--- Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Come on, Frank, admit it. You only put "sex" into > the title to make us look....... > > Well, having looked, I like the images although I'm > not sure I can express why. > > I'm not a "people photographer' so the sort of > composition and props you used > would never have occurred to me. I like the > 'grainy' look and dark tones to the > images and I doubt they would have worked if > Marlee's dress and the cabinet had > not 'merged' the way they do. >
Hi, Brian, First of all, thanks for looking and commenting; I really appreciate your thoughts. By way of clarification, any "props" in the photo are Marlee's (the performer's) props, not mine. I tend not to use props, but rather to photograph what's already there. As far as the grainy look, well, that's just the way it turned out. It was really weird lighting: as the performance was in an art gallery, the walls (ie: the background) were brightly lit, but the centre of the room (where the performance took place) was fairly dark. So, as you can imagine, exposure was a bit of a pig. I'm thinking that the grain is a result of really bright background and fairly dark subject - I know my developer had some problems getting the print right. The composition was just kind of where the performance took me, and what I thought Marlee was trying to say. It's kind of like Bill Robb was saying about composition earlier in the week: I was just looking though the viewfinder, moving around, and snapping when things looked interesting, but as I'd never seen the piece before, I didn't actively plan anything. So, in summary, no props (that I had anything to do with) and no planning or composition (as usual for me). Glad you enjoyed them! cheers, frank ===== "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
