> > Rich Mason - > > Yea right Rich: if I had a lot of time I'd try to get in to this. > > A crystal clear slice of life: good texture on the car. Plenty of > > interest despite being a mundane scene. > > I like it but it could bellyflop in a competition ... > Thanks, Bob. I was hoping someone would get into it--perhaps you'll find > some more time? I should not like it at all: it has a modern looking car slap bang centre. The street sign is not enough to lift it. The hotel (?) behind is not that great. The two lads just look incidental, almost distracting. But it looks real, has fantastic light, the texture of the car is as if you had sprayed it with hair spray first (matt), the saturation of the foliage ... Nah, it just looks like real life but with an overt quality not normally associated with street shots. > I don't concern myself with competitions--I find them to be > rather arbitrary and that they tend to slant toward safe, pretty pictures. Well, the "competition" was not meant literally but in the sense that it's not an image that people will immediately recognise as being inteded to be pictorial. It includes two things most photographers go out of thier way to avoid: cars and street signs (yes, I know, exeptions abound). > Especially those which are judged by a panel, rather than an individual. That is especially true. A panel means "lowest common denominator". I think because people tend to penalise pictures they hate more than reward those they love. A chocolate box picture, one that everyone thinks is fine but no one thinks is excellent will always win a panel vote. Dunno really ... just like your shot but still can't get in to precisely why ... Bob
