On 8/5/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can see where Shel is coming from,
So can I. > and to some extent I agree with him. So do I (to some extent). > > Take 'Portrait of Tofu' (next PESO from Frank) for instance. Because > there is more than one person in the frame, are we to assume that the > subject is the closest person to the camera? Is there any rule to say > that it couldn't be one of the people in the background? I do have another shot taken a few seconds before the one you refer to, focusing on Chris and Simone in the background. I wouldn't think of that as a portrait of Tofu (but some might, I suppose). > Yet a portrait > of a person does not preclude there being anyone else in the frame. > Questions..... Of course not. And, as Shel sagely pointed out in his post, the subject of the portrait need not be in the photo at all! I agree with both you and Shel, I guess my point was that there's more than one definition of a portrait. I think I'll go shoot on the street tomorrow - haven't done that for a while. That has nothing to do with this thread, I just thought I'd say that. <g> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
