Yep. It's a nice moment, but the second dog obscures it. A tighter crop
would help some to get rid of all that space on the left, but I don't
think it would really save it. The bike tangential to the back of the
dog doesn't help either. But, as I said, it is a nice moment, and it
was worthy of an attempt.
Paul
On Jan 25, 2006, at 7:43 AM, frank theriault wrote:
On 1/25/06, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neither do I. Would you like to know why?
Not really...
But, seriously, Shel (I was only joking around - I'm always interested
to hear your thoughts), I'll tell you why I don't really like it:
It's that second dog behind the first one. It obscures the child's
face. Had it not been there, and one could see just the child's
profile and the "main" dog, I think it would have been okay. Or, had
I been able to move a bit, so that one could see the child's face
perhaps from a front 3/4 view (so that we could see a bit more of his
face), I think this one might have had a chance of working.
But, as is, the child/dog interaction is just to muddled and hard to
see.
This was a one-shot deal. I waited for several minutes to see if the
child and dog(s) would do anything interesting, but it didn't happen.
I hoped from looking at the neg that this one might turn out, but once
I saw the 8x10 I knew I missed it. But, since I spent the money on
getting the print, I figured I'd post it, just to see what (if
anything) others had to say.
Am I close to what you may think, Shel (or anyone else, for that
matter...)?
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
