Browse Responses
‹ Newer | Up | Older ›

Response to Ghosts (Response #81)

Uploaded 633 Days Ago by rosedaddy - 9 comments

Photo © rosedaddy (David Mackenzie)
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

EmilyHorne said 633 days ago:

I like this one because there is no clear cut- which dealing with ghosts... I dont think there is anything clear cut

rrivas said 633 days ago:

This photo isnt what i think if when i think ghost.

photografica said 633 days ago:

Interesting cloud formations, but by themselves, it's not enough to carry the photograph. They are very interesting however. "A" for effort, and interpretation!

DanielG said 633 days ago:

Umm... lens flare is a ghost? No relevance, no impact. Composition is average at best, as I can see you tried to include the foreground in the photo to give some form of depth.

groen65 said 633 days ago:

Glad to see there are so many personal interpretations of 'ghostliness'!

teddyber said 633 days ago:

impact is average because it lacs something to stunt me. but there is a potential. maybe you could try to recrop (left vegetal is disturbing i think)

Saxi said 633 days ago:

hm, a few clouds? - and i really tried hard...

rosedaddy said 632 days ago:

Photographer's notes: images are not "lens flare;" they are clouds or vapor with refracted sunlight making rainbow-like colors--I had never seen this before, nor have I seen it since. teddyber is correct (and I thank you for your feedback), I intentionally did no post-shoot manipulation; to my mind this unaltered state adds value to the image--although this fact is not apperent from the viewers' standpoint. Of course you don't think of ghost when you view this photo, rrivas, that's why you didn't submit it! Thanks to all who refrained from sarcasm.

King said 631 days ago:

Different. My anthropocentrism causes me to see a person-ghost in the clouds. I think the eyeballs are a bit brighter than necessary. Nice image.

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.