Come Unto Me

[peter27]

View attachment 57512

 

[3Dobes]

I think the pews could be a little lighter for better detail. Also I can't tell how the person is standing due to the low light.

 

[timor]

I think the pews could be a little lighter for better detail. Also I can't tell how the person is standing due to the low light.

I think the picture is more about the feelings than the detail.

 

[manicmike]

I think the pews could be a little lighter for better detail. Also I can't tell how the person is standing due to the low light.

The pews aren't the focus. I like this shot.

 

[mishele]

I had a different visual in my head with that title.

 

[The_Traveler]

Like almost every picture of children, this picture is mostly and best appreciated by those who have an interest in the subject.

 

[peter27]

I think the pews could be a little lighter for better detail. Also I can't tell how the person is standing due to the low light.

The light is concentrated elsewhere; the focus is not really on terrestrial matters here.

I think the pews could be a little lighter for better detail. Also I can't tell how the person is standing due to the low light.

I think the picture is more about the feelings than the detail.

Yes indeed.

I think the pews could be a little lighter for better detail. Also I can't tell how the person is standing due to the low light.

The pews aren't the focus. I like this shot.

Indeed not. Thanks.

I had a different visual in my head with that title.

???

Like almost every picture of children, this picture is mostly and best appreciated by those who have an interest in the subject.

Other than in the sense that we are all in some way children of the prophets, no children were involved in the making of this photo.

 

[The_Traveler]

Like almost every picture of children, this picture is mostly and best appreciated by those who have an interest in the subject.

Other than in the sense that we are all in some way children of the prophets, no children were involved in the making of this photo.

Then let me put this in a different, more obvious way.
This picture leans a lot on the viewer's belief in religion and Jesus Christ as objects of personal belief and respect.
The title, as a quotation from a popular fiction best-seller, adds to that.

I don't have those beliefs and so, to me, the picture is just a snapshot inside of some sort of church. Neither the content, the composition nor the conversion are any more than OK when I look at it without any overlay except as a picture.

...and I'm a child of Fred and Rose, neither of whom were prophets as far as I know.

 

[amolitor]

I had a different visual in my head with that title.

It reads "unto" not "on", mishele.

 

[amolitor]

This might be better bigger, but I find the indistinctness of the standing figure to be a problem for me.

I like the composition, and unlike Lew I think hitting those christian symbols is pretty powerful even or nonbelievers who happen, like me, to live in a largely christian society. If I could make out the standing figure better, I would not be distracted by that figure, and would probably enjoy the composition and tonality more.

 

[peter27]

Like almost every picture of children, this picture is mostly and best appreciated by those who have an interest in the subject.

Other than in the sense that we are all in some way children of the prophets, no children were involved in the making of this photo.

Then let me put this in a different, more obvious way.
This picture leans a lot on the viewer's belief in religion and Jesus Christ as objects of personal belief and respect.
The title, as a quotation from a popular fiction best-seller, adds to that.

I don't have those beliefs and so, to me, the picture is just a snapshot inside of some sort of church. Neither the content, the composition nor the conversion are any more than OK when I look at it without any overlay except as a picture.

...and I'm a child of Fred and Rose, neither of whom were prophets as far as I know.

The title is from Mathew 11:28-30, yes, but that doesn't exclude anyone who is from a different cultural backround, nor does the visual content. Each culture has its own symbolism and rationale, its own objects of reverence, and these are the materials available to me locally. We are all subject to the human condition and each human being struggles to come to terms with this; as Voltaire put it, If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. We all crave enlightenment and guidance, from whichever source; we all need a crook to lean upon, who or what hands this to us is less important. You may not share the beliefs as you see them here, but in something you will trust, to something you will turn, to something you will appeal. We all do.

You recognised something in the photo that moved you enough to react. Not a simple snapshot, then.

The composition is set out to support the ideas as I understand them, your mileage may vary.

There is no conversion here: it was shot in B&W.

 

[kathyt]

I had a different visual in my head with that title.

Of course you do! I did too.

 

[The_Traveler]

The title is from Mathew 11:28-30, yes, but that doesn't exclude anyone who is from a different cultural backround, nor does the visual content. Each culture has its own symbolism and rationale, its own objects of reverence, and these are the materials available to me locally. We are all subject to the human condition and each human being struggles to come to terms with this; as Voltaire put it, If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. We all crave enlightenment and guidance, from whichever source; we all need a crook to lean upon, who or what hands this to us is less important. You may not share the beliefs as you see them here, but in something you will trust, to something you will turn, to something you will appeal. We all do.

You recognised something in the photo that moved you enough to react. Not a simple snapshot, then.

The composition is set out to support the ideas as I understand them, your mileage may vary.

There is no conversion here: it was shot in B&W.

You constantly using the 'we' as if you have the right and knowledge to speak for everyone is slightly affronting, as if your knowledge and insight is the real meaning.
If you have beliefs that you adhere to, fine for you.
This kind of 'I'm speaking the word' stuff is presumptuous.

What prompted me to comment was the title you chose and your seeming belief that tying a picture of no great quality to some belief system makes the picture better.
It doesn't, the picture is as it is.

 

[Tiller]

Like almost every picture of children, this picture is mostly and best appreciated by those who have an interest in the subject.

Every aspect of photography is like that. Macro is appreciated by people the like macro. Astrophptography is appreciated by people that like astrophptography. Etc...

I think it's a good shot. The light is where it should be.

It's a cultural icon that everybody understands even if they don't agree with it.

 

[peter27]

The title is from Mathew 11:28-30, yes, but that doesn't exclude anyone who is from a different cultural backround, nor does the visual content. Each culture has its own symbolism and rationale, its own objects of reverence, and these are the materials available to me locally. We are all subject to the human condition and each human being struggles to come to terms with this; as Voltaire put it, If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. We all crave enlightenment and guidance, from whichever source; we all need a crook to lean upon, who or what hands this to us is less important. You may not share the beliefs as you see them here, but in something you will trust, to something you will turn, to something you will appeal. We all do.

You recognised something in the photo that moved you enough to react. Not a simple snapshot, then.

The composition is set out to support the ideas as I understand them, your mileage may vary.

There is no conversion here: it was shot in B&W.

You constantly using the 'we' as if you have the right and knowledge to speak for everyone is slightly affronting, as if your knowledge and insight is the real meaning.
If you have beliefs that you adhere to, fine for you.
This kind of 'I'm speaking the word' stuff is presumptuous.

What prompted me to comment was the title you chose and your seeming belief that tying a picture of no great quality to some belief system makes the picture better.
It doesn't, the picture is as it is.

Why are you affronted by my use of the first person plural? Presumptuous? if you mean I presume everyone who has or will view this is human like you or I then yes. Otherwise, it is you who is being so. I think you are deliberately refusing to see beyond my choice of title and are seeking to take issue with this work on a rather peverse course of reasoning. Be that as it may, it is your prerogative and I thank you for your time.