I'm specifically looking for opinions on this picture. My dad is always my hardest critic, and he's giving me crap about this picture. He wants to know why I just have the legs of the boy there, and there are good reasons for that...but I can't talk about it.

I just want others opinions on it. Does it work? What do you think of the legs? Does it add or take away from the picture. I think just having the girl would be a waste and rather boring. I think the way it is now adds another form of interest to the story of the picture. Leaves something up to the imagination of the viewer. I love it.

Anyhow, please, I urge people to at least give me a thumbs up, or a thumbs down on this one.

I may not agree with your morals, but I like your pictures.

The girl hunched over is a good image on its own, but without the boy's legs it loses something. The legs give rise to questions- who is the boy? Is he related? Why isn't he trying to comfort her? Is there something we're not meant to see above his waist?

All of which pulls together and gives us an important entry point emotionally. We care more because we want to know more.

A girl crying in the street, while tragic, would, on its own, be just an image. With the human element provided by the legs, it becomes emotional.

i agree. it adds a whole other dimension. it allows the seer to create his or her own story to attach to the photo. it makes it art rather than just a picture.

i dont understand why stuzzo doesnt agree with your morals though

good work...i always like your pictures.

i think the boy standing up next to the crying girl makes her look even more upset.

this is true

stuzzo also hit the nail on the head. the boy makes me wonder whether or not he is there to console her, or maybe he is crying as well, or he is the cause of the problem. for some reason his legs seem to show regret.