>There seems to be a rather disturbing trend, here. When I comment on >images, largely because I have submitted one, there are almost no other >comments posted. When I don't comment (or supply an image), there are >many more comments. I don't have any real data to back this up (I >suppose some data mining in the archives would prove me to be simply >wrong), but it sure seems this way... > Andrew Never understood that myself ... and that's going back 10 years. I thought I had acknowleged your comment on my image? As to the others - it depends if I have anything positive to say about them. I can't be bothered to make negative comments. Robert's was an very well taken professional image - clean and simple - too much space behind here and she's looking out left but I think Robert knew that already. Dan's was very well taken but still workmanlike - sadly the shadow was in the wrong place. John's runner ... indeed, from the front would have been better ... she fills the frame but there's no story. Yours - the rabbit. Interesting but not earth shattering. Eyes went straight top left to a bright area (which could easily be cropped) then to a ghostly predator (?) sneaking up on the rabbit. If it had been a real rabbit would have come over far better ... but a statue rabbit is much less interesting. Rob
