"Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvbm2j$hj9$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Neil Harrington wrote:
> | "Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> | news:fvaosj$j7c$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> |> So here's a tip for you that has gotten me world wide recognition as
a
> |> photographer and a full booking sheet for wedding photography for the
> |> rest of this year and most of next year...
> |>
> |> Never try and sell sand to an Arab or ice the an Eskimo.
> |
> | Also, wet ducks never fly at night. . . .
> |
> | No offense, but I'd still like to know why he's smelling her left eye.
> That
> | doesn't seem very romantic to me.
> |
> | Neil
> |
> |
>
> What a person sees in a picture is a widely variable factor.
>
> I see a scene from a 1930's vintage movie when I look at it. Corny,
> staged romance just like Clark Gable would have done. Perfect for the
> theme intended.
>
> "Frankly I don't give a damn, my dear"...
> ****trayed by two fans of the era.
That's not such a bad theme, if that was your intention; I just don't see
that the photo suggests that at all. I've seen a lot of '30s movies, and
stills from them, and I would never have guessed that was what you were
trying to do.
>
> You see a bloke sniffing his lady's eye.
I think there's not only the problem of his nose being practically in her
eye, but also the sharp shadow of his nose on her cheek, which was
probably
unavoidable with single flash given that pose. And her face looks blotchy.
Look at the distinct line running down her right cheek and then under her
nose to the other cheek. It's noticably darker above that line and lighter
below. Believe me, no '30s professional photographer *or* cinematographer
would have delivered a picture like that.
I just don't understand your choice of pose. In addition to the above, it
emphasizes the fact that she's taller than he is; he has to tilt his head
back to get his eyes level with hers. Can you imagine Clark Gable ever
being
put in such a position?
>
> Someone else sees blown whites on a collar.
>
> Someone else again see insincerity in the woman's face.
>
> Rich sees a hair style he hasn't seen for a while.
>
> My accountant see it making money.
>
> The trolls see it as another chance to do some head kicking.
>
> It's a perfect image to set as a talking point.
>
> I'm not sure if you've noticed Neil, but my purpose in posting it has
> been served well...
Yes, that it has -- if that was really your purpose.
>
> To get people talking about photography and (hopefully) explore their
> own creativity in the process. You should try it sometime or is the
> likely hood one of the trolls might do a number on you too daunting?
Not at all. But I'm wondering at this point if *you* have learned anything
from the discussion or if you still believe the photo to be the flawless
masterpiece you apparently thought it was when you put it up. In other
words, have *you* really "explored your own creativity"? Remember what the
word "explore" means. It doesn't mean just "look at one's own work with
uncritical self-admiration."
Neil
|
