:
The sweater/hoodie seems oui of place.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Lindsey Has Legs
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works
-
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Lindsey Has Legs
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
On Nov 18, 2007 9:40 PM, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for looking David. And a big thanks for looking at all and
providing feedback.
It was hard work but I somehow managed to work through it.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Hum, she's got more than just legs, or so it would seem.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
--
The difference between individual intelligence and
On Nov 18, 2007 12:05 PM, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
I think 7.1 is the best of the lot pose wise.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML
Thanks for looking David. And a big thanks for looking at all and
providing feedback. I like 7.1 as well, but I'm not sure I like the
position of the barstool. I think the aluminum chair proved to be a
better prop. Right now, I think I like 7.10 the best, but I have a
hundred more to look
I think if the stool was just a few inches to the right, my right, it
wold work better, but its a good shot NTL.
Dave
On 11/18/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for looking David. And a big thanks for looking at all and
providing feedback. I like 7.1 as well, but I'm not sure
In a message dated 11/17/2007 7:25:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
Actually I like all the ones
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like 7.1 as well, but I'm not sure I like the
position of the barstool.
I like 7.1 but I'm with you about the barstool. Of the bathing suit
shots, I personally think that 7.5 and 8.4 work the best.
I think the shots with Grace were a great choice to include. I
Late getting around to this, but can enthusiastically endorse a bunch.
The Grace idea was inspired. Would certainly consider; 6.1 (with a crop
at the bottom eliminating a good portion of the leg tangle). Also,
6.4-5-6 and 7.3.
Lindsey alone: 7.1 (bar stool would be more easily accepted if slightly
Thanks for the input, Marnie. Yes, 6.6 is my favorite.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/17/2007 7:25:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this
and 7.3.
Lindsey alone: 7.1 (bar stool would be more easily accepted if
slightly
further away from Lindsey) and 8.6.
Paul, the shoot seems to be getting more successful as time goes on.
Very well conceived and shot.
Jack
--- Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote
Thanks for the feedback, Doug. Now it's back to work for me.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like 7.1 as well, but I'm not sure I like the
position of the barstool.
I like 7.1 but I'm with you about the barstool. Of the bathing suit
shots, I
The sweater/hoodie seems oui of place.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Lindsey Has Legs
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
Oh my..yes! Works for me too.
Sassy and well caught.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
shoot, but this one works for me.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Yes she does, indeed! Very nicely done, Paul.
--
Bruce
Saturday, November 17, 2007, 7:05:15 PM, you wrote:
PS Finishing up Linsey's portfolio. Just started sorting through today's
PS shoot, but this one works for me.
PS http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6650402
--
PDML
Too many hand-on-bum shots.
When I first saw the thumbnails I thought #5 (lindsey 2.3) looked like
she'd just sat on some chewing gum. Then as I scanned the thumbnails
my overactive imagination saw her checking her behind on numerous
occasions for the gum.
Please take my comments with a pinch
No problem. I love it. If I had her bum, I might keep my hand on it too! :-)
Paul
-- Original message --
From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Too many hand-on-bum shots.
When I first saw the thumbnails I thought #5 (lindsey 2.3) looked like
she'd just sat on some
first saw the thumbnails I thought #5 (lindsey 2.3) looked like
she'd just sat on some chewing gum. Then as I scanned the thumbnails
my overactive imagination saw her checking her behind on numerous
occasions for the gum.
Please take my comments with a pinch of salt.
Three days of software
Paul Stenquist wrote:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=782169
Hi Paul,
Much better to see a selection than just ones-and-twos. FWIW, my comments:
http
It doesn't work for me any more. Early infatuation:-).
Paul
On Nov 12, 2007, at 1:53 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Thanks Cotty. But I wanted that highlight blasting out from this
shot. It's off the curve, so why not?
If it works for you then it's
Thanks Cotty! That's very helpful.
Paul
On Nov 12, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb
Thanks Derby. That's very helpful. Yes, it was fun. A lot of work as
well.
Paul
On Nov 12, 2007, at 5:00 AM, Derby Chang wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net
On Nov 12, 2007 8:04 PM, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't work for me any more. Early infatuation:-).
Out of context, we could have a bit of fun with that line.
;-)
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Paul,
I would certainly include (left to right, top to bottom) #'s: 1, 10
13.
Exceptionally nice work.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net
:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=782169
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PESO: Lindsey Again
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Thanks Cotty. But I wanted that highlight blasting out from this
shot. It's off the curve, so why not?
If it works for you then it's
century in
the ad biz, I'm a firm believer in the power of research and consensus.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PESO: Lindsey Again
On 11/11/07, Paul
The shadows cast by her shoulder and hair are quite noticeable and
dominant near her right shoulder - I think too much so.
--
Bruce
Sunday, November 11, 2007, 12:50:24 PM, you wrote:
PS This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
PS the pics Lindsey and I chose
.
--
Bruce
Sunday, November 11, 2007, 12:50:24 PM, you wrote:
PS This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
PS the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
PS Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp down from
PS them
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp down from
them. What say you?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6628457size=lg
--
PDML
On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp down from
them. What say you?
http
For me it doesn't work. The bright reflection in the clock is too
distracting.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO: Lindsey Again
Looks more like Lindsey 3:27 VBG
Note one that I would haven't chosen but if its what she wants - so be it.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Lindsey Again
This is probably off the mark for a model
, also, chose this shot to submit is worth
consideration.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp down from
them. What say you?
http
Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp down from
them. What say you?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6628457size=lg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
Thanks for the feedback.
Paul
On Nov 11, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming
Thanks Cotty. But I wanted that highlight blasting out from this
shot. It's off the curve, so why not?
On Nov 11, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey
In a message dated 11/11/2007 1:04:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is probably off the mark for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=782169
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML
for a model portfolio, but it's one of
the pics Lindsey and I chose to send to her agent. It's different.
Rather than taming the highlights, I chose to let it ramp down from
them. What say you?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6628457size=lg
=
I wouldn't have chosen
In a message dated 11/11/2007 6:28:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=782169
=
No to #4
PROTECTED] writes:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=782169
=
No to #4. The shadow on her face is unflattering, and combined
with looking
off
In a message dated 11/11/2007 6:50:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks Marnie. Good feedback. I'm trying to talk her out of the dark
pic. Fourth in this series. The ninth image is okay with me, but it's
all subjective.
Paul
The eight one, head
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Thanks Cotty. But I wanted that highlight blasting out from this
shot. It's off the curve, so why not?
If it works for you then it's successful.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 11/11/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
If any one is still interested, these are the selects that Lindsey
wants to send to her agents. Comments welcome.
Paul
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=782169
614, 621, 551 and 498 - if you had to pick just a few instead
Congratulations, Boris. You might have a career as a New York runway
model! :-))
Paul
On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
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
Paul, I might have HAD such a career. I gained 15 kilos since that
time. Though I think male models need to be less skinny than female
ones...
On Nov 6, 2007 1:03 PM, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Congratulations, Boris. You might have a career as a New York runway
model! :-))
Paul
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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
Thanks Derby. Good feedback.
Paul
On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Derby Chang wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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
Both nice shots. I think #1 shows a bit of meat on her upper body and
does leaves open some uncertainty about her waist.
#2 is more complimentary, but dark near side doesn't answer the total
figure question.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorting through the pics I shot for
Thanks Jack. I have about 500 more shots to look at, so I've got some work to
do. I'll probably convert about 100.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Both nice shots. I think #1 shows a bit of meat on her upper body and
does leaves
Wise move!
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Jack. I have about 500 more shots to look at, so I've got some
work to do. I'll probably convert about 100.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Both nice shots. I think #1
I like 'em both. Pretty lady.
In the first, did you have room to cheat her away from
the wall a bit? That's the only thing I would've
changed (except maybe adding more of the pattern from
the blinds, if that was possible... just for something
different).
I like the natural hair light in the
Thanks Brendan. No, I couldn't get her any further away from the
wall. It was a small room in a small house. As it was I had to clone
out some stuff on the right. We were going to shoot all outdoors, but
I brought my monolights along, so we gave it a go with some indoor
shots. I do have
Hi!
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
It can be natural, a friend of mine's girlfriend is that
tall thin,
and she absolutely loves food. Just has a seriously active
metabolism.
I must agree and provide a witness, your honor. Before
getting married I
was very thin. I am 180 cm in height (I think it is 5'11 or
6')
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
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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
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
Thanks Ann. The wrinkles I can fix. The trees are there to stay:-).
Paul
On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:00 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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.
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] 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
66 matches
Mail list logo
