-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

Glen, this one doesn't do much for me. Too two-dimensional, and no apparent main subject. And the hot spot in the background is distracting.

You did not state whether or not YOU liked it...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

I think he's trolling. In another thread he said:

This post is as good an image as I've seen on this ng. I am the only one doing real photography. The rest of you are only showing inane snapshots, yet I haven't complained about the lack of talent, skill, or photographic vision, no matter how trite, hackneyed, or boring.

Sheesh, harsh words...

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

I think Glenn was showing the overall sharpness, corner to corner of the lens. I doubt if he has "Art" on his mind.

-- Ned Learned (ned@kajabbi.com), March 12, 2002.

A 750-pixel web image is hardly a convincing demonstration of corner-to-corner sharpness. I'm rather curious how this photo constitutes "real" photography but the work of Rob Appleby or Jeff Spirer or several others who have posted recently aren't worthy of that designation . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

Mike - Guess I'm going to have to be a surreal photographer.

Hands (Fes), Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 12, 2002.

That's the spirit! (Had to say it before Ralph Barker did.)

Maybe I should join the surrealist movement . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

Hah, I've seen that one before Mike, and really like it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 13, 2002.