Yes, you missed it. Not seeing the child's face is my main objection. Shel
> [Original Message] > From: frank theriault < > 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
