Not quite. I was observing a disconnect between a posted image and the ~description~ of events that were taking place, not the title. Had the poster (Frantisek) not described the scene as volunteers helping the handicapped at a fair, I'd not have commented as i did.
And, in my own defense <LOL>, this is an abstract, not meant to directly depict reality in any way, although, if one were to check the sunrise/sunset table it would be seen that the sun set at exactly the time noted in the title, 6:06 PM. Anyway, the posted photo is just another of my pretentious images, poking a little fun at myself and all the silly or unimportant images we see every day. That some people enjoy it is a bonus. Thanks for your comments. Shel > From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 9/23/2004 2:35:29 AM > Subject: Re: PAW - Sunset, 6:06PM > > Hi, Shel > > Definately a diffreent take on sunsets. I really like it for being an abstract shot with graphic elements that contrasts ech other somewhat; the near horizontal lines of light and shade, and the structure in the wall. > > However, there's nothing in this pic that points to the setting actually being a sunset. It might as well be illumination from a sodium street lamp, or maybe even a tungsten light source. You must decide for yourself if this is a weakness in this shot; I just brought it up since you were very insistent on the lack of connection between motif and title in a recent PAW from somebody else. > > Personally I think titles in general is a good thing when it can be used to direct the viewer's thought in the directions intended by the photographer, and it works for me in this case. > > Well spotted, Shel. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/sunset.html
