frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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...)?
I think I agree with your analysis, for the most part. (I do like the bicycle in the background, though.) Perhaps you should change the title to "One Dog Too Many"? ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
