Thank for all your comments but I must confess that I agree with Andrew. I
have cut many sheets from magazines, I have downloaded all Sports
Illustrated DVDs, I really love fashion photography. I have readed tons of
books of Photoshop. I also bought many books from ZONE SYSTEM but the
question is...if the shot would still be good if the model weren't
beautiful.
I chose her posse but what about her body and her smile. You just only need
a short shutter lag and catch that moment.!!!
I also must confess that all her body has a very strong Photoshop beauty
retouching but I have seen nobody has realized of that. ;-) Goood!
Thanks again for your comments.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Dacey" <adacey@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: DIGITAL ZUIKO 50/2, is good for portrait?
>
> On 10/5/05, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> There's a background? Guess I need to look again. Couldn't get past the
>> gorgeous foreground.
>
> Yeah well the composition does sort of naturally lead your eye to
> certain parts of the subject, purely due to the composition of course
> :-).
>
> I would like to comment that this is a great example of both a
> beautiful subject and a beautiful photo of that beautiful subject. I
> find a lot of magazine work you see simply relies on the model being
> beautiful but if you can get past that and bother to look at the
> composition of the shot it's not all that great.
>
> I think it helps to think if the shot would still be good if the model
> weren't beautiful. In this case it would.
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|