grave by ugur kocabas

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Yes I would say this photograph works and what makes it work is obviously the pigeon. Without the pigeon I think the shot would seem quite flat visually although the sunlight coming across the daffodils and onto the grass helps it no-end.
The dead area (no pun intended) bottom left does not help the overall ballance and it would be easy to suggest the photo would be better if Ugur had been further to the right. This may have filled this dead area and meant the pigeon was infront of the light coloured monument in the background. That said, we dont know what else may then have intruded into the shot and that would rely on the pigeon playing ball and flying through the same space.

Depth of field looks good in as much as more DoF would mean we were not drawn in the same way to the bird. This would then also mean a slower shutter speed and the pigeon would then be quite blurred.

If Ugur knows/knew any of the people "in the photograph" it would obviously be a very personal shot to him but even if not I think he should be proud of his efforts.

I think the seemingly startled pigeon makes the shot work. It keeps the eye still in a photo, I feel, Has too many elements. I like the lighting. The tilted tombstone I find a bit distracting. Overall, I think it works well

I do like this one, and I base that "like" more on the photograph's impact than I do on compositional elements. It's a very metaphorical or allegorical (or whichever term you prefer) for me. I also think the viewer should view the photograph at the larger setting, the better to feel the elements in the shot.

I think it could be argued whether the pigeon is "startled" or whether it is actually flying into the frame...perhaps to visit one of the graves. The pigeon is illuminated by the light just as the daffodils are, just not to the same degree. The light and the pigeon suggest to me that even in death and the darkness of eternity, some light can still fall. The pigeon is also the only thing moving in the frame, and I think the photographer did a great job in capturing the motion while stopping it at the same time.

There's also a lighter area to the right of the pigeon, on one of the gravestones, that if you use some imagination looks a bit like an elongated skull. Don't know if that's intentional or not, but it works for me. The darker areas on the gravestones (mold? mildew? moss?) suggest that these are very old graves.

I don't have an issue with the little bit of empty space on the left. That space is, after all, graves...so I wouldn't expect to see the space filled with other objects on top of them.

This is one of the few colour POTWs I've seen over the past year or so that would not work for me in black and white.

Jim Adams: You make a good point of the startled pigeon. It could very well be flying into the frame. I also agree fully with your last sentence of color vs. B&W.

When I see an image like this, I look for symbolism in what has been included--and maybe what hasn't. While birds can often bring readings with them--a crow/raven for darker things and doves for uplifting, spiritual things--I am having difficulty with what a pigeon might mean.

Anyway, and maybe it is just the pigeon, I don't take a lot away from this image. I think it is a nice exercise in lighting--and maybe compositing--but I don't get much of a hit from it otherwise.

The Composition-- I find it a bit generous off to the left where nothing is happening nor is it offering more insight into the image or information about the location. Physically, that space is also divided from the rest of the image. For commercial use, this area would provide a nice background to text but as a standalone, it is probably a bit distracting.

I think the light has been handled nicely except that the pigeon does seem less organic to the scene that I would expect. The direction of the lighting on it makes sense, so maybe it isn't a composite. Anyway, it just seems less part of the scene than maybe what would be ideal, IMO.

I agree with most all of the comments. To me, this capture evokes a good level of symbolisms. The graves, ghostly shadow, and overall darkness of the shot symbolizes death while the daffodils (with the light shining on them) and the bird symbolizes life. Another great selection for discussion by the elves! Just a little more exposure, IMHO, would have added to the shot. Great capture ugar! Best regards.

The image is interesting for me as it is different from many graveyard scenes we see. I often opt for images in which a reductive approach has been applied, "less being more", however, here instead I think that the very well chosen lower angle should have included more of the gravestones to the right to complete the feeling of the place. The lighting is extremely well done I think. The image would have worked more for me if the pigeon was not there. For the same reasonning invoked by Joghn A, I feel that the pigeon or dove adds little to the image. For me it is extraneous and doesn't go with the mood of the image. It is just there, and is neither forboding or enlightening in its symbolism. This of course is debatable as the pigeon represents life rather than death. But even with that purpose I think it takes something away from the shot. It is also a bit unfortunate that the massive fence and monument in the background could not have been thrown a little more out of focus - like the nearest gravestiones - as they add to the atmosphere but make for a rather hectic composition. The out of focus near gravestones don't bother me at all, and in fact they seem to create the atmosphere that much of the image seems to be trying to convey. Did the author try making other image of this place? It suggests the potential for much that might also be realised. The portfolio of the photographer is a fine one and shows what is not so usually encountered, a strongly personal vision... in addition to a popular one.

I'm often drawn to contrasts within a scene, especially so if symbolism can be found in the contrasts, and such is the case with Ugur's photograph. One doesn't have to delve very deeply to find an interpretation of old, dark tombstones (the tilted angles and lichens/algae on the stones contribute greatly here) with limited and focused light coming from the side to illuminate a small plot of daffodils and a bird just beginning/ending its flight. It's the contrast of color, light, and life/death that I find so intriguing in this photograph. If a viewer is so inclined, different meanings can be derived; life from death, life amid death, the tenacity of life, hope, or even more pessimistic meanings such as futility, pointlessness, the inevitable tyranny of death, etc.. Whether and however one chooses to interpret the scene, the contrasts remain striking to my eye, and the more technical aspects of exposure, chosen shutter speed and aperture, and composition seem very appropriate to the scene.

While I agree that the photograph might be just as effective without the pigeon, I'm glad it was included. It's a different kind of living thing, quite different in its nature from the daffodils, and the fact that it was caught in flight adds a touch of dynamics to an otherwise static image. It's a greater contrast to the tombstones than could be provided by the daffodils alone.

The presence of the pigeon also tells me how quickly Ugur made the photograph. What was in front of him for literally a fraction of a second is quite different from my experience of sitting in front of a computer monitor carefully examining all of the details of Ugur's completed photograph. Perhaps the camera could have been panned a bit, perhaps Ugur could have stepped slightly to the right, perhaps there's a slight tilt downward to the left (which I'm not sure I'd correct), but given the overall success (IMO, of course) in the split-second capture of the scene, and given the various but related symbolic interpretations that might be derived, I want to be willing to give Ugur some slack and not look so closely at relatively small aspects that I see only on extended consideration and which Urur dealt with in that split second on site in the dark with one fast-moving object involved.