Hi, Lon, I'm not worried about ~that~! I know I'm not a great photographer, but I know I'm not a bad one, either. <vbg>. I'm not insecure about that stuff at all.
My question had more to do with taste than anything else. I shot that young lady at Toronto's Gay Pride Day. I burned about 3 rolls of film that day. Most shots were fairly sharp, and looked competent enough. At one point of the day, the sky grew dark, and as I was shooting hyper-focused at f16, decided to keep the aperture small, and shoot at about 1/30th. The sun came out about 3 minutes later, but that one shot, along with one other, were like more or less like that (but Asian Girl looked best, imho). So, two blurry shots out of 100. But, that one stuck out as a pretty cool shot for some reason, where the others were ordinary. So when photo.net "reviewers' start giving me 3's all over the place, I just start wondering is all. Usually the shots that I submit there do better than that, and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't completely losing my ability to self-critique. Apparently I'm not. Thanks, frank Lon Williamson wrote: > <snip>Frank, you are a good photographer, > > -Lon > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
