Img184

You know Hi Ho, it really is pretty, but I have a bit of a problem with an absolute determination of just what it is: a car grill, or something else? Maybe a bit of visual help would have done more justice to this rather attractive image, even though you verbally defined it. I wanted the image to speak for itself. - David Lyga

I lose track that not everyone would recognize the elements - louvered grill, hoodlatch, windshield/roof in reflection. You're right that not all would necc. know what they're seeing. I'm somewhat following (however imperfectly), early advise to keep from being too explicit. This won't land w/ everyone - that's for sure. 'Mainly the motorheads or those w/ romantic attachment to past iron. As always (and I do mean always), I'll be glad anytime you share your thoughts. If you think of what would possibly make a bridge to non-car fans, pls share. 'Hope you're very well.

Hiho, I'm married to a fan (and owner) of classic wheels, so no problem recognizing this. There are exciting elements here, but I'm distracted by the blown out and unfocused hoodlatch and the patch of grass. I'd crop it tighter to those terrific rain drops and reflection and a small amount of the louvres. Who cares if anyone else knows what it is?

Sly, Thank You! I didn't like the patch of grass either, but its harder to give up the latch. I first took from the left (keeping the latch), then took from the top - taking out both the grass and the latch. Compositionally - I like it better. 'A little tense about taking that much from a tiny negative, but you're right about it being more clean. By coming down from the top, the windshield & rooflines are preserved & they seem important. The crop also foregrounds the reflected clouds. Again - thank you!

When I see your work, I remember the killer paint job on Lomo 400, and the dock line on the cleat w/ Delta 3200 @ 1600. They're sorta burned into memory. I appreciate your kind help! Only memorable wheels I had was an old '74 Ford (Pantera). 'Lucky to have survived it.

In a sense, some photos are better off not being actually identified, as the image can be treated as aesthetic in and of itself without belonging to any 'thing'. If this image were to be a bit less tangible, that might apply here. This is one of the reasons why I NEVER like 'names' for photos, save identifying data, alone, for most. I do not like being 'told' what emotions a photo should generate; rather I would see the image without feedback and then perceive how it relates to my life-experiences.

Many will not agree with this opinion and they are not wrong by any standard; but, to me, a 'determination' of how the picture should be seen I find defeating sometimes. This is NOT a hint for Hi HO or anyone else: there is no mandate here. But I wanted to express my feelings on the matter and realize that we all do not form a homogeneous amalgam of opinion but rather have discrete, personal viewpoints. - David Lyga

I tend to think that way also, David. I want the image to carry its own introduction. When composing, I'm thinking either its a known object that an unusual perspective can enhance, or that the shapes/forms/light are their own subject matter & either pleasing or not by themselves.
As always, I sure appreciate your sharing your thoughts. I'd say more, but it would only repeat that.

Beautifully abstract. It's perfect. My only nitpick: turn it 90 degrees.