A stich of two images, and hopefully the irregularities at the top are not as disturbing. The difference in sharpness between the people, due to focus and motion blur, looks good to me under this limited lighting. Or perhaps I am too addicted to images looking "aged". Any comment would be very welcome.
BTW, this view of things is not positivistic. It is formalistic! It is the complete abandonment of any additional "instinctive" interpretation, and only this allows a clear and lucid examination not only of the objects that it examines but also of the method itself by means of the method itself. Don't forget here, that most things we interpreted instinctively (e.g. without strict justification) proved to be completely... wrong!
The other way around, the additional (overload of) interpretations is naive platonism. You just assume existence of some things right out of the scratch and do so as if you were embedded in a world where these things are "real". The mathematicician for example *has* to "believe" in the physical existence of things like "a point" or anything else during his/her working week. But on weekends it is better to forget about that and examine the objects of interpretation in a purely formalistic way, in order to think about what he/she is doing when he/she is doing mathematics. This applies to photography and many other things too.
Now, the existence of a "statement" of the photographer in some image relates to that too. It is the spectator who "sees" that, but not necessarily the photographer that wanted to "say" that. The answer of Beckett to all "interpretations" of his work is well known, isn't it? ;-) For stetements we don't need images but text! Why? Because text is *definite* as opposed to an image which can have 3965 different "interpretations" and thus messages at the same time. Take for example an image of the riots in Athens last winter. Many could take it as a message against violence by the police. Many others could take it as a message against violence by the rioters. So, what is the *intrinsic* message? Is there any? It is clear that any message, any statement with which the image is labeled can only be "invented", "added", "augmented" to the image, which by itself showed only a scene and that's all.
This is also the very reason that in science we use images as means for additional demonstration, clarification, explanation, but not as means of stating something. It is text that can carry a message. The less text you have, the less reason you have to examine and think. Unfortunately this seems to be well known by most newspapers and broabcasts in TV too, ey? ;-)
Thanks a lot for the nice detailed comment. Indeed it has to do with time, in the sense of "fuzzy" remembrance of something that lies in the past. I don't know in how much I achieved that, but that was the intention.
About thoughts on photography or anything else too, mind exchange has to be. It is argumenation and logical consequence that has to be exchanged on order to enlarge everybody's mental welth. Unfortunately most of the time the exchange in IF gets reduced to the typical (and noting saying) "comments" like "wow", "great", etc, which never has contibuted anything at all for enrichment of mind. It should be like in sciences, where we have (since centuries) an active international community without borders and limitations, and where this community is based (for a big part) to exchange, argueing, argumenting on the matter. I can only hope that I will be able to support the process of understanding about the fact that for example critiques are not meant as a continuous "bravo" for each and everything, and that criticism on the matter diesn't have to do anything at all with "insulting" and similar things.
Talking about science, I am a mathematician. (What else ;-)) In the last few years I participated to some research works in sociology too, and I find it more and more interesting. Of course my contribution was to find out possible relations, trends out of data, make calculations, etc, etc. But it was nice to make possible intrepretations, especially on the historical evolution of trends, and about ways to understand various epochs.
The problem of taking sides in photography (and also in many other depicting works) is not the revelation of the own view. This is something that cannot be avoided, since we need a view first in order to see something. The problem appears when we start overinterpreting things. Take an example: It rains. So it rains. You don't need any kind of additional "secrets", "mysteries", "gods", "demons" and the like, in order to connect the rain to something yoi like or dislike. I dare ask the same question as G.H. Hardy did: "Why do you need fairies in order to find a garden beautiful?" I hope you understand the depth and the consequences of the question.
I liked this image, like many of yours. Some of yours are really excellent, perfect and I enjoy looking at them. But this one I enjoyed for a sense of imperfection, somehow. It also gives a very strong sense of time to me, something more than what is given by light.
More than that, I wanted to say I enjoy reading your comments to other people and to your own images as well. Whether I agree or not, reading your views stimulates my thoughts on photography. I like the general idea that it should be the photography that is to talk, if there is anything to say (but do I do that myself, no, I'm extra-talkative and I speak a lot with words!!); photographers just see and report, yes, but that is how we talk in photographs, as your comments suggests (at least this is what I get). As you probably understand, I have also read today's featured critique by you, and the discussions on that page.
In your profile you say you're a scientist, I wonder what branch is yours. I study sociology. So I also wanted to say I think it might be little too positivistic to say you just see and report. I think we also take sides in photography, and I like that. It is also political to say something is not political, as you know. Of course, maybe when you say seeing and reporting you also mean all those other aspects of communicating.
Well, it was not exactly a composition since it's a stich of two images, one of which was the next one posted. I don't know if this can be named a composition, since strictly spoken composition is the "decision" of what to take into the frame when you look in the view finder, but the final result here didn't come strictly out of that framing. It's something "close", I guess.
Anyway, again the intention was to let it look "aged", which I don't know if it was successful, and if yes to which extend. I'll keep on trying things out.
Well, it was not exactly a snap. It's a stich of two images, and so I don't know if it can be named a snap. Close but not exactly, I guess. Anyway, most of the time I don't really want to say anything at all. I just see and "report". The spectator will surely find out if there is something to be said about the image.
0 
