On 8/4/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Frank ... I don't see this as a portrait at all, nor do I see it as much > of a snap, either. There's no eye contact, which, in and of itself isn't > always necessary, but in this case I think it would help. PP has a very > "goofy" expression on his face, his head is at an awkward angle, he shows > no relationship to anything else in the frame or to the photographer, and > the guy on the right has no relationship to anything else that might be > going on, adding neither interest nor story content to the overall photo. > Cropping him out may be a good idea. >
Thanks for your thoughts, Shel. I rather like the photo. If we all agreed on everything, it would be a dull world. I very much appreciate that you took the time to comment. Why don't you see it as a portrait? I certainly agree that it's not a "traditional" portrait, but it's the likeness of a human face, and in loose terms, that certainly makes it a portrait in my eyes. What requirements do you require to consider a photo or drawing or painting to be a portrait? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm very interested to know your views. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
