I like the colors in this shot. Nice green grass balanced by a darker green in the shrubbery and the light mezzanine. I also like the use of the surrounding path to create a frame within the frame.
I do think this is one of your very best, Judit.
Nicely seen and very well executed!

I agree, this is a good photo. Your angle produces a consentrate of the architectual shapes and your colours are strong, but truly italian.

Hello Judit!

Very classic composition. The angles and the geomethry is wonderful. Contrasts between the grass and the buildning is fascinating and a clear watch. Yepp, I sure like it, so I have nothing more to add! :-)

mvh Espen

It is an unusual angle you`re presenting in this picture, but I like it, it`s original and very different.
Very interesting and exciting way to present the architecture, I must say.

(pardon, my English language, I dont use it very often;-)

mvh Inger Anne

I'm sorry to say, but to me, this photo don't function. The world isn't like this, and you are violating one of the most fundamental ''instincts'' any living creature have, namely the balansorgan and the sense of up and down. And for all seeing creatures the balansorgan is intimely linked to the visual system, by telling the animal - and us - to correct the angel. Just try to give this picture printed on paper to all normal people. I guess all will automatically turn the photo to be able to see the motive right, regardless of what angel the paper then will have.
I know it's kind of ''modern'' to turn photos in any angle. But normally, this will never make the motive better, just more weird. So if weirdness is your goal, then its OK. If presenting interesting motifs and motifs in interesting settings, this isn't the way to do it. That's my opinion.
Gunnar

Since everyone else is writing in English I assume you can`t read Norwegian, so I will follow their example. The motive is a good one, with interesting lines and details. I would also say the exposure is optimal. I would have taken the picture from the other side, the short-side of the building, if at all possible. It could also enhance the sence of debth. I`m sorry, but I hate the green, it`s just too strong. I`ve never seen green like this, anywhere.

Hei Judit :-)

This is a very special one, for sure. A sort of optical illusion because of the angle. A very special composition and creative presentation.
The colours are great in my opinion! All in all a very interesting photo.

mvh Jan Frode

Kind of would like to challenge Gunnar on this - even though I agree with the basics of his argument - what would people do if they would get handy print ? - twist it, turn it in order to get a regular view, because it helps to relate with, too the shown content.
The challenge is probably more about the acceptance of an option.
When I would need to name one single point only about my fascination for photography - then I would name the chance to reduce, isolate, enhance a view to the core-information I'm interested in.
Lets say there is a stunning beautiful person, someone absorbing my attention to a degree that I get an emotional reaction of the kind that I really would like to connect - I would be tempted to picture her face as close and intense as I'm able to.
The image, the photo created does not necessarily explain her beauty as such - but an reaction to it.
It should be allowed in photography to use whatever style seem appropriate to transfer the origin, the intention - the impression. The expression of an image can also be evaluated by it's availability of carrying such.
If, like in this case, the photographer is particular fascinated by this view, by this small place of perfect harmony - it might make sense to twist the image, to break the regular perception, to interrupt a hasty consumption, to create attention and aim for a higher awareness - in order to get time to transport the original impression.
This does not say that the argument of Gunnar is wrong in his view, it might even end up with an opposite result - it might disturb his perception to the point that the image is loosing - because the interest isn't build - but destroyed - but I would be careful to transform this into an ideal, or rule.
I actually agree with Ingeborgs point about the green - not in that strong words - but as result.
I have sympathy for the subject pictured, - don't feel disturbed by the twisted angle - but believe that the image is aiming for a too cpl. view.

Hei!

Thanks a lot for the nice comments O, Espen, Inger Anne (no problem with your English at all) and Jan Frode.

Steinulf: Special thanks for visiting my area again ;))

Gunnar: You have given an excellent idea, so I tested my students today. I met 46 students this morning who take part in the architectural training, so they probably are special in this experiment. I didn't selected them – normal or not normal – just gave them the printed photo and checked their faces/heads and hands one by one in the first 10 seconds. I didn't tell them any information before the test why I did it, and only that one who actually had the photo could see the picture, the others couldn't see it. Only 10 of the students (21,74%) turned his/her head or touched the paper to turn it. I always knew that the others aren't normal (including me) but I didn't know how many students are in this group.

After the test I told my students the cause of the experiment. Their first reaction was that they are able to see the objects in 3D. Although only ~10-15% of the population has this ability (the rest sees the world in 2D), 78,26% is not a bad result :)

The human brain is able to do/organise many things – I don't have any experience with animals at all :) Just test yourself, Gunnar! If you are standing on your head, your brain will ''turn'' the view into the ''right'', so you needn't to turn your head then :)

But I do respect your point of view and opinion :)

Ingeborg: I can read Norwegian but I don't understand it – only the basic, simple sentences ;) You should have to look around in Ireland, Scotland or in Italy in spring and in early summer and you will see these kinds of green colours :) Thank you for writing your comment in English.

Georg: I always enjoy your interesting comments at my or at the other members' area. Thank you!

I don't want to create any useless concept/philosophy around my picture because it hasn't any at all; no modernism or something like that. This photo was taken from the Leaning Tower of Pisa :) The cause why I turned the camera during taking photos about this building was to filter the other (ugly) buildings out of the picture area.

Judit :)

Verry interesting to read both Georg and Judits arguments, and experiment. My comment is about meaning. Meaning involves recognition, which involves memory and structural learning. Georg has a picture of his beloved as an example. OK, take one upside down, or nearly so, and try that out. 180degrees is the absolute extreme geometric 2D transformation.
Sorry Judit, I do not know what you mean by ''able to see the objects in 3D and the rest of the population (85-90%) sees the world in 2D''. I am one of very few photographers in Norway that actually has experience with stereo-photography, which is real 3D, the ablity to see not only in 2 dimentions, but also lenght from you (depth). The reason we have 2 eyes is that it gives us the ability to see depth. In a photo it is possible to create this depth-feeling, but I can't see what this ability has to do with the fact that you have rotated (in real 2D-mode) the motive compared to the frame, which we normally in our society uses as reference.
Because we always seek ''understanding'' (recognition) in our perception - just to know what you are seeing - we also use an inbuild norm when evaluating in the perception-process. And the norm for buildings and people are that lines follow the gravitation force which gives meaning to the concepts of vertical and horisontal. Its true that the tower in Pisa isn't vertical, but that can only be revealed by comparison to the real vertical given to us by the gravitation force, and in photo by other buildings and the frame. Try to take a photo of the tower, and only the tower, and place it absolutely vertical in the picture-frame. Present it, and see the reaction.
Gunnar
PS It is not true that when standing upside down, you will see the world right. Test with prism-glasses turning the viewe 180 degrees, show that a person will need days to accomodate.
Georg: I really agree with your fascination for photography. I am absolutely trying to expand the limits in photo my self, but at the same time, beeing absolute concience that some rules neither shall nor ougth to be violated.
Gunnar

I have been thinking intensely the last day about this problem, and I might have a solution to my thoughts, or rather, an explanation of why I (normally) can't see any value in just turning a picture. The hard work is to explain it in english.

Let's say that any picture consists of two things, a content, and a frame, in which the content is presented, which also is the boundary for our presentation of the content to ourself and others. Just turning a content will not give anything new to the content, only the relative position of the content in relation to the frame, which can be denoted in exact degrees. I can't see why this turning of the content inside a frame gives anything NEW to the content itself (normally). And it is the content that is the meaning and gives the emotion(s) we wish to present. In that I agree with Georg. To me it seems that to day it is a kind of collocial agreement among many that turning the content is very progressive, and a real sign of creativity and artistry, especially in pictures and TV. Sorry, I do not agree, because it is the content that matters. It is the content that shall stir, excite and give emotions. To me a turning of the content relaively to the frame (normally) is only a disturbance in my dialogue with the content, and therefore noise in the system.

I have the word ''normally'' in brackets. That's because I know of situations where the angel of the content in relation to the frame gives an extra visual experience. A picture of a couple of pencils presented here not long ago, is an example of this. But in this case the content does not set up strong connotations to the world we live in, all those things that are related to the force of gravitation, as the concept of up an down, here and there, walking, sitting, laying down - and houses, furniture - you name it. (and the little baby trying to walk, standing upright against the gravitation, and succesively winning by always standing uptright - and where the angel isn't a salvator but an enemy making the baby fall).

Just take a look. Since you presented this picture, several other pictures has been presented with rotated contet. Giving anything new to the content of the foto? I guess not. What impresses the audience is probably the new presentation in itself, something not normal, understood as progressive breaking the boundaries and therefore fantastic - someone that dares go against the autorities. Go and look for yourself, and wonder.

Anyway, thanks for presenting a picture that finally made me understand my feeling against turned content in a normally presented frame.
Gunnar
PS: Why haven't any presented a normal picture (content) in a turned frame?? Teoretically that should do the same, shouldn't it??

hei judit!

this is a very nice picture taken on a nice angle, i have been there before, liked it very much there..did you have to wait a long time before there were so few people? :-) nice colours and it gives a nice impression of an Italian town..

thomas morel

Hei Thomas!

Thank you for the nice comment. I didn't have to wait too long (~5 minutes maximum) – I was lucky, probably because I was in Pisa in preseason :)

Judit :)