I really like this photo, it is perfect! The colours are so lovely and you have captured them so well! I like the way that it almost looks like water. I like the blurry effect around the edges and the sharpness of the iris, it really makes it stand out. The angle on this photo is really good too.
My only critique would be that it is not particularly original - as I have seen many pictures that are similar on Deviant Art but saying that, I still believe it was skillfully taken and that it is a great picture and it is one of my favourite!
What does this have to do with the talion principle? I don't understand the message. Maybe I just don't see it, but to me it seems as though you're just using bold words. It's a good picture, uncreative, but well executed. Above I'm merely talking about the title of the deviation.
I would love to dispute this for Alex....We are all entitled to our opinions...so I agree to disagree with you. The picture is so much more than a TITLE. Don't confuse The Talion Principle (or from the Bible an Eye for Eye) which was more commonly used for a defense-with Alex's play on words---He has used the Eye of the Camera to capture the Eye of the Beholder who's eye has captured the reflection of all that is in front of him.....so the definition now becomes bigger than the catch phrase An Eye for an Eye....everyone "sees" things differently---here we see a lot more than one person seeing something that is right in front of themselves, but more so ----two directions. I say he has made more than just an original effort...and since no two eyes are the same as another set of eyes----He has made a creative difference. (Alex--you rock) ***
a) Your interpretation mentions three perspectives, eye of the camera, eye of the beholder and the reflection of all that is in front of that person. That's three levels and the title only reflects 2 levels, 2 eyes, so I think this is a pretty vague interpretation. Later on you speak about 2 directions, but still there are so many better titles to reflect the idea of two perspectives than one using a biased catch phrase with the coordination conjunction 'FOR'. b) Albeit the phrase is used as a catch phrase, it is much more than that. It is a principle of law embedded in it and... to turn a blind eye to that(haha) doesn't really speak for the person using it. It's kind of like using 'Arbeit macht frei' as a title for a piece of art and entirely ignoring the historical background to such a sentence.(translates to 'work makes (one) free' and was written on many gates of concentration camps in the Third Reich) c) While I do agree that any two eyes are different from one another, I don't see that as a creative effort of the photographer. Because I) it takes no effort. It would take more effort to take a picture of eyes that have already been taken pictures of. II) He didn't have any input into the creation of those eyes. The root of creative is obviously 'to create' and I don't see a lot of creation in this work. The thing I probably like the most is the depth of field and now that I look at it again I am really liking that aspect. So props for that.
However, now that I look at the EXIF data, an aperture of 5.6 makes me wonder whether he technically planned this depth of field. I'm just saying what I think and I tend to be a very doubtful person, don't take it too hard. It's early in the morning, so there'll probably be some logical fallacies in this thing.
Maybe it's a personal thing. I've studied the talion principle quite a bit and whenever I see an instance of it I just can't help but see it pop right out. For me it's not a catch phrase and considering the meaning behind it, it may be important to educate people about it so that people don't use it as a catch phrase. It's a terrible and outdated idea and the amount of people who believe it is righteous just saddens me. That being said it's of personal importance and meaning for me, thus I had an issue with it being used as a sort of catch phrase.