http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/cardish.html I read a few comments on this one, vague in my mind as that process took place last night, but I'm having a look at the image now. A couple of things occur to me, which may or may not viewed as constructive criticism or just opinion. The first is that if I place my hand over the lower half of the image, separating it such that I can't see the lady's legs then I find a very appealing image - with obvious pleasing compression introduced by the use of a long lens. If I then cover the top and view the bottom half I find a distorted perspective and it looks like a pair of short, fat midget legs.. Like an optical illusion, the bottom half causes me to expect something different in the image and a conflict is established. Bear in mind that I bring my own baggage to this image without knowing the scene or the lady. If I were the author I might find myself pleased with this shot for the elements I want to see and *like* to see, and I may hide from myself that which is displeasing or in conflict.. Like an 'up the nose' shot I might see the beautiful girl and not the cavernous nostrils that dominate the image. I *don't* see an image of someone relieving themself, I also don't see any discomfort or pain - in fact it looks very calm and natural and were *any* woman to be squatting down on a rock looking over a stream or such in contemplation, they'd look pretty much the same sans clothes (!) however, knowing the compression characteristics of a long lens I might choose to arrange the ladies legs such that they do not suffer the optical illusion of compression along their length. my 2 bobs worth k <kompulsive kropper>
