lptem

Just my opinion, but I would buy and hang and buy works of the children you photograph. Portraits probably a little harder sell in the whole scheme of things, but your work is so wonderful and unusual, I can see it being appealing to many. Having been trained as an Interior Designer and practiced for 30 years, I would incorporate your work in projects, especially if the mood and colors were a fit, and if worked in with other interesting photographs, many would be appropriate. I was in a very well decorated home recently, where there were interesting photographs of people (not related), and they integrated in well into the home.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I did this for an animal rescue group. I have put them together myself, ordering whatever qty of 4x6 prints and using double sided tape to adhere. Have bought the boxes with clear plastic lids to package them. I use JAM paper for the 5x8 Strathmore cards and envelopes. I stamp the backs of the cards with my contact info. It's easy and fast to do yourself, or they could have their volunteers put sets or singles together themselves. Jam also sells the clear cello envelopes that are adhesive on one side for single cards and envelopes. For fundraising it seems the singles sell better than the boxed sets. I'm sure printers would do all of this as well. For smaller qty's like 200 or less, it's probably cheaper to pull together yourself.

He was a wonderful person, and great mentor and teacher. Just a week or so ago was giving me encouragement on doing a show, and some advice on portraits. He was very giving of his time and talent to

new photographers. So much talent and passion he had for his work...

This is terrible news, our best to his family...

<div></div>

Charles, Josh, and Lex:

Thanks for the info...it will help a lot. I will use Shutterfly, what a great idea, and I won't have to download and email all of those images. Thanks for your time!:) lauren

I've been asked to do (donate my time) for photos for a "dog photography day",

to help raise money for a local dog rescue group, at an annual fundraiser

picnic they have.

Last year over 150 people and pets showed up at the spring fundraiser. They

expect I could be taking 75-100 pictures that day. I will have a few

assistants. Rather than try to print images there, which would require me

dragging expensive equipment to the park site, and which would slow things

down, I was thinking of emailing the images to the buyers after they've been

PS'd from my office at home. I think I've figured out a way/system to track

whose image is to be sent to whom.

Does anyone have any experience with managing such an endeavor, or any

practical advice? Fortunately they are a small breed generally friendly type

dog. No Rotweillers. This could be a nightmare, or could be fun, and will

probably be some combination. I want to manage it as well as possible.

Thanks, lauren

Gordon: That was actually funny.

Well, all in all PN is still a great tool and awesome teaching method, if you use it wisely. The perception exists that isn't completely accurate, probably because as you said, someone probably tuned in one evening, and were scrolling down and BAM!, blindsighted by a shaved genital, and a woman on all 4's in a leopard thong:) It's so odd to me that anyone really likes that kind of thing.

Absolutely, I agree. For that matter, Porn is a lot more honest. It has a purpose and generally has a place, and you know where to find it IF YOU WANT IT.

Shay: There is an organization called "now I lay me down to sleep", their focus is to provide a photographer for families with babies that were either born stillborn, or not expected to live. The organization provides a wonderful record of these children for their families. You could also do a photo opp at a local animal shelter-proceeds to the rescue...lauren

I like her compositions, a lot, but the old 1950's bad color- faded effect, diminishes the power of them, and makes them look very trendy. They look like polariods that faded in the rear window of a car for a month. Again, her compositions are interesting, though.

The website made be want to do a Liz Taylor, (vodka and valium). Very annoying and a turn off to try to navigate.

Hi Jeff: I dont think I ever brought up nudes under trees, or on rocks. I have only brought up beaver shots. I just feel that to call anything "art" because you can, doesn't mean it is. And if you are going to post the same crap over and over, then expect the same response. I know that some men have expressed being tired of hearing about this...Oh well, too bad, because many women are tired of seeing it! Genital and crotch shots are juvenile, tacky for the most part, and shouldn't be thrown out there like fried chicken in a fast food ad. I would think that there are still a few men out there who like women enough to find this kind of "art" demeaning, and disturbing. It's refreshing when those few men speak up. David, for that, I thank you. At least you've questioned it!

Gordon: You did not read what I said. I did not say it was a soft porn site not to be taken seriously. That is one of many impressions that are actually out there, though. Not hard to make the correlation. Jeff: I think you would be pretty surprised at the work being done at that level. Very edgy, and expected to be so. I don't know WHAT you are talking about, nudes draped on rocks? How strange that would pop into your head. And, if you are going to produce work knowing and desiring that it will entice attention, then you should be a big boy, and be prepared for the fallout. Please, post the same sleazy beaver shot/nude over, and over, and over, and over, and see what happens. Go figure that a woman/or several women might be offended. Please, don't agree with me, Mr. Grumpy. Then I would really be worried.

Oh Please....

The "artist" you vaguely refer to seems to enjoy posting these images over and over, despite generally poor critiques, and ratings. He is able to sit back like a cheshire cat, and enjoy the disagreements about whether they are art, porn, in poor taste, in good taste, poorly done, well done, genius, trash, etc. It's called negative attention. My son did it when he was going through a stage at about 7. I have come to the conclusion that if I want to participate on this site, I will have to endure seeing a lot more poorly photographed, and occasionally well photographed, shaved pussies, and women on all fours, crawling, etc.

My son is in his final year at a very prestigious art school, majoring in photography. A discussion came up recently about the benefits of internet sites such as PN, and others, and his professor and contemporaries quickly panned/shunned it, due to the soft porn, bad nudity, shaved pussies, whatever you call it-which they thought was fairly common here, and which drug the quality of the site down. I think the quote they used was "not to be taken seriously".

I don't know if I'd go so far to say that crotch shots, and the like are "Rampant", but they are fairly plentiful here. Not exactly hard to find. Just saw an image of a woman nude, writhing on a leopard sheet on the floor, with her legs spread, and a boa being drug between the legs, mouth open, shall I go on? It's just so Juvenile.

I was at the Louvre last year, and there was a very famous 18th c. painting of a gigantic hairy vagina, in what was probably a $30,000 gilt frame. Beautifully painted (or it probably wouldn't be in the Louvre)

There were probably 50 people in front of this image, as it was huge. Most women turned away-didn't want to see it, or made a face, and Most men were fascinated, eyes wide, like little boys.

Well, because of the time they take, they do become your "babies", and criticism stings a bit more, as they are more of an extention of you. That's how I feel about the 8 or so I've done.

Well, if you follow the PN rules, as long as it starts out as a photograph, whatever you do to it after that is up to you. Quite a few on PN doing this type of thing..it gets mixed reviews, but some of the florals I've done, which aren't posted now, recieved very high scores, and positive critiques.

From photos. The dog was a tiny corner of a larger image that didn't work out. But, I liked his pose, and the way he was facing the light, so I decided to start with that. The background was an iron bed, and there was a lot of stuff going on, a bed, dust ruffle, comforter...using PS, mostly the brush strokes/push/smudge on different size settings, swirled and rubbed all of the detail out of the background into a soft mottled effect destroying anything with detail, and rubbing it into a marbelized effect. I also used soft focus , and continued using brush strokes, ink pen, and push, in different brush sizes, adjusting continually. I hand brushed much of his fur, curl by curl, using a tiny brush size. The whole thing took a couple of hours. Kind of tedious, and hard to describe, but those are the tools I used. It's the size of the brush that plays the key role. You have to experimant, and hit "UNDO" a lot until you find a size and density that works for your style, and the object you are "painting". It helps a lot if you have painted before, for sure.

another/different style...<div></div>