I've heard you talk about a sensor's inability to capture landscapes in a way that approaches the majesty of actually being there. I believe that one of the goals of landscape photography is to make the viewer want to be in the scene. I do think this can be done photographically with great success. You mentioned Ansel Adams. I've seen his work and I've been lucky enough to visit Yosemite. Given the choice between visiting Yosemite in person and viewing one of his photos...I'll take the visit any day. When I get there, I'll do my best to take some photos that might inspire others to visit that location. I would also hope, as has been done in this thread, that the photo does a credible job of representing the scene accurately. That is as close as many will come to actually being there; which is why, I believe, that we keep taking landscape images on our puny sensors.

Of course, if you want stunning detail, then 120 film is pretty hard to beat unless you have a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera like the ones Adams used. That is a different debate though.
erich

I think what Billy was implying, and I agree, is that this photo does not have the general appeal that a photograph of a child should have and, therefore, is not likely to engender anything but polite suggestions about details which are really irrelevant. The emphasis of the top of the young lady's head ruins this shot for me. The pose is suggestive of her attention to something in her lap or on the ground, but the single eye lash and lack of an eye pretty much renders the image meaningless. One could write novels speculating on what was going on here, what came before and after. But it would be pure imagination not inspiration from this photo. Dave's crop helps to clean up the untidiness but doesn't really enhance the story, if there is one. At no time did Billy or I suggest that images of this nature are unwelcome, only the they are not likely to get rave reviews.

As one of the two FYC section managers at this moment in time, I have a responsibility to point out things that could be misconstrued. Some of your comments about the image being "meaningless" and "not working" on a photo forum site are not really appropriate. All images posted here have meaning for the poster or they wouldn't bother to post them, and all images "work" here whether they are highly praised or highly panned. The forum is here for sharing and getting feedback, and there is no prerequisite for the type or subject of those images.

I am quite sure you're correct about Frank's motivations, and I nothing he or I posted would dispute that. He got pretty straightforward feedback about the strengths and shortcomings, and some suggestions, which is pretty much what we expect when we post.

I need to post a clarification for anyone who may read this and become confused about what is welcome on FYC, at least at this point in time.

Any member is welcome to post for comments any photo they would like feedback on or discussion about. The forum does not limit submitted photos to any certain type, genre, or point of development. Members are welcome to share works in progress, completed images and all in between. Members may submit photos from their travels, photos from studio work, photos of family and friends, photos to illustrate certain techniques, photos taken to experiment with new subjects or skills, photos they are ready to market, or any of a vast number of possibilities. As respondents to those images, our job is to provide honest and hopefully helpful feedback on those posts we chose to address. Our feedback may be a personal opinion, a technical response, a formal critique, a suggestion or two, or a vast number of other possibilities.

As you noted, Frank is always open to honest feedback, which is what we always want in FYC. But Frank’s pictures of his family members are just as welcome as would be the pictures of a street musician or the Grand Canyon or a locomotive. It is never the section’s intent to limit any member’s subject matter or any other parameter, but to facilitate open discussion and help each member pursue the goals they choose for themselves.

Wouldn’t want it told any other way Mr. Spad. I’ve been missing the mark a bit lately it seems, which is a good thing for me as it exposes me to wrangling with my thoughts about images. As for grandkid shots I understand the sentiment in general. My view point, which is just my viewpoint and one need not agree. An image is an image, be it a tree, a man by the side of the road, or anything else (for instance, grandkids). For an image to be successful in my book it needs these two things. It must have impact, however that may be achieved, and it must illicit feeling, whatever feeling that may be. There of course can be many more things involved. As of late I have been missing one or both of those ingredients so will continue my quest. Thank you for taking time to comment.

Edit: Sorry no quote reply Mr. Spad. minniev posted while I was picking and pecking on the keyboard.....