trisha jean-angela

<p>That was incredible! There is so much to be learned through history. It is surreal to see the past images compared with those of today. Such brave people to have endured such a time. Thank you so much for sharing that; I really appreciate it!</p>

<p>I would put my name on the bottom of the coffee cup- like dishes have the brand company name there. Good luck in your venture!</p>

<p>Who's truth Kimberly? Yours? Treehugger.com's? Like I said, I am sorry she was injured but people need to exercise some common sense. Would you put your hand on a hot stove? Are you going to sue your stove manufacturer if you put your hand on it and there wasn't a warning it was hot? <br>

Business courses are beneficial to anybody who wants to be in business for themselves. Your bio was not professional and that is the part of you that you were sharing; I based my perception of you off of what you gave. You asked for advice and opinions and that is what you received by people who had good intentions (myself included). Time to move on...</p>

<p>Yes, Kimberly, I know the McDonald's incident is real and that is why I used it as a reference point for how ridiculous our legal system is; I am sorry the woman was hurt but people should use common sense and not sue others for injuries caused by their own lack of common sense. It was used to illustrate the absurdity that someone could sue you for claiming to capture "perfection".<br>

You can take offense to some of the suggestions offered as a means to help you, or you can learn from them; the choice is up to you. </p>

<p>Kimberly, first of all, I don't think anyone's intent is to discourage you, but rather to help you. Please don't take the advice personally. Your friend in marketing, I believe, is wrong. Your bio is your calling card and it must be professional if you want customers.</p>

<p>While the revision is shorter, it still does not meet your objective. First you must draw customers in by offering them a service they want. Even though this is supposed to be an "about me", <em>It is not about you, it is about them.</em> If I saw a photographer claim he/she was able to capture "perfection" in the day to day moments, I would run as fast as I could in the opposite direction. I would see that photographer as egotistical and arrogant (and I am not implying you to be either one of those). Simply, an egotistical photographer does not have the interests of his customers at the forefront. Why should I, as a paying customer, hire someone who does not have my interests at heart? If your work is good, it will speak for itself. Supply references and examples of your work. State the area in which you specialize but never, never, call yourself perfect, or claim to capture perfection. Not only does it come across in a way that is not your intent, you open yourself up to lawsuits should someone not be satisfied. Remember that stupid lawsuit in which someone put a hot cup of coffee in their crotch and drove off? Sadly, we live in a land of all sorts of opportunities for the opportunistic and dishonest. It sure would be a shame if someone were to sue you because you claimed to capture "perfection". Ridiculous, I know, but it could happen. Anything could happen.</p>

<p>I understand you wanting to be personable, I really do, but the chemistry with the clients is built over time and when they have developed some confidence in you. First you have to come across as someone in which they can put their confidence. I am not a professional photographer; for me, photography is a hobby and creative outlet. I am learning, just as you are about putting my name and my work out there. When I send a query to a literary agent or an editor, I must be professional and to the point with a focused introduction of myself and a clear and concise synopses of my work. It is then up to the agent if they want to represent me and that is the way I think you should approach your photography as a business. If you represent yourself professionally and supply examples of your work, then the customer will choose accordingly. It may take awhile but you will get there, and anything worthwhile is worth the work and wait. I would also advise you to take business courses. I wish you well.</p>

<p>Highly unprofessional. Your bio should include your educational history and experience as a photographer if that is the skill you are trying to market. Listing some personal interests is fine but keep it short and general. I have to agree with the comment above me; people really don't care about you as of yet and won't be interested in going further to contact you if you don't seem professional. Once you meet with a client, then you can be more personable. People want to know they have hired someone who is professional, has a strong work ethic and can be responsible. Organization is highly important too so the remark about being a "hot mess" is entirely not to your favor. I'd start over if I were you. Sorry, I don't mean to be too critical but you do want to be successful, don't you? Hope my opinion and the others could be some help to you. </p>

<p>Same with me on my end...hope it gets fixed soon!</p>

<p>I am having the same problem; I get a message that tells me there was a problem processing my input, to back up and re-submit. Glad to know it is not only me and hope the problem is fixed soon.</p>

<p>Being somewhat new and learning, I find some of the comments left here to be rather judgmental and snobbish, i.e., trendy and faddish; maybe some are simply trying to learn or just expressing something in their own photos. Everything depends on the image and what the photographer wanted to express; not everything appeals to all. I don't know anything of ten year ago fads or present day fads; I try to have fun with what I am doing and hopefully learn along the way.</p>

<p>Fred, I find that interesting (the fact that you include secrets in your photos) because I like to do that too. It's my secret and perhaps understood by maybe one other person who shares the story, the moment or the sentiment with me. I don't do it with all of my photos but enough that I have become aware that I have done it, either consciously or subconciously.<br>

One thing my photos will never communicate is violence or cruelty; I know these things are a part of life but they are a part I do not wish to accept because I have never understood them and I have survived them. Maybe "accept" is the wrong word...of course I have to accept life as it is, but that does not mean I have to approve or partake in that aspect of life; I am usually the one that one that stands up for the bullied, the victim, the forgotten. Sometimes photos depicting violence are used as a means to make one more aware and that is different than one taken from the viewpoint of voyeurism or to project an idea of someones twisted sense (imo) of eroticism.</p>

<p>I noticed the edit feature gone too when I tried to correct a typo I made. The change is fine with me, I will just have to be more careful to thoroughly read my responses (either that or just not post when I am tired). :)</p>

<p>I have often wondered this myself and trying to categorize it just gets confusing like Fred pointed out in his previous post. I still don't have a definitive answer because the answers are all opinions; and art, like beauty, is seen differently by everyone.</p>

<p>Lannie, in response to your question regarding the flower by Ron Jones: yes, it is a photograph; it is digitally altered and definately not a photograph of traditional description, but it is still a photograph...just heavily digitally altered. I like the work of Ron Jones.</p>

<p>I would love to do a self-portrait many places...on a deserted beach, riding horses, in my rose garden, at the ruins in Greece and Rome. Money is not really a factor, I just want to be in the places I love to be enjoying life. As far as "why" (the question was asked earlier), because I don't have many pics of me. I want my kids to have something of me when I am gone...while they grew up I was behind the camera and now it is as if I never existed. </p>

<p>I think if the image is initially created using a camera, then it is a photograph. Yes, it may be altered digitally, but it is a photograph. One would not question the validity of a painting as a painting if it were created using paint, right? At least I wouldn't. Even if one were to put paint on themselves and have a roll around on a huge canvas, it is still a painting regardless of how the paint were applied. Hmmm...sounds like a good idea, maybe I'll give it a try on one of these hot summer days... :)</p>

<p>Gerry, thanks for the movie suggestion, it sounds like an interesting one and I will surely check it out. By the way Gerry, I am a poet, so I guess I may have more poetic notions than most, but still I feel strongly about my beliefs...forgive me if I do not wish to debate them until the cows come home. Besides, poetry isn't all wine and roses either...a lot of my poetry deals with the effects of violence and abuse (yes, I have been through some ugly times).<br>

John, thanks for the suggestion of Viginia Woolf...familiar with the play but not the movie so I will be sure to see that one too. I believe love doesn't just exist in the ideal relationships and even the ideal ones have their moments. I <strong><em>hope</em></strong> your comment about the romanicized parental lovebirds is not directed toward me, because those are fightin' words, and trust me, you don't want to fight with me on this issue.<br>

Have a good day gentlemen and Gerry I am glad you understand my point now. :) </p>

<p><strong>Gerry</strong>, I understand what you are saying regarding the studies of sociobiologists and I am familiar with those studies; that is not my objection and in fact I agree with that. Did I not say a 20 year old would not find an 80 year old physically attractive? However, an 80 year old would find another 80 year old still attractive. Still, that does not mean the 80 year old no longer possesses beauty! I see it in my parents when my dad whispers in my mom's ears that she is still the cutest girl in the room and when my mom's eyes light up when my dad walks in the door, or when she tells me how cute he is or what great legs he has.<br>

If you were to rephrase your question to where I were given a choice between two men I did not know; one being a young man in his late 20's and one being a man in his 40's or 50's, and asked who I would find more attractive I am sure I would choose the older man simply because my perception of his life experience would make him more attractive to me. I would only really know as I became more familiar with him if he was worthy of my initial attraction. We are as human beings programmed to be attracted to those who fall into our own ideas of what is attractive or beautiful. I don't argue that. What I argue is this <strong><em>misplaced value on beauty standards in our society </em></strong><em></em><strong><em>and the </em><em>disregard for the elderly and their value in our lives; the insensitivity or shallow belief that one is no longer beautiful when one reaches a certain age when that is simply not the truth!</em></strong></p>

<p>John, yes I knew someone would respond as you did. I will answer your questions as sensibly and legibly as I can since I (again) am feeling the blood begin to boil beneath my skin. <br>

Of course we all see superficial beauty and are drawn to what we consider attractive in others...that is natural but that only goes so far. I know some people who by most standards are considered to be very beautiful, until they open their mouths and speak their minds and reveal themselves to be selfish, shallow, judgemental, hypocritical and vain people. Unless you knew these people you would probably perceive them to be beautiful. My main gripe of my rant was how people no longer value or find older people to be beautiful based on those standards of youthful beauty. I think it is absurd and as long as this image is being projected, society becomes more and more immune to it and people will keep pushing the elderly aside, disregarding and devaluing them even more - continuing the chase for the fountain of youth or their unrealistic ideal of beauty via the plastic surgeon. If someone really wants that (plastic surgery) and has a sound self-esteem then that is fine, but I think alot of people buy into this unhealthy image of having wrinkle-free expressions and air-brushed thighs. I am not particularly happy with my thighs, but God gave them to me and so I will live with them and be thankful I have them. We can age gracefully, we can still be beautiful (both inside and out), we can still have value and contribute to this world - my mother is a prime example of this possibility.<br>

Mostly what bothered me was the way in which the question was phrased using descriptions such as "conventionally unattractive", "caricatures", and also the statement "a woman of 89 is just a woman of 89". In who's opinion is this elderly person conventionally unattractive? A 20 year old? It's all relative...a 20 year old is not going to find an 80 year old "hot", but another 80 year old will. Youth does not have all the answers and if they were wise, they would look to the elderly for some well-earned advice about what truly matters in this life. To say an elderly person appears as a caricature is just rude, narrow-minded and insensitive and maybe a photographer who thinks like that is in the wrong business because he/she is not doing any of his clients a favor. As far as a woman of 89 being just a woman of 89...that one is so low I can't possibly explain my feelings about that one...I think I already tried.</p>

<p>May I just say that to think of elderly people as unattractive (conventionally or otherwise) and easily turned into caricatures via photography is just plain insulting and maddening. Why not think of people as human beings with intelligence and wisdom, with grace one can only attain through aging...with beauty still present. Forgive me my rant, but I am so sick of people (especially women) being treated with less regard as they age...treated as if no longer sexy or lovable, intelligent or current! Just look at many of the "nudes" here on PN depicting nothing but young women with their legs spread apart...they are so cliche, boring, distasteful and disrespectful. Of course that is my opinion...but I am a woman and I find it degrading. Of course anyone can look good with the right lighting and being 20 something...but I assure you the older woman is still beautiful with or without clothes on. <strong><em>To say that a woman of 89 is just a woman of 89 is one of the most insulting things I have ever heard. </em></strong>My mother is 81 and has always been beautiful to me and even more so now; she is a natural beauty, she exudes life, she is full of wisdom, she is loved and loves immensely, she loves life, she is active, she takes care of herself. My mother taught me to love what is <strong><em>inside </em></strong>a person because the outside is just a shell that protects the soul. My mother is sick with cancer right now and everyday she gets up, puts a smile on her face and carries through the day with the utmost beauty, grace, humility and love. No woman (young or old) could be more beautiful!<br>

This youth oriented society might want to widen its narrow vision a little and maybe that can be done by starting with changing a mind-set which views older people as having less value or less beauty.</p>

<p>John,<br>

As the one who made the mention of Kobe Bryant's name being added to the repugnant, I must say I rather prefer photos of flowers and kitty-cats to that of Bryant. I see no reason for photos of the latter except for the use as a dart board...just my opinion. Bryant may be a gifted athlete but that is as far as I'll go on that. I don't think of myself as a photographer, I think of myself as an artistic person who just likes to take pictures...I express myself mostly through writing poetry and books.<br>

Gerry,<br>

If my job were in the medical field (trained to be a nurse, switched to accounting) then I would have no choice but to treat anyone who came in the door, but <em>if the choice is given</em>, just as in voting, I will not vote for, work for, or photograph someone whose <em>viewpoints</em> I find to be reprehensible (actions are often a symptom, but even good decent people can do stupid things).<br>

Allen,<br>

Thank you so much for your valiant response; I am happy to know chivalry is still alive in some, but I have learned to be cautious of men who ride up in horses to slay my dragons...the last one broke my heart (yet I wait with bated breath for his return).</p>

<p>Fred, I respectfully acknowledge you disagree with me. My point was just to say that while some names were offered up as repugnant, they were one-sided and not everyone feels those people are repugnant. Second, seems everytime I bring up an opinion (on other websites in which I have discussed my political view points) I have been met with rediculous insults, not discussion. Politics or any subject which people feel impassioned about often lead to harsh comments...I read some of them before I responded and that is why I responded. I try to keep my politics out of this site but sometimes it gets the best of me. I don't mean to dissuede you Fred from speaking your mind (and I respect that you have one), but some people are known to only see things one way and are quite disrespectful to others who see things differently...they are unkind, brutal and insulting which I find difficult to accept. As far as getting real, I am quite real but not at the expense of being called a c*** or "man-basher" on some website because of my opinions. Perhaps I should have stayed out of this discussion...</p>

<p>Gerry...I would say this dates from somewhere between 1968-1974. I think from what I can gather, he is a somewhat guarded man, but probably trusting of you or at least comfortable with you because he is making good strong direct eye contact; also I pick up on some warmth coming through in his expression. He is leaning forward so it looks to me like he is a cooperative man...this pose is not natural because no one leans forward with both hands in the air unless prompted, just too uncomfortable to do so naturally. Just my opinion.</p>

<p>Can't people just answer the question without keeping their personal political opinions and biases to themselves?<br>

To answer the question, no...I would not be able to photograph someone I find to be repugnant, I would refuse the job. By the way, the list of repugnant people is a little one-sided in my opinion...where is Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, Obama or even Kobe Bryant's name?</p>

<p>Linda, I have had the same thing happen to me. In my case I used the word "metal" in trying to describe the bottom of a shoe in one of my pics. Apparently one is not supposed to use the word "metal" because of spammers...whatever that means. I rewrote my comment and thank you without using the word. It is really stupid! Good luck! :)</p>

<p>While I personally see nothing wrong with large breasts and I don't agree with the view point made that they photograph poorly, I do find the flashing to be down right annoying and extremely STUPID!</p>