Thanks Will, Mike, Ryan, Frank & Butch for your comments. I agree about the focus, and it's the only thing that spoils the image for me. As mentioned previously, I tried to correct it with a second shot, but buy then I was sprung, and she took off.
Sharp focus sometimes isn't a good thing, particularly with the 77, which tends to show up every character line. ;-) And yes Frank, the title hoovers BIG TIME. It's an inside joke to me, but it's better than IMGP1308_2.jpg :-) Anyway, thanks again to all for commenting. Dave S P.S. Frank if you didn't notice the focus, or lack there of, and your pictures a regularly fuzzy, maybe you need to get your glasses checked? <g> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:01:36 -0800, frank theriault wrote: >Oddly, I never noticed the focus, even though everyone else did. Go figure, eh? >David, focus is over-rated, really <vbg> (see HCB quote, below). > >But, seriously, if I may be allowed a further comment, a corollery if you will: > >I think that details like a missed focus are a big deal if you have >nothing else in the photo. But, for a strong image like this, there >are enough good things going for it, that a technical detail isn't the >death of it (I know that no one said it was a fatal flaw, they were >merely stating a preference). Indeed, I was so taken by the photo as >a whole that I didn't even notice focus at all. > >You caught a moment that you'll never have a chance to catch again. >Part of that moment is that your point of focus is where it was. It's >up to everyone (you and viewers) to decide how powerful the photo is, >as is. > >This isn't to be construed in any way as a criticism of those who >commented on focus, because everyone has the right to react the way >they do. I'm just giving my reaction to the focus issue. > >But, the title still sucks <vbg>. > >cheers, >frank
