Re: [Leica] Shutterbug

[Teresa299@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/30/02 11:57:15 AM, igreines@GMSR.com writes:

<< As for the so-called "glamour" stuff, I agree that the current issue spares

us from some of the more unsightly stuff of the past, but one does not have

to go back too far to find it--you know what I mean, unattractive  models,

sitting on a rock in mundane poses with unattractive lighting. Plastic

images.  In my opinion (once again, I can only express my opinion, not

Sonny's or anyone else's), the magazine would do well if it hired an editor

with strong photographic sensibilities.  If Sonny and others like the

general flavor and quality of Shutterbug's images, then so be it--each to

his own.  >>

As someone who is fascinated by and often shoots fetish/glamour photography, 
I have to agree with this assessment.   The shots that are offered up as 
learning/teaching examples of "how-to" are something I'd rather not emulate.  
Even when starting out in photography, I knew that these shots weren't 
something I'd want to copy or use as my goal.  Now that I've progressed 
alittle bit further, I'm even stronger in my convictions.  The models poses 
aren't only trite, but stilted (as in reads--uncomfortable).  The models 
attractiveness...well it's not about weight something Sonny touched upon in 
an earlier post...I work with a number women that are larger and some 
downright large, and they too can be "glamourous." Whilst the models in 
shutterbug certainly aren't a Laetitia Casta or Rita Hayworth, whatever 
"looks" they bring to the table aren't helped by bad makeup and unfortunate 
lighting.  I think the poster hit the nail on the head that the lighting of 
most of these shots is poor, to me much of it is one stop short of a deer in 
the headlights type lighting.


<<I'm puzzled by Sonny's last comment that I somehow need to show him my

images in order to be free to express my opinion about the general quality

of Shutterbug's photography.  I never knew that one had to be a photographer

in order to express an opinion about the quality of a photograph.  As for

me, I am a professional photographer, but I don't have a desire or find it

necessary to share my photos with Sonny or to have his approval in order to

express my opinion about the quality of Shutterbug's images.


- -- >>

I've been on a couple of smaller sites which are content specific communities 
where those who offer critiques of others photography, must offer up shots of 
their own.  In that sense, it tends to preserve community and keep trolls out 
of the way.  I've never thought of the LUG in this way (maybe since there's 
so much fighting anyway over LHSA's, FOMS and the like)....people who want to 
participate in PAW, PAM, and the like can and those who are more private, or 
don't think the LUG community is the proper venue for showing their work, 
don't have to.  If it's any matter, IF the original poster is who I think he 
is, I think his work, though certainly not glamour is entirely professional, 
intriguing and documentary in it's own, abstract way.


- -kim


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html