Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]LUGres I'm in agreement completely with Dr Steve. How could anyone even consider that it is non-PC or any kind of approaching porn amazes me. Are you Taliban, or live in Salem? Jerry Steve Barbour wrote: > > 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