Published: Thursday 17th of April 2003 08:21:56 PM
John, you are right, Timo's suggestions work. Curiously, and going back to my comment about PS, the visible manipulation on the bottom of the right leg was the first that caught my eye and it was a good example of why digital manipulation should be "invisible". But then again whether or not, and to what degree, to manipulate in PS is a whole different discussion, isn't it.
.... she promised to ..... next time! Thanks Alfredo, some interesting comments there. But I do like Timo's rendering. I think it balances out better than my full frame orginal.
Very good portrait. The original pose (one "shy" hand on the lips, the other, balancing, on the door frame), the persistent reticence on the model's expression and an interesting lighting make it very effective. However, I am not crazy with the doctoring in PS. The contrast created is too strong and takes away from the spontaneity of the photo. For this type of portrait, I've always thought that photo manipulation, if any, should be invisible. The thong adds a degree of modesty that contributes to describe the subject's character, or at least to show a not-yet-overcome reluctance (reluctance that does describe character), assuming of course that it was the subject's preference to wear it.
Veeeery nice! I would try to crop a little bit from bottom, and also some amount from right, just a little bit to remove those dark areas on the edge of the door/window, or cropping all the glass area. But it's very nice in the way you have done it. John, if you want me to remove this comment, send some email for me.
Timo, no comparison,that's much better. Thanks! I'm still paralyzed by my PC that doesn't work properly and which doesn't allow me to scan. I'm going to have to erase my hard disk and get someone to come and re-instal everything. I have some new work I think you will like ....
A subtly sensual one, John. Always a pleasure to revisit your shots