subject matter, convey extreme movement. Some interpretations may be culturally based. For example, something with symbolic associations may completely change the viewing experience. This will depend on the observation powers and experience of the viewer. Or it may be connected to quite different perceptions. For example, there has been considerable discussion in art circles about the extent to which western traditions of reading left to right mean westerners "see" differently to those who come from cultures like Japanese where reading is arranged in columns and then it is read from right to left. Vertically elongated compositions are far more common art forms in the East. This is particularly discussed regarding impressions of movement.
Sometimes an image may trigger associations that were not foreseen by the image creator. They come from the personal experience of the observer.
The point I am making is that statements like "we all see things differently" is a truism that doesn't assist appeciation of the image in any way. The real discussion comes when we share the what and why of what we experience. That's where C&C becomes a growth process.

** SPOOKY **

This one looks much better to me with the brighter sky compared to the rest of the scene acting as a distracting eye-magnet cropped out.

This focusses our eyes on the combating roos as in the other 3 images.

If I'm honest, I have to say this: the photo is totally blurry.
Very good composition can't compensate for this, unfortunately.
But, everyone in this forum overlooks this fact.
Why?
As a favor?

It isn't too blurry on my desktop or phone screens.

I am not doubting your observation that it is blurry on whatever device you are using; I'm just answering your question.

😔 I am concerned about your eyesight.

My eye-sight is fine.

Excellent photo, which belongs in the highest category.
Unfortunately I overlooked it until now!