> That makes quite a nice picture in itself, but I agree with Shel that the > original is stronger, and for the reasons that Shel gives. In particular, I > like the way it encourages the eye to roam around inside the frame and enjoy > the whole scene, and give a context to the man reading, and the woman with > the bike. The other bikes propped up are an important clue about the > character of the place. I also agree with Shel that the title is telling > people what to think, and what to see as the most important part of the > photo. I'd be more inclined just to caption it with the place and date, e.g. > "Capraville, 2005".
I agree with Bob here... I think I'd take it a bit further... It seems to me that very often the title either makes or breaks the picture, which is not a good thing. I think, and it seems especially applicable to Frank, that the picture should work without a title. The title is really a topping of the cream, but the dish should work without this last touch up, if you see what I mean. And Shel, indeed, you may say that picture *did* something to me ;-). -- Boris
