In a message dated 5/29/2004 8:52:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks Shel. I'll take that. All we really disagree about is the definition of the word "portrait." To me, it can mean any number of things, but most often it's a creation. A photo that tries to capture the essence of a person is journalism in my book. But, hey, I'm an ad guy <g>. Paul ------------- Paul, haven't had time to look at your other shots yet. And I believe there are at least two types of portraiture, photo journalism style and studio style. Now that I have done a studio class, I am aware of the requirements of that style to some degree and think you did a good job on the street with daylight. People pay for studio shots for themselves to look the best they can, NOT warts and all. But sort of idealized images, they way they see themselves -- looking the best they can. We all may walk around with an image of ourselves in our head that is slightly better than we actually look most of the time.
As a woman, I would prefer shots where I look the best I can. If photographed incorrectly I can look downright ugly. And, although not traditionally pretty, I am not really ugly. Also I wouldn't want a lot of wrinkles, etc., which I now have a fair number of. So I think you are right that most women would not want warts and all. Sometimes I think maybe males don't understand how this culture (Western culture in general) programs a woman to want to be pretty and/or to look good. It becomes a part of who we are and we can feel inadequate and inferior if we think we look ugly or even not so good. You can take a studio type style shot of me any old time. :-) Marnie aka Doe
