That would be indeed very interesting and would satisfy my curiosity, if some kind of statistical result were to be achieved this way. I find such photos really nice, but not more than this. They don't give me much for interpretation- Quite the contrary to some B&W of the same scene with hard contours and contrasts.
As about female/male poses, hmmm... in general I don't like so much people posing on photos. You know, all that kind of arranged stuff, it looks so... empty of real expression to me. For example I find photos of posing bands somehow... boring, while I find photos of playing bands great, especially when they don't just smile at the camera. So, I could really volunteer but I would be a rather bad model, doing this and that without really considering that the photographer waits for hours - poor photographer. ;-)
I guess a beautiful sunset and water with that special shuttereffect brings out special longings in most of us, dreams of a peaceful Earth, infinity, memories, balance, fairy taledreams, religious feelings in some etc. It would be rather interesting to make a survey and hearing why such photos often appeal to many people?! The female poses are popular among mostly men I´m quite certain.;-)A bare shoulder or sth. like that and such an image has many fans within minutes*LOL* Maybe I´ll consider making a photo with a male posing in pouring fast water in almost darkness- do you volunteer for this??*LOL* Best wishes Annemette
It really might be that the whole real stuff is what can transmit the own experience best, Annemette.
But a limited amount of "transmitted experience" is another word for... reduction to the minimum which still carries the message. Much like modelling. It is separating the few important things from the rest of the countless things that hit our senses but are of less importance. Catching that on a photo is catching the very essence of the whole, be it panorama or macro.
Of course discussing about some photo has always been a minefield because of the different approaches, but converting it to mere "likink-disliking" would be a bit too shallow. There has to be some kind of semi-objective measure along with such personal things like "feelings" and "senses", which undoubtfully *have* to be a part of the whole, but as I already mentioned before, even Pollock didn't stop at the stage of "like-dislike" but went immensely further, despite the widely spread opinions that would declare the opposite to be the case.
A sunset and a long shutter time and that posing woman might or might not manage to make somebody find that interesting - but interesting because of what? This is something about which the photographer has to spend some time. It might never be completely found out, but thinking about that does bring the maturity, of which I think we should all be searching for?
Take care,
Nick
P.S.: Opposites are never wrong. They are often "strange" but not wrong! ;-)
P.P.S.: To find out the "opposite" one has to find the "non-opposite" first. What could that be? ;-)
For me the problem is that the amount of senses that are being used in nature to inhale all around is lacking in a photo. I hope to live the day when all these elements can be combined in an artificail way to give other people a sense of what you´ve experienced though without having to miss out on the real stuff!! Still I think that panoramicshots are the ones that convey the mood in the best way. Also people are very different when it comes to photos. Some love a photo that others hate, so it´s also a matter of individual like/dislike. What a jungle! Something that is also a challenge and lots of fun. Still a sunset, a longtime shuttereffect on water and poses of women always make people interested:-)Maybe we should make photos that are just the opposite?!:-) Take care Annemette
Exactly that difficulty seems to separate the few perfect photos of nature from the uncountable many ones that are only "good". You see, the own "inspiration" and "mood" is much but it is not everything. Were it the only thing that counts, then each of us would be already a professional photographer, not really needing to learn anything more.
As I said to Andre, it seems that the composition is the most neglected part of photography, when it comes to shots in nature. It really sounds strange, having to look at that overwhelming wealth of colors and forms with the cool eyes of somebody that is *not* influenced by all that and to compose carefully before shooting. It is then just forgetting the mood that makes somebody wanting to shoot a photo, in order to make exactly that mood best "feelable" on the photo. Really strange!
Yes, the top should have been included, but when being inspired it´s not always the detail that counts, but the mood, the feeling about the plants and the surroundings. It´s just so difficult passing this special mood on that one experiences while being in nature. Best wishes Annemette
0 
