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?
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
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"?