Paul,
I vaguely remember seeing these photos before, but in all honesty, I don't
remember my reaction to them before. But I don't think they have caused
any negative reaction.
(I just tried to see if I responded to it, - but I couldn't find one. Nor
I could find the discussion on the list, - it must have been before 2005.)
BTW, I've found more "neutral" version of this photo on Photo.net:
https://www.photo.net/photo/10973399
As for my today's impression, - the lady has a "real" devilish look, at
least that's how we are used to see it portrayed by Hollywood.
All three photographs are interesting, and done impeccably, but I don't
have a favorite one. I think #1 is more interesting than #2 because of the
playful-direct-look eyes reflection in it.
At first, I couldn't understand what was bothering me in #3.
It felt staged too perfectly, almost like one of the images that comes
with MS Word or PowerPoint. Then, after I re-read one of your earlier
messages, - I realized, - it was intended to be a "stock" photo.
And that's exactly how it looks to me. :-)
Thanks for sharing these!
Igor
Paul Stenquist Thu, 05 Oct 2017 11:31:26 -0700 wrote:
I don’t think anyone would consider them hot. Disturbing perhaps. and
sacrilegious. I spotted the “devil” in a Starbucks and knew she was right
for the part. The other girl was her friend. They lived together, and both
had boyfriends, but their relationship seemed special as well. Nice ladies
who were into having some photo fun.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9bh37g8mr106fxg/tempteve1.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/do3rtqu0kos2csu/tempteve2.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w9dp5krhl67w92b/tempteve3.jpg?dl=0
--
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.
