Stills

No, I think he is happy with the retro glass he is already wearing.

I don't mind the extra head. I think the shot might begin to look a bit posed without it.

There are so many things looking at me in this photo. It is all rather spooky.
 

To carry on Auspicous' theme, it did strike me after a couple of hours with the image in mind that the bright spots in the sunglasses look like the eyes of crabs running across the sand. Those without the bright spots (in the centre) look like, the choice is yours, bikini tops or butterflies!!

It is interesting that one can see the dirt/dust on the reflecting surface (at least, I can with my Eizo!). My initial analysis was that this was all about glass (including the lens) - what would we do without it?

The photographer centre stage, women interested to see how good they look - an interesting cultural sandwich.
Of course, without the contentious head (on your shoulder) you wouldn't be able to say how steady you managed to keep the camera.

Nicely off-beat.
 

Thanks for the comments guys. I wasn't sure about this photo. In an ideal world, I think I would have framed this with the mirror closer to the top of the frame, although perhaps burning the top banner down a bit as akikan suggested would help.

John, you can definitely see the dust, dirt and oil on the mirror in the full size scan. I tough about cloning this out, and I suspect I would end up getting rid of it in a print.
 

I see the bikini tops John; third row in from the left. Overall I'm just not sure what to say about this image. I connect with the happiness shown and the implied consumerism which, I think, is the strongest story the image has to sell. Yes, for me I think that's what it is about. Happy consumerism.

Except for the photographer who is not quite on message. Unless, of course, you are trying out a new camera ;)?
 

I hadn't considered the happy consumerism aspect of this. Although that's definitely a valid interpretation of this image, it's somewhat ironic, as all these people had just come from a lecture on Zen meditation and letting go of attachments.

For me, I think this image is about obscured views. Lately, I'm finding myself shooting things iniderectly or through things, using mirrors or obstructions to reframe what I see. There's more visual stimulation here or it's at least fresher to my eyes. By looking through things, I'm taking the stimulation down to a level I can manage.
 

Seeing eyes and non-seeing eyes?

The most obvious subject in the image for me is the photographer taking a picture of 'me', surrounded by sunglasses?
 

To ruminate on the question of cloning out marks on glass etc.: I have no hard and fast rule. I recall seeing someone's competition entry of a shiny high rise, shot looking up it with row upon diminishing row of plate glass window. It was obviously a picture of a bright modernistic subject - the shine was everything. The only problem was that it looked as though the windows hadn't been cleaned since build. That ruined the picture for me. With yours it is almost unimportant and part of the scene: I was only intrigued as a measure of LCD sensitivity. I'm not sure whether I would clone it out for a print, it would depend on the end result.
 

Rex, that's an interesting reaction to this shot; I'm happy to think of this picture that way as well.

John, re LCD sensitivity: I find it fascinating and maddening how the angle of view impacts the rendering of a photo on an LCD. It's less of an issue with better LCD's, but it's still enough of an issue that I have to be careful of my posture when editing photos.
 

Re LCD Viewing angle.

I have found the LCD feature where image contrast changes with vertical angle of view to be a very useful tool when criticaly reviewing.