Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
Interesting comment. I actually like it *because* of the ambiguity. (and no, I have absolutely no idea what she was thinking)Steve HodgesVery nice and sharp, no attitude, though. Can't tell whether the person is male or female, can't tell whether suspicious or trusting, passive or active. Would be nice to have a window into the person here.
But... earrings, lip gloss, band in the hair with flowers printed on it, blouse with pink hearts on it, etc. Yeah, it *could* be a boy :-)
I could understand if you couldn't tell if this one was a boy or a girl :-) <http://clovernet.no-ip.org/albums/R1487002/R002_012.sized.jpg>
A window into the person? Sadly, I know little more than you do. I saw her in church a couple of times with her parents whom I *probably* spoke to. She sat calmly and attentively through church and wasn't one to get fidgety or distracted (yeah, amazing). I think she may have thanked me after I (or my wife) gave a copy of this to her parents. I was probably told her name, although I've long forgotten it. Essentially she is just a child I saw whilst I was in India who stayed still long enough for me to focus on the highlights in her eyes.
This was taken with a 200/2.8 lens wide open at about 1/60 using a camera only a few years younger than me and 400 ISO film at EI 200 (heck, some people think this information helps them understand an image).
Incidentally, all of the (informal portrait) shots taken in the church were hand held with the 200/2.8, some with exposures as long as 1/15. It was pretty dark in some places in there on some days and I'm actually amazed that they turned out as sharp as they did.
Thanks for the comments. Steve
