First of all, thanks for all the thoughtful comments on yesterday's shot of Rhowan.
As for the very different views you all expressed:
I think that some images require a greater interpretive effort than others, and that this is especially true for images that break with convention in some way. The shot of Rhowan, in my opinion at least, broke two conventions.
First, it was processed in way that isn't often associated with child portraiture – dark, moody, and so on. Second, even without the processing – in the absence of an understanding of the context – the scene appears to be rather odd ... a child, part-buried in the sand, eyes half shut, with a rope at her neck. Not exactly a 'happy child at play on the beach' shot.
Given the mismatch between expectation and reality there's a strong temptation to fill in gaps. And in doing that some of you chose a mythical story, some a more sinister one. Either way, I'm pleased ... not that you thought it sinister, or mythical for that matter, though that would be my interpretation too, but that it provoked a considered response. I don't mind the "nice shot" comments, but I would much prefer to create images that foster debate and engagement. At least that's my thoughts on the matter: let me know what you think.
As for today's shot, it was taken moments after yesterday's, and tells a slightly different story :-)
Oh, I should also add that I amended yesterday's shot, by removing a bit of the edge blur and lessening the depth of the shadows. The old version is here:
3.02pm on 4/6/07|
EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM