Mark,

I would interpert from the tone of your posts that I have struck a nerve. While that may or may not be true...by the tone of what you have said I would normally assume that to be the case.

My purpose as I have repeatedly stated was not to have a right or wrong viewpoint debate. My point was to examine the basis of one's photography...mine in this case. If you feel uncomfortable about that I am sorry, but that really is your problem.

Cheryl,

I appreciate what you said. A very balanced perspective as I receive what you have written. Yes sometimes images are best "felt" rather then "thought" and I think that there is certainly room for both.

As I view your images, there is one thing that comes through in "spades" and that is the conveyance of emotion. In fact I envy your ability to convey emotion through imagery.

I would ask this question, are emotions objective reality? I would think not...they are abstract. When someone tells me that they are happy or sad or angry. I have to extrapolate what that must mean out of my own personal experience. We can see another person's tears, but are they tears of joy or tears of sadness? The objective depiction of the tears in a photograph tells me none of that. The interpertation is up to me. In fact the absence of information of which motivating factor existed for the tears is what probably engages me to the greatest degree.