Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
norfolkbroadslim

Jonny Howson vs Grant Holt

Recommended Posts

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''''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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Of course to all intents and purposes, the pictures are two dimensional so they are both in the same area aren''t they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''''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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×