Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by AdrianSadlier, May 12, 2017.
I used to. But then I realized how hopelessly I was outnumbered.
The photograph would be stronger as one of a set in similar style. I like it.
Going back to the shot as far as I'm concerned there's no argument that it's clearly panned and there's nothing wrong with the amount of blur - the usual advice when breaking the 'rules' is make it clear that the effect, in this case the motion blur, is deliberate, which it clearly is, rather than poor technique - if the numpty you are debating with can't tell the difference then he's no photographer, no matter what he thinks...
My only quibble is with the timing; while the body shape is perfect the head is rather less so - sadly, to me, it looks like it's been partially decapitated with a shotgun blast and I find it too misshapen and quite un-doglike...
I sold a print once so that makes me a professional and I like the shot, so there!
Ooh - ooh -ooh. I gave a picture to a bloke at work and he bought me tea from the canteen. Does that make me a professional too?
Sure does. Should we unionise?
I remember a case in the papers, many years ago, of a 10 year old child being disciplined by the amateur athletics board of, I think, Scotland because she accepted some sweets for winning an event at a local show, and that technically (according to them) made her a professional. They may even have thrown her out of the amatuer athletics club/whatever.
There was quite a big fuss about it and, iirc, the board backed down in the end.
Professionals built the Titanic. Noah, on the other hand, was an amateur.
Mind you, as Harland and Wolff said, "It was all right when it left us."
Sorreee! No way. The coal bunker fire was already blazing away.
Separate names with a comma.