> I don't normally do street photography (at least I think > this can be considered street photography but the lens is > a bit on the large side and it was an event)
Personally, I still can't believe that folks are really trying to define "street photography" according to what lens is used. It's quite silly, actually.... don't buy into it, David. Call your photo whatever genre you'd like. If you say street... then street it is :o) Anyhow, > http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/21768115/ There's a lot going on in that photo: the two women twirling, the kid in front, the "Fear God" sign in the back, a ton of pedestrians, and a host of other elements. What's interesting to me is that the smiling lady in black and denim (dead-center) steals the photo and grabs my attention immediately. Otherwise, the main problem for me is that, without the title (street dancers) and subtitle (2005 Seattle Pride Parade), I'd have no clue of the context and hence no clue of what this photo is really about (but then, for some, that may be perfectly okay). On a more positive note, I like the inclusion of the kid in the foreground. Dunno why, but that element works for me. Thanks for sharing.
