Not Interested

evanlavine

I admit I love high contrast in shots...

(please ignore frame if it bothers you)

bdcolen

Another example of a great possibility not quite realized - you really needed to be closer to the kids, to have a longer lens, or to crop this and blow it up so that we can really see the kids and their expressions. Also, yes, having all that white around the image does distract from the image - and it's not the kind of thing one can "ignore," because it draws the eye away from the subject. ;-)

RSL

Evan, I'd echo what BD said. Nice try, but no horseshoe. Too bad you couldn't get back there to where the little boy is looking down the pylon next to the little girl. That would have been a street picture.

evanlavine

I am not so interested in the kids expressions as I was in the one boy looking into the cone. That, for me, is the interesting part of the story here as it relates to the festivities of the dancers. The kid looking down the cone without the foreground would be a completely different photo from what I was going for, here. I love criticism, don't get me wrong, but I do have to say I don't completely agree with either of you (except for the frame). Regardless, this is why I love photography and sharing to see what other people think.

thanks guys!
evan

Richard

evanlavine wrote: »

I am not so interested in the kids expressions as I was in the one boy looking into the cone. That, for me, is the interesting part of the story here as it relates to the festivities of the dancers.

Yes, that was what I picked up on--the indifference of the boy to the performance. It makes for a good juxtaposition and a fun shot. The problem I see is that the boy is just too small to pull his weight. Not sure you could have done any better given the location of the boy and the dancers--perhaps a telephoto shot from further out could have compressed the distance, but even then you would need a great deal of luck to have the dancers positioned well at the critical moment. I'm sure the boy stood out to you when you were shooting, but that's because the brain has a stupendous ability to filter out what it doesn't care about. The camera isn't as smart--think about the shots you have probably taken of what looked like an awesome moonrise over a beautiful scene only to find that the moon in the pic looked much, much smaller than it seemed at the time.

Anyway, kudos for seeing the combination. Even though this one didn't quite make it, it's certainly the right idea.

evanlavine

thanks Richard - damn camera should record everything I see it in my brain - sigh...

evanlavine

Okay, I do concede after thinking about this more critically - the photo was there but I was a bit too far off and with wrong lens to tell it properly. Thanks Russ, B.D. and Rich!

Quincy T

I have to echo Richard's comment on this.

Richard

evanlavine wrote: »

thanks Richard - damn camera should record everything I see it in my brain - sigh...

Right. As a computer programmer, I always wanted a Do What I Mean command.

r3t1awr3yd

I thought you were going for the girls face and her expression towards the jump ropers... I didn't even notice the boy looking down the cone until I read the comments.

This always makes me look at my pictures a second time to make sure the subject is obvious to me.