Please take a look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/74759996/ Hope it's OK, I posted this, Paul. I'll delete it again shortly. Regards Jens
To me this is not a rule, that must be obeyed. It simply make the photographs more subtle, balanced and adds "credibility" to the picture. In other words, it simply looks better. Especially a small "mirror imgage" in the eyes of person showing an umbrella, isn't very pretty. Of cource, that's just my opinion. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 18. december 2005 13:18 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Another black and white conversion I agree. This is surely one of those rules that are made to be broken. John On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:07:07 -0000, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In recent years I've seen quite a few fashion shots with double catch > lights. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I kind of like it, and I'm > guessing Bill does as well. Extra twinkle :-). > Paul > On Dec 18, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > >> IT's very nice. But I still think there's too much "yoghurt-look" to the >> skin tone. This may or may not disappear, when printed, depending on >> which >> paper is used. The "whiteness" of a computerscreen is not really the >> best >> for B&W photographs. >> One more thing. It is considered approppriate for portraits only to hav >> ONE >> white spot in the eyes. I'd choose to remove one of them. This >> photograph is >> certainly worth it. >> All the best >> Jens Bladt >> http://www.jensbladt.dk >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sendt: 17. december 2005 06:00 >> Til: Pentax Discuss >> Emne: Another black and white conversion >> >> >> This is mostly just farting around with a picture, but see what you >> think. >> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/portraits/IMGP0138-mono-3.html >> >> William Robb >> >> >> > > > > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
