I think you are reading thing in my post that I did not intend to imply (don't know if Imply is the correct word, but hope you get the idea).
When writing that part I had you in mind. The funny thing is, that I totally agree. A portrait does not have to be a head shoulder shot. A man or woman with his her tools can be great, a person reading a book, the same. But to me, this not that kind of shot. The environment does not tell me much about the person. So as a portrait, IMO it fails. And, for me, the person does not belong in this environment. I realise I could be wrong, but that is how this shot affects me, and that is what I like. Never the less: The fact that we discuss the picture sure tells us that it has some, hard to describe, qualities. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 19. september 2006 14:11 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: PESO -- Ken I disagree with what seems to be your concept of a portrait. A good portrait, imo, can, and perhaps, in some cases, should, include some, or a lot, of a person's environment. It's not just a tight or medium head shot (yes, I recognize that you didn't quite say that). Shel > [Original Message] > From: Tim Øsleby > They come despite the title. The title suggests a portrait. > I don't think it's a good portrait. To many things drawing > my attention away from Ken. So I suggest a more open title. > Perhaps something that makes us think about time. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
