|
|
Sue O'S
{K:12878} 7/3/2003
|
I agree that more depth of field would be nice. It would bring me more into emotional connection with the second person because of his focus. This is a picture of Journalism, after all, not art, and if the second character were intended to be superfluous, he should have been excluded from the image, either by waiting till he left or removed by a tighter crop.
However, if this is photoart, let the viewer/commentator be notified by the correct category so that when he advising the photographer of his opinion (THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS SITE IS IDEAS EXCHANGE FROM THE COMMUNITY), he can make the appropriate remarks. If remarks are not requested, please state that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Ersin Tek
{K:355} 7/3/2003
|
1. Second carecter's hand is not blur but he is. Its not good.
2. Background of the photo is blur and we cant undertand if they are in a dance party or a bycicle competition!
3. But in journal photos catagory its an average photo!
- You dont have to do what the other photographers comment you! No must to read anything, *we make art!*
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Manley
{K:75} 6/18/2003
|
So for a photo to be good all must be tack-sharp? Interesting concept. I'll have to not try that sometime. You shold read up on "selective focus"...
|
|
|
|
|
Nita M
{K:4986} 6/18/2003
|
Good work.
|
|
|
|
|
Sandy Stein
{K:936} 6/17/2003
|
Could be an excellent photo if the 2nd character were is sharp focus also. Excellent composition.
|
|
|
|
|
armando smith
{K:66} 6/17/2003
|
Nice soft tone!!!!Excellent!!!!
|
|
|
|
Dez Karpati
{K:2237} 6/17/2003
|
Great work Marc. Excellent tone and composition. Im looking forward to see more of these images. Dez
|
|
0 
