William Robb wrote: >> On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this >>> spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about >>> the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo. >>> Thats who they are. >> >> I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I >> reply "You are old" :-) > >If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want, but if you >are doing pictures for other people, then do what they want. If your models >are whining that your pictures aren't flattering, you should probably do >what you can to improve their look for them. If all it takes is a softening >filter, then that's what you need to do. >Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb here >and say that your instructor was full of manure.
The instructor was full of manure. And not only for aesthetic and commercial reasons, but for scientific ones as well: Human beings don't recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed portraits don't look like the way we remember the faces of people we know. That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different animal form lenses intended for other purposes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
