Comments by Tommy McGee on Thu, 02/07/08 11:45
I love those slender trees with the little sliver of moon. Another very cold photo. I would guess from the stage of the moon that the photo was taken on or about Jan 30th... Am I good or what?
Comments by Richard Glover on Thu, 02/07/08 13:46
This is also very nice. I'm in the "no house" camp, myself.
Comments by Linda Frey on Thu, 02/07/08 13:56
EXIF says the 29th, Tommy. You were pretty close.
Thanks all for your comments! It will be nice when the email is working again. Maybe this week end?
Comments by Ross Thornton on Thu, 02/07/08 14:43
The house and everything works perfect for me. Otherwise it's just another shot of poplars in the mist--pretty, but numbingly common.
Comments by Dennis Hancock on Fri, 02/08/08 09:37
I prefer the house included. I like mood pictures and this really comes across well and the misty image portrays the cold well and the relief that the house offers shelter.
Comments by Josiah Friberg on Fri, 02/08/08 10:01
I think I prefer the OP with the house included because it speaks to me of nature and humans living together in the freezing cold conditions. It puts it into perspective for me to know that this isn't just out in the middle of nowhere, but that someone actually lives there and survives the cold. I might suggest cropping a little of the sky out. This is a great shot!
Comments by DebbiK on Sun, 02/24/08 07:54
It never entered my mind that the house was obtrusive in the OP. The image with the house tells a story...the image without the house tells a lie (no offense Ruth because I think it's a nice image without the house), but I'm OK with the house. Let those people stay there! Now if a car had been there, we would have had to remove that (the people would then have to walk or catch the bus).
Comments by Tony Scheuhammer on Sun, 02/24/08 12:54
hmmmm, coming back to this one, I still don't much like the house; not in this particular comp, as it seems intrusive and ill-placed. Maybe a different comp with the house included would work for me, I don't know.
Without the house the picture tells a lie? All photos tell lies Deb, by what the photographer decides not to include in the frame, by what kind of lens to use, what sort of filters to use, etc. What if, for Linda's scene here, it was possible to move over slightly, and take a very similar shot, but without including the house. Would that be a lie? In a way it would, because no house would appear in the shot, yet you, the photographer, know that there was a house only a few feet outside the frame whose inclusion might create a very different mood to the image.
All the best pictures tell small lies in order to express deeper truths. Same with literature; fiction - the very name of the genre indicates that it's all a lie. But it's not. The best fiction tells millions of superficial lies to unveil deeper truths. That's what all art aspires to, I would say.