> so much for allowing a > reviewer to freely express their intentions........ ... that rich comimg from you Jimmy. > taking a review personally, are we?......then perhaps this > definition of *collage* from Funk and Wagnalls will suffice to > explain to you what I meant.......my belief is that this applies to > double exposures also...... Nope, nothing personal at all unless you choose to <snip> it so. My thoughts two and three said exactly what you have said ... thought one was just a reflection of the fact that I had expected you to take a pop. But then I thought on further .... So it's a double exposure? So what? It's still not a collage. Does it matter anyway (it's only semantics): the point was you didn't like it which was enough for me to learn from. Some people really like the shot: others don't. Life goes on. It's only a picture anyway. > >collage 1.a. An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted > >over a surface, often with unifying lines and color. b. The art of > >creating such compositions No paste was used. There only ever was one image formed from the latent image at the time of development. No photographic exposures are instantaneous. This one just had a gap. Andy's fake was a "collage" formed over several hours .... >if this comment wasn't meant as humour, it's about as crass as > anything I've ever seen........ You should get out more then. Bob PS Thanks for taking the time to review the gallery. It did make interesting reading actually.
