When lovers meet again.

[Elie]

I took this picture by the end of January. I was walking in the 5th arrondissement of Paris (le quartier latin) with a friend when I spotted this scene near rue Mouffetard. Night had fallen and I saw these lovers meeting and sharing a moment of tenderness. I walked towards them, took two shots in a raw and disappeared. Both the two shots were good, and they never knew they were photographed. I left the scene untouched, looking for another moment of life in Paris.

 

[The_Traveler]

The romance and the story and the emotion must be in the picture, not added by the photographer.

 

[Elie]

The romance and the story and the emotion must be in the picture, not added by the photographer.

I guess that anyone naturally equipped with a pair of eyes in good working condition can see the romance in the picture...

 

[limr]

I don't think telling the story behind getting the shot is the same thing as relying on it to insert emotion when there isn't any there. There IS emotion in the picture. And we can't see her face so we're left wondering - is she sad and he's comforting her? Why aren't her hands touching him back? Maybe her hands are cold? Are they fighting and she's upset with him?

It's a simple image and intriguing. I'm not sure if I'd leave it as-is in terms of processing - something about it feels a little flat - but the essential elements of a story are certainly present in the image.

 

[Designer]

The romance and the story and the emotion must be in the picture, not added by the photographer.

I guess that anyone naturally equipped with a pair of eyes in good working condition can see the romance in the picture...

I'm not seeing "romance" here.

Tenderness perhaps, but not romance.

 

[mmaria]

I agree completely with Leonore here

 

[The_Traveler]

The romance and the story and the emotion must be in the picture, not added by the photographer.

I guess that anyone naturally equipped with a pair of eyes in good working condition can see the romance in the picture...

When the photographer explains the picture and adds verbal 'mood' then that is a bell that can't be unrung and it is difficult for the viewer to separate what the maker knows and tells us from what the photographer has added.

 

[Elie]

Woo beware, trolls are coming.

I'm just putting the picture into context. Most photographers do that. So you can see it's not posed and you can understand it a little more.

 

[rlemert]

What difference does it make whether the picture was posed or not? The best pictures stand on their own merits - they don't need 'context'. The viewer may not 'get' the same message you intended, but so what? Pictures don't care what you think they should say - they convey their own message.

I would suggest that instead of getting all defensive because Lew has the audacity not to agree with your vision, you would be better served by considering what he has to say - and why. You don't have to agree with him, but just by thinking about why you don't is going to improve your photography - and there is no photographer around that cannot learn something that will make them even better.

 

[Elie]

I got it, but I won't stop adding descriptions to my pictures.

 

[limr]

I got it, but I won't stop adding descriptions to my pictures.

Nor should you.

I for one enjoy hearing how someone gets a shot. The image in the OP stands on its own, and the description tells us something about the photographer, which was interesting.

 

[The_Traveler]

The issue here is not whether there is a description of where and how it was taken but whether the text will influence the viewer about the worth of the picture.
You would recognize it easily if you saw text that said,'this is the last picture of my grandmother who died two days after I snapped it. I treasure this picture and always will.' That is a clear influence on what you would say about the picture because you have the emotional overlay that you can understand.
The same thing in this thread.

There was a definite scene-setting, that makes an only ok picture into something more for those who have internalized the descriptive text.

"I was walking in the 5th arrondissement of Paris (le quartier latin) with a friend when I spotted this scene near rue Mouffetard. Night had fallen and I saw these lovers meeting and sharing a moment of tenderness. I walked towards them, took two shots in a raw and disappeared. Both the two shots were good, and they never knew they were photographed. I left the scene untouched, looking for another moment of life in Paris."

This may indeed set the scene, but it is deliberately done to influence the judgement of the picture. In other threads people are encouraged to not do that so that they can get honest responses about the picture.

 

[sscarmack]

The only thing I don't like is the background, one theres way too much of it and two it looks really 'ghetto', not something you should consider 'love' with. Well........

 

[limr]

OR...some people know how to separate the text from the picture and judge it on its own merits. Or just don't read the text.

I don't remember it being a problem around here for someone to criticize a picture just because there was a description attached to it. Perhaps it would make someone deliver their critique in a gentler way, but is this really a bad thing? Abrupt, context-less criticism isn't inherently better than a response that takes the feelings of the recipient into account.

 

[The_Traveler]

OR...some people know how to separate the text from the picture and judge it on its own merits.

A little snide, isn't it?