Thanks for weighing in, Jon! I think that in the end, that was something that my agent really liked about it, too. To this day, I'm still unsure what his intentions are with it, or whether he wants me to do anymore, but I suppose we'll see. For now, I just have to see where my hand takes me. Or something.
Jim, you bring up something that I've been wrestling with for a while now. I think that having a shallow depth of field can really make things pop, though I can't decide whether it's for the reason I want them to. I think that George (and in similar ways, Phillip) Burke was a master at that sort of thing with his photographs, as the clarity in his portraits is second to none. But at the same time, his backgrounds really end up being almost indiscernible, which is the big reason his work is so life-like (and recognizable). At the same time, when you look at his work, there's no doubt that it's a photograph - the background elements he plays with to make the portraits pop look the way they do because of his lens. I think the same thing would probably have to happen to my stuff, which I don't know if I'm after, as I would love the viewer to not necessarily think that it was a photograph (then again, what WOULD they think it came from?).
So, if I can find a happy medium, then I think I'd get less headaches. It all comes down to edge, value and chroma control in the end, something I'm still trying to improve upon as much as possible.
Anywho, here's another one I just got back from the photographers:
Stan Musial, 1942
Thanks again for all of the great replies, everyone.
Graig