On 1/25/06, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/24/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Neither do I. Would you like to know why? > > Not really... >
But, seriously, Shel (I was only joking around - I'm always interested to hear your thoughts), I'll tell you why I don't really like it: It's that second dog behind the first one. It obscures the child's face. Had it not been there, and one could see just the child's profile and the "main" dog, I think it would have been okay. Or, had I been able to move a bit, so that one could see the child's face perhaps from a front 3/4 view (so that we could see a bit more of his face), I think this one might have had a chance of working. But, as is, the child/dog interaction is just to muddled and hard to see. This was a one-shot deal. I waited for several minutes to see if the child and dog(s) would do anything interesting, but it didn't happen. I hoped from looking at the neg that this one might turn out, but once I saw the 8x10 I knew I missed it. But, since I spent the money on getting the print, I figured I'd post it, just to see what (if anything) others had to say. Am I close to what you may think, Shel (or anyone else, for that matter...)? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
