> Thanks for the review. I agree with you about being too far from the > meditators. plus the print is too dark. I meant to submit another shot of this > group, but I inadvertantly sent this one. Do you have a link to the one you meant to submit? I'd like to see it. > Not that Intend to commercialize this shot, but if I did I don't think > Christo could stop me since his art is in a public place. Thats like > restricting photographing statuary in the park. The worries today are that given enough money, access to lawyers, bribery (lobbying:) of political figures who knows how things will be reinterpreted. It's not whether the small guy is right or not, it's whether they can carry the time, stress, aggravation and (potential) financial losses of fighting the big boys. Restrictions on photography are certainly escalating over here under all sorts of pretexts. I guess it will be churches next (oops, they already do :). Alternatively, it might be that the author was being deliberately controversial to whip up interest in his """""""Art""""""" Over here it's so interesting - NOT - that I've yet to see any mention of "The Gates" on our National TV news. Probably, because compared to some of the crass pseudo-art are own public institutions have comissioned in the past, it's a pretty minor work. Now I have Googled a bit abot those Gates though I'm guessing everyone in NY will have photos of them. The challenge for the photographer is to take pictures that include them (for time/place reference) but where the main subject is either totally unrelated to them, or even just capturing people's interactions with them. I gather you've not got long to achieve this. Bob
