A future project...

At the risk of appearing contentious or branded a philstine I dont see what people are raving about with this picture. The composition is good and overall the picture is a good one but I dont think it is great. The sky is burned out, and without the reflection (which is barely large enough to lift this image) it would just be a rather boring picture of a crucifix on a featureless cinder path that seems to lead nowhwere in a very boring field. The light looks flat to me and the lack of contrast makes the whole picture a bit too soft for my eyes.

I would suggest that it is the religious iconography of the main subject that leads some viewers to perhaps see more here than is actually there. Or perhaps the cross adds some mystical significance to which I am either immune or indifferent.

Sorry for being brutally honest and no doubt I am in a minority of one but opinions differ and I thought I would say what I thought rather than just take the easy way out and not comment at all.

I am with Mannesty and Womble.It is a bloody great picture.ChrisA nice critique you helped me know what I saw.
Well done again Paulyrichard

Regards mm

Ialso find myself wondering if the reflection is digital manipulation as while showing the centre of the cross there is no sign of the white Christ figure in the relection...but perhaps this adds to the mysticism?

Kris, that is a big statement to make and one that I don't know how to answer, except to say, cheers. Same to the rest of you guys, I appreciate it.

No worries Aliengrove, if you don't get it, you don't get it. Cheers, anyway.
BTW, the sky is not burnt out, that is how it was on the day due to fog, and is generally the case.

No afraid I dont get it but evidently I am in a minroity of one so I will bow to peer pressure and admit that maybe I am missing something. I hope no offence is taken at me voicing my opinion however which is based purely on what I feel when looking at this picture. I personally dont think it is as emotive or technically as good as many on your flickr account but that is of course just my personal opinion. I have never been one to not say what I think and I know this sometimes can cause offense.

Rgds
Jon.

You're obviously right that the subject of the shot is of key importance... perhaps the image stirs different things in different people - or in your case, doesn't stir anything at all. For me the image is truly elegaic, contributed to by the empty landscape, the mist and the dead-end road... perhaps as a 'nonbeliever' it has an even greater poignancy - the image brings many of my rather mixed (though tending toward negative) feelings about religion to the surface. Yet there is that very human urge to build structures like this, and to be drawn to them.

As Corinthians says:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me".

We all sometimes long for the simpler times of our childhood.

I think perhaps you're not looking closely enough. The reflection isn't mirror-smooth, but the arm on the right side of the frame as we look at it is clearly present in the reflection.

Without a doubt this is the case. But that's true about a lot of pictures - their context adds significance to elements in the photograph that would otherwise be unremarkable.

For reasons I won't go into here, all things Christian evoke in me a strong negative reaction, so the compositional dissonances in the photograph strike a strong chord with me.

Having looked at quite a lot of Paul's pictures in recent times, I do get a sense that these compositional dissonances are not coincidental.

Just to put my own view in perspective, though, I wouldn't go as far as Kris. It's good, very good even, but not quite that good, IMO!


Please don't change! Excuse the pun, but god forbid that the trend towards positive-only comment squeezes out those that have a contrary view.

Thanks for that Chris. Strange, but religious symbolism often evokes strong negative feeling in me too, but not in this case. I am still a bit perplexed to be honest, and now not a little in awe of the power a crucifix can have over the interpretation of the artistic merit of a photograph. While I have understood your critique, it brings me no nearer to understanding what turns this image from the good but not exceptional image I see into "One of the best photos I have seen posted to this forum."

However, all credit to Paul for producing an image that has obviously made a huge impression. Whether I "get" it or not, he has achieved the aim of all of us as photographers, to make an image much more than the sum of its parts. For the reaction the picture has produced, I will concede it must indeed be an excellent image, whether I uderstand how it is working or not. I sincerely respect the opinion of all those here who have been so impressed by this image, and it would be incredibly conceited and narrow-minded of me to think you could all be wrong.

Lastly, no doubt I will continue to say what I think, far too late to change now!

Still confused though

Well, I would completely agree with you. I don't get that either.

Yes. This is his particular skill, I think, and it's a fairly rare one.

As I said earlier, I often dislike Paul's work, mostly because I sense an iconoclastic and sometimes political stridency about it that jars with me somehow.

However, it's that very quality that at the same time impresses me as evidence of the ability to photograph in a way that can evoke strong feelings.

So I can respectfully dislike some of the work, while at the same time recognising its power.

How much of the reflection, if any, is done in post processing Paul?

Keep speaking your mind, Jon. It is the only way to be and far better than to pussy-foot around.

Peter, the only thing I did was to slightly 'dodge' that area of the image. Other than that I brightened the exposure of the overall image a little in PP too. Nothing else was touched.

I can understand why the crucifix is abhorrent and anathema to some people. With this project I really hope to get a better idea of it's power, feeling and use in different environments. I won't just be visiting churches and graveyards.

Thanks again for the comments.

Pauly, I've been away so I missed all of this. I'm afraid I also don't 'get it' For me it's a decent image, and I like the reflection, but that's about it. I've seen dozens of your images that I think are miles better! Some of your photos have indeed been among the best shots I've seen on this forum, but this isn't one of them. In my book it's not even close!

Perhaps it's a cultural thing, and growing up abroad I'm missing whatever it is that is impressing everyone else

I am glad aliengrove voiced a contrary opinion to my own, much more interesting that way.

Personally, I like the low key feeling of the image bought about by the fog. I am a sucker for foggy images (weather not light leaks that is).

What makes me sit up and look at this image is the dissonance in my reactions to it. The crucifix, simultaneously a cruel method of execution and, for many, a sign of hope but in this case set in a desolate, lonely landscape. Is it really a sign of hope, or a false hope, a road to nothing?

Although I am viewing this on a small laptop screen in a bar in Romania in the sunshine, I have no doubt of the technical excellence of the image. What made me say what I said are the strong emotions it creates within me which my pretty flower pictures will never evoke.

K.

No worries, Tim. If anything it is a documentary photograph. Cheers.

Kris, I appreciate your thoughts and feelings on this photograph, as well as everyone else's.

So, your in Romania! You do get around. There are a lot of images to be had of the 'cross' in eastern Europe I guess. I'm planning a trip to Vilnius in Lithuania, and visiting the 'Hill of Crosses' out there. What a place that is!

Whereabouts in Romania are you?

A little town called Isaccea in the far east of the country not that far from the Black Sea. I have a project here and come every summer. This is the last season, however.

K.