Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sep 30, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> >> On Sep 30, 2007, at 4:01 AM, G Hopkinson wrote: >> >>> OK guys it is a striking picture and I admire the lighting and the >>> pretty woman with engaging gaze. I like the contrast of skin >>> tones and the scruffy wall behind. Why does she have her skirt in >>> her mouth? >>> What does the picture say to you? Does it work because it is >>> incongruent? What is KC trying to say or what is the reaction he >>> wants >>> to provoke? What reaction has he elicited from you? >>> Taken purely on content it is odd. Eye-catching but odd. >>> Educate me. Tell me why you are impressed. >> >> it's a very nice portrait...kind of expanding the bubble as far as >> acceptable soft porn, without being called soft porn... >> >> I suspect that's why it appeals... >> >> >> also I suspect that's why KC, in the subject referred to it as being >> "mostly safe for work"... >> >> >> and all things considered it's good, >> >> certainly those Philly basements are truly wonderful for >> atmosphere... >> >> I used to have one.... >> >> a Philly basement that is... >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Respectfully >>> Hoppy >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] portrait of elizabeth (mostly safe for work) >>> >>> Nothing wrong with it to my eye, I like this lighting... and the >>> portrait. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> Kyle Cassidy wrote: >>> >>>> elizabeth in the studio. >>>> >>>> http://www.kylecassidy.com/lj/2007/liz-dress1.jpg >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> leica d200 with a 50mm 1.8 at f 2.8, alien bees monolight strobe >>>> in a 3x2 softbox above the model and slightly to camera right. >>>> >>>> i really like this lighting -- not sure if it's because it >>>> actually looks nice, or i've been brainwashed into thinking it >>>> looks >>> "professional". but i'm suddenly thinking that if i had 30 >>> portraits with the exact same lighting it would make a pretty cool >>> show. >>>> >>>> or maybe it's my brain just trying to convince me that it's okay >>>> to be lazy. >>>> >>>> kc >>> > > Using the word "porn" to describe this picture in any way is > annoying as > hell. > This picture could be on the cover of Readers Digest. > The TV Guide. As far as that goes. > > A solid and orignal image, sexiness is not really on the list. > Bare shoulders? Gee that's a little bit sexy maybe. > Girls have bare shoulders in the high school year book. > The word "porn" has to be used here? > > Porn is flagrantly tasteless erotica for the masses. > Soft porn is a bit less flagrantly tasteless erotica for the masses. > These concepts belong far from here. one can wish so, and I have a pretty high tolerance for such things...but let's look at the photo... and if that is not enough, read the subject line again... then think about it, and not be so quick to blow it off.... Steve > > > Mark William Rabiner > rabinergroup.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information