It’s an amazing song that I relate to so hard I can’t even begin to articulate it. But, one line–in particular–resonates with this image:
I should’ve stopped to paint our picture
Captured honest pure affection
Just to document the difference between attraction and connection
I think that’s a distinction that the vast majority of Internet famous and wannabe Internet famous image makers fail to grasp. (It’s all about the former and rarely the latter.)
The above is an exception that proves the rule.
It’s imperfect–there’s the illusion of level in the foreground but not even close in the background. It works from the standpoint of the way the eye scans the image but it would’ve been formally superior had the level been maintained across the entire frame as that would’ve provided a sense of something halfway between a Mondrian-esque of backdrop and a frame that while not conforming to the Golden Mean actually parses information in a similar fashion.
Also, the way Emma’s forearm is cut off by the bottom of the frame is awkward at best and more likely appears unseemly. (And: the cinematographer in me desperately wants some sort of eye light.)
Yet when you manage to capture an image that exemplifies some sort of strong connection between image maker and subject that translates in an unmediated fashion to the audiences experience of the subject then there’s reason to perhaps prejudice that display over technical or formal considerations.
In other words: an image does not have to be perfect to be meritorious, it merely has to convey some sort of truth about the world and the ways in which that world may be perceived.