Hi, Saturday, May 29, 2004, 4:43:06 PM, Shel wrote:
> Paul, > You've created something that does not exist. IMO, that's not a portrait > but a work of art, a creation. The work is good, the woman looks good, > but, imo, agreeing with Peter, some of her character is gone. I think, as a > portrait, you overdid the Photoshop work. If this were to be for a > magazine ad, I'd proffer high praise. The people in magazine ads are often > portrayed as "perfect examples of humankind," with flaws, wrinkles, and > anomalies removed so as to create a fantasy for the viewer. But this is a > portrait, and it should show more of the real person, Imo. > I think we'll just have to disagree on the merits of the final result with > me giving strong praise for your Photoshop skills. > Shel Belinkoff I agree with Shel's position on this. The photograph is not to my taste at all. But what's interesting is the number of people who've written things like "I know your subject would like this" or "it flatters your subject", without having seen the subject or asked her what she thinks. Perhaps I was born lucky, but none of the women I've known well would like to be portrayed like this. 'Stepford Wives' springs to mind. -- Cheers, Bob
