springm wrote:What I would dismiss (which means dismissing the ones that are only a tad less excellent then the others)
3 - similar pose as #2, and I do prefer the single portrait here
Yes, this way of holding their arms was common in the mornings -- children and adults.
5 - the least excellent of the kids pics in comparison
Hmm, this is a tough one for me. For years I have liked this photo a lot. It was lightly raining and this little boy was hiding under the old shirt with his mother and baby looking on. It is so hard to objective about my own stuff.
Here is the photo so others can see what we are talking about:
7 - because 6 is stronger when cropped
Do you mean in the way I cropped it in my earlier response to Sonolta? Somehow it seems too tightly cropped to me and I lose the body of the little boy looking around the small tree. Again, so difficult.
9 - not happy with the pose, especially the elbows
I have been leaning towards eliminating 9 and keeping 18, but you think I should eliminate both?
15 - it for sure is interesting but depending on the print size maybe not enough structured
Yes, this one is difficult to figure out at a smaller size and in B&W. The original is in color so the bloody pig carcass, green grass, etc. are more easily differentiated. I understand your thoughts on this and agree.
18 - the lady is included, albeit less prominent, in 13, and this tells me more about the family
I like 13 quite a lot, but actually the man in the foreground is a bit soft with the woman, baby, and boy in sharp focus.
Just not enough time to carefully adjust for proper dof and no time to shoot another frame. I look at National Geographic photos a lot going back to when I first became interested in photography in the early 1970s. Many, many of their images are not technically perfect, have focus that is a bit off, unsharp corners, etc. so this flaw in this photo makes me wonder what I should do.
Difficult to select from these as the overall level is so high.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for the support Doc.