|
|
|
Smoky Pollack
{K:86} 3/27/2003
|
Maybe using the word aesthetic was a bad choice. I have no problem with the picture itself and I agree that it fits perfectly in the Journalism category. I just felt that the tone of the "about" section was a little antagonistic. Maybe I am a little touchy. Emotions run high on both sides of this debate. I totally agree with all your comments about the strong points of this photo but I took the title to mean "equal time" of exposure on this site. I agree also that every story on this war has its point of view and maybe that is my problem with it. Journalism presents you with the facts and assumes you are intelligent enough to come to your own conclusions. I think your photo would be stronger with less explaination. Your photo tells the whole story. Why diminish the impact with words?
|
|
|
|
|
Beverly Gustafson
{K:1572} 3/27/2003
|
Great Image, even better sentiment! Thanks for posting this.
|
|
|
|
|
Renee Robinson
{K:2112} 3/27/2003
|
One addition -- if you are a member of the AP Mike, in anyway, with a newspaper, whatever -- this should be submitted to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Renee Robinson
{K:2112} 3/27/2003
|
Beyond being just a photo of something that happened, this does have a nice look to it and good composition. What is neat is how the guy is turning around looking at the camera and everyone else is looking other directions. Take away what it says on the sign if you think it is a comment on whatever and just look at the overall photo. The overall photo is a good one and that is what this site is about. I think Smoky's comments simply showed that he is making this more about political views instead of a good photo -- you read what you want to into a photo, i guess, but this one is a good one -- regardless of what the poster says. Personally, I'm marking this is a favorite because I like the composition here and the unique capture.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Hardy
{K:474} 3/27/2003
|
Though this does convey a view (which I happen to agree with). It has alot of emotion. I think it shows more emotion than most os the protest images I have viewed. Thanks for posting this shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Kellogg
{K:454} 3/27/2003
|
Way to go! Thank you--Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Scott
{K:1817} 3/27/2003
|
I?d like to respectfully disagree with you, Smoky. There are certainly legitimate purposes for photography other than aesthetics ? use of image making to sell a product, tell a story or express a point of view for instance. After all, I posted this photograph in the Journalism category, not Photoart.
This protest was organized in response to the anti-war protests, hence the title. The information included is there to complete the story ? this was not a rally of right wing Republicans. The difference of opinion in the US over this war does not fall along political lines.
If I had simply reproduced one of the statements shown on the posters and uploaded it to simply state that opinion you?d certainly have a reason to criticize my misuse of this site, but this is a photograph of an event posted in the Journalism category. Look at the all of print and television images and stories on this subject ? each and every one comes with its point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Smoky Pollack
{K:86} 3/27/2003
|
Your title and comments makes me think the motivation for posting this is more than aesthetic reasons. There are plenty of websites out there to express your political views. I realize there are probably a few others posted for the anti-war side. They could follow the same advice.
|
|
0 
