On 1/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True. But I didn't care for the girl staring at the camera.
Sometimes staring at the camera works: http://tinyurl.com/893fx So staring in and of itself ought not to be an issue, IMHO. > My reaction was, if I had taken the shot I would consider it a snapshot and > not that good a snapshot. Is there a problem with snapshots? What exactly do you mean by "snapshot"? You seem to use it in a perjorative fashion. > That if I wanted to convey disconnect it could be > done better. Maybe he just took the photo, and the disconnect was ~there~. In other words, he didn't set out to convey "disconnect" and he may not have even intended to convey same at the time of exposure, it just came out on the film. Maybe, Peter doesn't see this as a disconnect at all, but rather it's something some of us see, but Peter doesn't... > I tend to evaluate shots as if I had taken them. That's a very odd statement to make. For my part, since I'm not very good at many different genres of photography, I would have big problems evaluating photos as if I'd have taken them. > Even if, in a lot > of cases, I couldn't have taken them -- as in they are beyond my capabilities. > I've taken tons of shots that to me seem to convey not very much at all. > Moments in time, but not much more. So, just because you like it, Shel, it > doesn't > change my opinion. ;-) I don't think anyone's trying to change your opinion. > > Nothing, personal, Peter, you've shown some outstanding photos on this list. > Now his head will swell! <LOL> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
