Mike Raiford wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 

> 
> Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on 
> something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in 
> focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front 
> paws outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the 
> paws. 

Isn't it at least one back paw?

Anyway, I actually figured you were just trying out the logical and 
compositional extremes, but okay, you were focusing not on the eyes. The 
awareness of the eyes de-emphasized is, arguably, a big part of the picture.


I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)

Are you sure? Thomas reacted precisely (though adversely) to the tension 
of "focused paw, blurry eyes", and you did claim to want to "break 
rules".  You broke the rule, you got a reaction.  Whaddayouexpect?
You want everyone to cheer or something?  ;)


  The bicycle in the
> back killed it, 

I agree that more thought to the background could have improved things. 
  Given the subtleties involved with a famously kitchy subject, a sense 
of greater intentionality and less of a random, "grab shot" feel, would 
have helped distill viewer reactions.


and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really
> intended it to be.

Oh? But you 'hung it on the wall' anyway?  Don't float that crepe. If 
you hung it, you meant it.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message