Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2004, at 10:41 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > It's a very un Shel like photo - a bit too slick - > > it would > > be perfect for a stock photo agency, though. > > > > Hmmm, it may be a departure from much of what we've seen from Shel, but > I wouldn't think it's typical stock. Far too obtuse for that. It's > somewhat of an abstraction, and the contrast and framing push it off > the "slick" map. Much more in the realm of fine art than stock by my > count. > Paul
Well there is stock and there is stock:) I was seeing it as a glossy print ad for something - or the lead in a story. onenever wants one'sstock photos to be "typical" good to go beyond that I think it is definitely commercial, though "Not that there is anything wrong with that" :) ann the stubborn
