Why do I like this?

[x highhand17]

am I the only one who likes this photo?

 

[The_Traveler]

maybe so.

 

[Jeffm73]

With the head missing, It doesn't do much for me

 

[schumionbike]

yeah, I need that head. Good panning technique though. What was your shutterspeed?

 

[x highhand17]

yeah I want the head too I was mad that it came out this way,
I believe the shutter speed was about 125

 

[JIP]

am I the only one who likes this photo?

Probably

 

[Christie Photo]

Why do I like this?

It may be that you know more about what's happening than the image tells us.

Pete

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

wow! Some of y'all are harsh. LOL
Um, I like the panning too but it does seem strange without the head. Its creative though and that maked it worth keeping around I agree.

 

[motcon]

am I the only one who likes this photo?

if you live by the out dated dogma of the self proclaimed 'institutes and associations of photography' and blind followers thereof, then you did indeed fail to 'create a portrait of a dog.' in that group, you will be the only one that likes this photo.

the subset of the population that views and teaches photography as an ever evolving art would certainly take pause to look at the merits of this photograph.

there are enough, just enough, circular patterns that encourage movement of the eye. the subject leading to 'off frame' includes enough information for the mind to understand it and the downward pointing of the paws leads the eyes/mind right back in to the photograph. the background and foreground are equally secondary in this photograph and do not force competition with each other nor with the subject.

i believe you did a find job of capturing a moment in our time space continuum. i don't know if this was a 'happy accident' or intentional, but this could lead to an interesting series.

 

[The_Traveler]

if you live by the out dated dogma of the self proclaimed 'institutes and associations of photography' and blind followers thereof, then you did indeed fail to 'create a portrait of a dog.' in that group, you will be the only one that likes this photo.

the subset of the population that views and teaches photography as an ever evolving art would certainly take pause to look at the merits of this photograph.

What service do these two paragraphs serve but to present yourself as an somehow elevated being and part of "the subset of the population that views and teaches photography as an ever evolving art " and be condescending to those who don't care for it as those who "live by the out dated dogma of the self proclaimed 'institutes and associations of photography' and blind followers thereof"

Critique the picture as presented - don't attack the other posters - even in a passive-aggressive way.

 

[abraxas]

wow! ...
it does seem strange without the head. ...

It just might be that "kind" of dog.

For instance;

My dog has no nose.

And sometimes folks ask me, "How does he smell?"

Answer, "Awful."

 

[Leigh]

am I the only one who likes this photo?

No - I like it.

 

[motcon]

Lew...

People & Pets A gallery for sharing photos of people & pets and for getting feedback, including general critique.

 

[Puscas]

I like it too, because it's show enough to tell me that it a dog. And the blurring (by the 'panning') gives it a very lively feeling. The missing head even adds to that feeling. So to me it's about the freedom/playfulness of this dog, enjoying a day in the garden. I like that.




pascal

 

[nomade]

You couldn't avoid the blur in all, I like it, can't deny that.

Too dynamic maybe Seriously the background dynamics are round, perpendicular to it, a sort of dynamic capture to the dog added to it. Which is something I don't mind. I like it.