Jonny Howson vs Grant Holt

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

Personally, I love both of these photographs.  They were both goals too!  Looking purely at these photos, which do you think is the better technique?

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4nmPIJWMAEicSW.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2270066.1373316495!/image/2930204933.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/2930204933.jpg[/img]

[OldRobert 38]

Pure poetry both of ''em, with a touch of balletic grace.  OTBC.

[Guest]

Is that Russ in the background of both pics? Spooky...

[I am a Banana (All Grown Up) 0]

Howson....by some way!

[lake district canary 4,831]

Howson is like a ballet dancer to Holt''s sack of potatoes.  But what a sack of potatoes!

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Holt. Holt. Holt.

Where would we be without that man.

Holt.

Howson a decent journeyman.

Holt a talisman.

Do you need reminding of hat-tricks?

[Herman 11,136]

Journeyman???

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Exactly that:

Definition.

"A worker or sports player who is reliable but not outstanding.

"a solid journeyman professional."

Or have I got that wrong and he really should be playing for Real Madrid or Barcelona or Man. U. ?

[wcorkcanary 4,784]

''''Is that Russ in the background of both pics? Spooky...'''' ..Ian.

No, that''s Russ in the FOREground of the second picture.

Sorry about that Ian , i am collecting points for my Boy Scout Pedants badge.

[wcorkcanary 4,784]

I think i will claim two points, one from myself as its Russ in the foreground of the FIRST picture.

[Guest]

Of course to all intents and purposes, the pictures are two dimensional so they are both in the same area aren''t they?

[Guest]

Grant Holt was a franchise builder that allowed us to become a bigger club than Leeds for a period and buy some of their better players, including Johnny Howson.

[wcorkcanary 4,784]

''''Of course to all intents and purposes, the pictures are two dimensional so they are both in the same area aren''t they? ''''.....Keelansgrandad.

Steady on , i''m only doing the Bronze Badge, you must be completing Silver at least.

Although you have opened a very interesting point of Pedantry, are we discussing the two dimensional image, in which case the Topic opening question is irrelevant. Or, are we discussing the actual events, in which case the is in fact , a foreground and background.

I have checked, and Baden-Powell offers no guidance on this subject.

[Guest]

I thought I would throw in my theory for the sake of keeping an interesting point remaining.

At the time the picture was taken foreground and background were valid descriptions.

But of course the OP uses the words "Looking purely at these photos".

I was hoping someone from Eastman Kodak was a keen poster to then explain whether a two dimensional object could still have foreground and background.

And pedantry is such a lovely word, I am happy to see it repeated "just for the sake of it".

[wcorkcanary 4,784]

I don''t want move from pedantry to splitting hairs but a photo is not only an object, it is also an image , capturing a three dimensional subject.

Have we moved this discussion to the point that we have discovered a dichotomy that renders pedantry irrelevant?

[morty 0]

Grant Holt never did this though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_BSblUVFM

[Guest]

[quote user="morty"]Grant Holt never did this though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_BSblUVFM[/quote]

What a shame we couldn''t lip read Johnny saying "these are lovely cooked with bacon wrapped round them, I told Grant that and he went white!"