Humans perceive the world through their senses but enjoy it through their imagination, memory, and spirit. Therefore, a photograph captures something perceived by the photographer's senses, but the photographer must internally, unconsciously, invoke their imagination and past life, their memories, to draw from the senses the emotion they lack. If the conjunction of imagination and senses is successful, something the photographer cannot control with certainty but can gradually learn to provoke, then the creative viewer who wants, knows, and can see a work of art will communicate with it through the senses, as with everything else in the world. But they too will need to recall their memory, to mobilize their imagination, their spirit, to derive pleasure and emotion. This process deals with how to trap something that does not exist behind something that does. This is the whole secret of photography and art in general. It is very difficult; it does not happen by any formula, by any conscious process, but retrospectively we realize that this is what makes one tree more emotionally resonant, more artistically significant than another similar tree. Thus, photographers are right when they complain, sensing, without thinking about these things, but sensing their truth, and saying it's not important what I show, but the way I show it. Meaning with what I imply, secretly, mysteriously behind what I show, which is due to my own past, my own imagination. The intensity, the power, the vibration that a work has from the imagination, the past, the internal impression of things that the photographer carries, is what moves the viewer and makes one photograph stand out from another and many photographs because they refer to the same imagination, the same past, the same memories, and constitute a style. In reality, then, there is the depicted and the implied. This dualism creates the great intensity and power of art. It is not sought after but gradually found by the photographer, a process to preserve this path. This dualism has another very interesting problem, that if we seek a subject with which your senses are greatly moved, say a very beautiful face, a very significant object, a piece that bears historical value, a life event of great significance, then if the senses are greatly absorbed by what they see, it will be much harder to mobilize imagination and create the range of emotion we would like. On the other hand, if we use a subject that is completely insignificant, which for the senses has elementary value, then it is likely that the imagination will not be mobilized because the senses have not primarily been moved. So, the whole issue is the marrying of what exists with what does not exist, which the artist and the viewer extract, and the combination of the visible and the invisible, of the senses and the imagination, which ultimately creates the emotion in a work of art.