>>3971323>Photographs evoking feelings that are impossible or difficult to mechanistically describe is not valid, and anyone who interacts with the medium this way is retardedI've already addressed this; it's subjective. We have different subjectivities so even if I showed you the exact same picture on fuji and explained to you in precise detail why (context, colors, composition, etc..., all things that for the above photo are victorious and refreshing the same way chilly, clean air first thing in the morning is) it is or is not "X" and "Y", you would just say, "but X and Y aren't as you have described them, they are actually V and W" and we would arrive back at the idea of subjectivity. It is a circular discussion with no point in having, demonstrated by the fact that *I've already shown you one that isn't flat and sad*... and you've refused to accept it as such.
But for the sake of your curiosity, here is another photo (as standardized as I could get for content and film treatment and composition, because I'm sure you'll say this one sucks too [actually I agree with you on this time, though]; the other variables are mostly properties intrinsic to superia 400), but one that is flat and sad. again, the things that make this one flat and sad are the context, colors, composition, subject, and the ways they all interact. There is no rubric to score for flat or dimensional, or for sad or happy. It's literally all how you feel about the photo, and everyone will feel differently about even the same exact photo. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
