Even though I might agree with you, I think this is not in good taste, and not a particularly interesting composition or even a technically good photo. Sorry, next time try harder.
Without the title, I guess I don't find this to be a very interesting photo. Garbage has never been something I was real fascinated with, and definately wouldn't hang this on my wall. Focus seems a bit soft, but lighting is ok. Background works, nothing distracting there. Just not my cup of tea. ~Heather~
This doesn't appear to be any kind of composition to me, and not in very clear focus. Interesting concept and could probably being carried out with more empasis on lighting and composition. It is also sized too far below the allowable diminisions.
Not sure why you think the NY Times is so liberal (and why liberal = trash), but I won't let that affect my rating. The picture is too small (use the 640 limit - it's a small limit as it is!), and the composition is dull. Otherwise an interesting idea. There appears to be areas with lack of focus suggesting shallow DOF, but maybe that was a disguised hint at the shallow POV expressed ;-).
i think i wouldve liked the picture more if there wouldve been a background full of trash and amidst all the garbage there we saw the "liberal media", it just looks too staged.
I think you have a great idea, the problem with this photo only is that it will score low here on DPC.
There's just too much rubbish in this photo to be apreciated by the masses.
If you shoot for yourself or for your own "fan-base" it's ok. But here at DPC, if you would like to "score" there are some things that you must and must not do.
No: artsy pictures, pets, dificult to understand photo's, deeper meaning.
Yes: Oversaturated, burned sky's, landscapes with sunset oversaturated with burned sky's)
I know i know, but it's realy true...
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
