Doe's deathless prose at the bottom --- In a message dated 9/14/2005 11:15:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Medium Size Version: http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/gallery/Stone_Legs_04.jpg
Larger Version: http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/gallery/Stone_Legs_04b.jpg This is an image that started out as an old black and white film image of Lisa's legs, shot with my Nikon FM. I recently updated this image by adding a few different textures I shot with my Pentax *istDS. There are two types of stone incorporated into this image, along with a sheet of rusted iron, as well as a close up of lichens growing on a flat rock. (Lisa's legs and the lichens were the only elements shot on B&W Tech Pan film with the Nikon. The lichens provides a lot of the "cracks" in the texture. The other textures are Pentax *istDS.) I'm interested in everyone's opinion. thanks, Glen ============ AOL will not do quoting with >, which is a great deal why I bottom comment. Live with it or not. Read me or not. <shrug> Most attempts to make this nonconformist conform in the past have failed miserably. Like hehehehe instead of hehhehheh. ;-) Onto to the picture. Sorry, I don't like them. I'd rather see Lisa's legs as legs. And I am a woman. OTOH, because I am a woman that may be why I don't like them. It might be that you are objectifying Lisa. IE turning her just into body parts, and turning those body parts into something that are not real. Not womanly. OTOH, that may be not the reason I don't like them. Maybe I just don't like them because they look funny. Sorry, I can't be clearer why they do nothing at all for me. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe :-) (I have not read anyone else's comments yet.)
