Threads

[deeky]

It's ok, Pix. I thought your initial reply fit this post (and just about all of his other posts) very well.

 

[robbins.photo]

First, the entire image was taken as not to attract any attention from the subjects. I know this sounds horrible but it really is key here. If the movement were any different then I would love to see it. However the entire section discussed here really misses the mark with my complaint about how one might go about simply taking pictures.

Sorry, guess I'm a total philistine or something because whatever your attempting to convey here is lost on me.

To me this isn't some grand master work filled with deep inner meaning.

So if the goal here is to communicate using a visual medium of photography for me at least this is a fail. I got nothing from it.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Sicboi]

At times like this it's best to look at that file again.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Does it say people are easier to understand/look the same at a distance?

 

[robbins.photo]

At times like this it's best to look at that file again.

If you mean having you look at it and reconsider your "vision" and how well it was conveyed, sure.

If you mean I should sit for hours and try to contemplate the meaning of your "genius", pass.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[tecboy]

Anyway, why it is called 'Threads'?

Please don't pm me. If you have something to say. Say in public.

 

[Sicboi]

I forget what the picture looked like first off. It's a self title, "threads." Never in my mind do I wait patiently signing off any reason not to take a picture first all. If I see something I like, I make a photograph. People I see I pass by, I can capture them; but I like what's not too obvious, not just another story about a man getting out of his car with a baby. I passed on that one.