> > When I critique a photo, I try and look at its artistic merits only I'll have to take Dan's word for that because I don't actually remember him doing a critique. > When people's reaction to the photo is that kind of thing, that means > the photo didn't work for those people. That's probably the most telling thing said on this. Along the lines of "it's not what they say but what they don't say" If there was a deeper meaning (intended) in the photo it's not come across. I'd love to know what it was *supposed* to have said to me. In the picture I was *fully* aware of the presence and location of the photographer and the model's interaction to the camera. To take David's line of reasoning: it was as if Harrison Ford was patently acting to the camera and not acting within the scene. It's got me thinking about the photographer (viewer) in pictures too. Taking this week's gallery again (there were other shots in it by the way) ... In Lea's portrait the subject is clearly responding to someone close by. But there is no surprise there. In Elson's, there is no reason for the viewer to question what is going on - the "photographer's" part in the picture. I for one can relate to having been there and stood watching this scene unfold. Elson just captured it for us. In Dan's picture there remains for me something I just don't believe. As the photographer's proxy I'm stood (note: STOOD) there looking down at this woman (who looks down and away from me) from not that far away. Would a lower viewpoint have changed that? Within my "cultural upbringing" there is no reason for me to be stood there and it's not one of those pictures - like Elson's - where the viewer is incidental to the scene. But to go back: "When I critique a photo, I try and look at its artistic merits only" I'd love to read an example of such a critique. It's easier to be inspired by what I'm shown than what I'm told to do. Bob
