Think yourself lucky it's only a small sample.
And especially lucky that I'm not there in person, so you're not actually forced to look at my holiday photos.
What is the absolute minimum amount of time you can spend looking at someone else's holiday photo when they're handing them to you, one at a time, if your objective is to get through them as rapidly as possible while still making the other person think you're really interested?
It has to be more than 5 seconds per photo, doesn't it?
I dunno: it always seemed so dishonest to me when I was doing it. Feigning interest in something that is, frankly, very dull (unless you were there. Obviously).
It's a bit like when my fellow teenagers used to describe to each other what it was like having sex. God knows why (we were all making it up), but there's no point trying to describe something like that: you just had to be there experiencing it for yourself.
Anyway, you'll be relieved to learn that you've just got to the last one:
You see? That wasn't so painful, was it? And I'm still your friend.
4 comments:
Some lovely photos amongst them of the gentle pastoral landscape at its prettiest; I reckon you can flick through them at a fair old rate provided you pause and show genuine appreciation for the ones you like best. It's better than being subjected to a slide-show or even a movie!
bg
I don't know why you said that! You are a good photographer. You manage to capture the scene with a fresh perspective and with balanced light and color values. There! Put that in your pipe and smoke it...
Beautiful - nicer than Salford! I only said that because S Tunnick thing was on up there...
Anonymous: Hmm... a slide show? I can make Reciprocating Motion like that, just to torture you all!
Jim: Very kind, I'm sure.
Chris: why didn't you say before -- I might have been tempted to perve with my camera. Or possibly even to participate (though there was a nippy wind that weekend). What was he using as a backdrop?
Post a Comment