About the Image(s)
We visited Antarctica in 2007 when hardly anyone was traveling there, and the trip was quite a bit more rugged than one can take to the White Continent Today. I wrote an article on the trip that was published in the summer 2006 edition of the Photo Traveler, a magazine issued quarterly by the Travel Division and you can read about my experiences there, but this image which I submitted with the Article and not published I felt appropriate because when I looked at the beautifully desolate landscapes, I felt a sorry for this unfortunate whaler who never made it home, and for many decades there was no one to view his resting site, evoking an emotional feeling of great sorrow. I have never entered this image into competitforn either in a PTD of PJD exhibition and I don’t know why. Every time I look at it, I feel the sorrow of this unfortunate whaler..
Gear: Olympus E-500, Zuiko 40-150mmto 74 mm
Data: ISO 100, f 3.9 1/125 sec.
Metering: Pattern
EV: 0
WB: Manual, used one of the presets but the preset not recorded. Probably the cloud preset.
Date: January 12, 2007
Ardeth Carlson
I think this image does evoke emotion. I would point out that the Human Interest competition category specifically indicates that an actual human or humans should be included in the image, rather than just the evidence of humans, as in the General category. Posted: 09/09/2026 09:17:29
Alan Lichtenstein
Thanks for you comment. Here's what the definition says:
"If a Human Interest award or section is offered:
When Human Interest is specified, those images depict a person or persons in an interactive, emotional or unusual situation, excluding sports action."
Here the image, as you've agreed, evokes an emotional situation, and I'm sure you would agree that the circumstances are "unusual." IMV, the major thrust of HI should be a strong emotional impact the image has on the beholder. Images such as great joy, sorrow, despair, happiness, etc., would qualify. It's clear, the image does contain human presence, even though the human is six feet under. Maybe it's stretching the definition, but not impermissible. Posted: 09/09/2026 09:41:01
Ardeth Carlson
Alan, I am truly not trying to be dogmatic or offensive in any way, but I believe the rule is not ambivalent that a person or persons should be visible in the image. In General, the only requirement is evidence of human presence, but in this case, we are only asssuming there is a dead person under the stones and cross. So if I were a judge, I would say it is impermissible. Posted: 09/09/2026 10:01:55
Alan Lichtenstein
Ardeth, you are neither being dogmatic or offensive. You simply have a different interpretation of the definition. And isn't that what study groups are for? And you also may be right about what judge in competition would think, but study groups are not restricted to what an image might earn in competition, but rather to the qualities the image itself. Posted: 09/09/2026 10:50:59
Dr Isaac Vaisman
Alan, to me this image is about an absence, no person appears in the image but everything is about a life and death. The interest comes from making us imagine it. Who was this person ?, how did it die? Who built the grave? Who continues to leave stones ?. The cross is in the center and the blurred background keeps our attention on it and its inscription.
I do not think we have to get involved in the philosophical discussion about the definitions. Posted: 09/11/2026 12:05:52
Alan Lichtenstein
Isaac, you did get into the discussion in a roundabout way <G>, but your critique is welcome and appreciated. PJD, HI in particular is about emotional involvement and your comments do well to focus on those emotions, and are greatly appreciated. I never put this image into competition, either in PTD or PJD and given the emotional impact, I don't know why. But regardless, I am finished with competition, as I have just applied for my PPSA rating and as soon as it is reviewed, I'm quite satisfied with it and have no burning desire for astronomical ROPA ratings. I think you can relate to that. Posted: 09/11/2026 15:28:01
Jen Fawkes
(Group 4)I think it should be really clear to all who read these comments that this image does NOT meet the definition for Human Interest because it does not include a person/persons. The image demonstrates human presence (ie the assumption that a human is involved) which would make it suitable for PJ general sections. This image would be a disqualification in any PJ-HI competition. Posted: 09/11/2026 20:42:10
