For What I Am.

CodyWeber

"Love Me For What I Am, Not My Preference."

chulium

Good photograph, but I do not support gays... so I do not agree with the concept; well done photography work, though.

schmoo

I love this shot, as usual. I think the dramatic-but-subtle effect of the sky nails it home.

urbanaries

I too love the effect on the sky but think the shadows around the faces/heads lack important detail, the shadow of the railing may be contributing to this. Hard to tell.

I think your photos have an excellent quality to them, you are very consistent. However without your titles, it would be difficult to infer what you're trying to convey.

For example, there's no interaction between the two subjects; adding some, however subtle, might illuminate the meaning of the scene definitively.

Jeffro

My eyes wander about this shot, and don't really lock onto anything. The two subjects don't keep me locked in. The church leads me up and out of the picture. The sky appears to have some dark blobs right in the middle of it.

Art Scott

Cool shot...Did you mean Love me for WHO I am, not my preference? Seems a little more logical...to me the "what" and "preference" mean the same....but still a very cool idea.......

kres

chulium wrote:

Good photograph, but I do not support gays... so I do not agree with the concept; well done photography work, though.

Thanks, my day is more complete now that I know that.

Great shot - I like the way multiple lines in the composition line up: The roof line, the steeple, the clouds - B&W makes it stand out to me.

urbanaries

chulium wrote:

Good photograph, but I do not support gays.

you'll find a lot of smugmuggers don't support flickr users, either.

mlboyd

urbanaries wrote:

However without your titles, it would be difficult to infer what you're trying to convey.

I agree with this. My first reaction to the photo was that it was conveying grief, and my association with grief and a church goes directly to a funeral. So I saw two individuals in the aftermath of the death of a loved one.

Strong image, but I obviously interpreted it very differently than was intended. I hope that this is helpful as you continue to explore your current theme.

CodyWeber

Well, to be honest, I'm really not one to be obvious in photos.
I actually love that a lot of people can get different emotions out.
I'm the kind of photographer that likes his photos to have a little mystique behind them, so other people can get different feelings.
Being obvious gets monotonous, I think.

Thanks for the comments, though!

salazar

CodyWeber wrote:

Well, to be honest, I'm really not one to be obvious in photos.
I actually love that a lot of people can get different emotions out.
I'm the kind of photographer that likes his photos to have a little mystique behind them, so other people can get different feelings.
Being obvious gets monotonous, I think.

Just a thought. Perhaps submit the next few photographs you create without title/explanation. And ask the viewer for a response or a title. It may be interesting to see what we come up with without the bias created by the words?

wxwax

I like the shot. Details in the shadows isn't vital. If that's your choice, I think it works.

I get not being obvious in photos. But if that's what you're going for, why the title? Honestly, without chulium's churlish post, I wouldn't have understood the dynamic.

mlboyd

wxwax wrote:

I get not being obvious in photos. But if that's what you're going for, why the title?

I think this brings up an interesting issue, to me at least. As the creator of a piece, how comfortable are we really with letting the viewers independently interpret the piece?

Myself, I would like to say that I'm completely comfortable with letting the viewer independently interpret the piece, but then I find myself captioning, titling, or otherwise labeling pieces. It's something I need to work on.

Best to you,

Misty