Quote Originally Posted by GreyWolf
I find myself in full agreement with Cheryl and also Sean on this topic.

When viewing the gallery I am always drawn towards the portraits that Cheryl composes and presents. There seems to be an element that lures a person into the composition when a portrait is taken. I do not have the words to explain this but I feel it and seem to dwell on the expression or character being depicted.

I guess the most interesting part of this thread is that it is quite obvious we each have a different outlook. Our tastes and appreciations are our own which are neither better nor worse than anyone else...just different.

I guess that is what makes photography such a wonderful adventure.

Kind Regards,
I certainly don't contend that the choices that I proposed were the only ingredient that produces an enduring and expressive photograph. Taking Cheryl's images, which I also like, what is that ingredient? Is it the fact that she connects with her subject? Is it the fact that she cares about her subject? Is it that her interest in her subject is genuine?

I am asking these questions because I also recognize this quality...what is the ingredient that separates her images from a portrait at Sears or Walmart?

I recognize that photographs of "things" whether that is a person, a still life or a static landscape is not where it is at. I don't care how well they are lit, how well the scene was previsualized, or how well it was printed. It is still an empty and meaningless "thing". What takes an image out of that arena? What is it that transmits the "nature of the thing"?