Paul,
By your definition, Karsh would've been a journalist!
I think I side with Shel on this one. To me, a portrait captures the essence of the subject. A glamour shot is the creation, an attempt to capture the subject in their "best light" (no pun intended), or if that's not possible, to manipulate the image after the fact in an attempt to do so.
But, having looked at your PAW (I was away on the weekend, and am just playing catch-up now), it's a lovely photo (or should I say glamour portrait? <vbg>) of a lovely young looking lady (who I suspect may not be so young looking in real life <g>).
Great work!
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Street Portraiture Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:50:42 -0400
On May 29, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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
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
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
