The photo is good. As for the other comment, I disagree. This is just an
ordinary old house, nothing special IMO. Just because something is old does not
mean that it is worth preserving. If people in the past had just wanted to
preserve THEIR past, we would not have many of our iconic buildings
today...what was on the site before the Empire State Building was built, for
example? Should it have been preserved instead?
Cities (and human landscape in general) are dynamic. They change and evolve.
London's skyline has changed enormously the past 20 years. The additions have
mostly improved the city. And so it goes.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
YNWA
On Apr 6, 2013, at 4:34 PM, DZDub wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Chris Crawford <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>
>> http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/chris-details.php?product=1619
>>
>> I shot this Thursday evening.
>>
>
> Two things:
>
> I'm glad you got a photo of the house. The sky is a little darker than I
> am used to in your photos (which is neither here not there), but I like the
> light on the building itself. It's beautiful.
>
> Secondly -- an extra-photographic comment -- it breaks my heart to see a
> grand old house like that fall out of repair and bite the dust. Nothing
> that comes back in its place will compare.
>
> Joel W.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|