Thanks Marnie. I agree. The second looks unnatural. Too much twist. Good feedback. I have about 500 more to sort through. May need some more help from the list:-). Paul On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/4/2007 7:42:22 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Sorting through the pics I shot for Lindsey's portfolio this > afternoon. At 5'91/2". size 4, she says she was too short and too > hefty for New York. (They want 5'11", size 2!). But she's doing well > in Detroit modeling circles. Shot many frames. Just started looking > through them. These are okay. > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6602862 > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6602865 > Paul > > =========== > Beats me how anyone 5'9" can be a size 4. Let alone... those > models have to > starve themselves. > > Agree with Ann the second is too busy. Also the pose seems sort of > awkward, > turning of torso different direction from feet and she appears to > be leaning > backward a bit too. > > First is fine. > > Marnie aka Doe :-) > > --------------------------------------------- > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http:// > www.aol.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
