What do you think?

[vandecarr]

I'm just looking for general comments here. I tryed some stuff and not sure what to think of it. So, have your way with me....sort of.

 

[kundalini]

Got to admit, the bird did a helluva pose for you.

 

[The Phototron]

The kid needs to be in focus, I don't care if you want blur to suggest motion, frankly his pose is already indicating motion.

 

[EJBPhoto]

I actually don't think the kid needs to be in focus. I like it as is very much.

 

[Sweetsomedays]

I would like it a whole lot more if the kid was in focus.

 

[vandecarr]

Thank you all

 

[LaFoto]

Well, I am on the league who likes the pigeon to be all frozen in its motion and the child NOT. I really think the child's blurriness adds heaps to the photo. But - as we can see from the replies - there seem to be "two leagues"

 

[drawingguy]

I like when things don't make sense. In reality shouldn't the bird be blurred and the kid not, or if one is blurred it seems like the other should be also.

Eh, either way I like it. It's interesting enough for people to disagree on it.

 

[rylos]

I happen to like the contrast of the blurry kid with the sharp bird. One might expect the bird to blur from movement, while the kid would be less likely to have motion blur. This kind of reversal of expected views makes you more likely to pause for a moment, rather than simply saying "Oh, that's nice", and skipping to the next photo. "Nice" photos are easier to do, you mostly just follow the rules. Photos that make you feel like figuring something out, making you question some aspect of existance, can be much fewer and difficult to do. And they can be worth the effort of pondering. Otherwise the photo might just be worthy of a calendar, and just as quickly forgotten, never leaving a trace of it's existence in your life. Normal & nice photos will always have their place in life, I just happen to also like photos that makes you stop dead in your tracks and do a double take.