look.no@film.dk), August 04, 2000

Answers

ARRRGH!

I can4t believe this! I forgot about my HTML deficiency :) Somebody please delete this post!

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 04, 2000.

How's this?

-- Forrest Smotherman (forrestsmotherman@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

Thanks :)

That4s very nice - now would you kindly retype all the text I added (and lost) - just kidding :) Thanks!

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 04, 2000.

missing text

Christel, the text you lost was probably:

"Haven4t been around for a while. Unfortunately my English vocabulary is insufficient to allow full participation in some of the very deep philosophical discussions on this board. I found this frustrating, so I stayed away :) "

;) Sakari

-- Sakari Makela (sakari.makela@koulut.vantaa.fi), August 11, 2000.

I have a negative opinion, but I want you to know that it is only my opinion, and it is respectfully submitted. Seeing more lens character than content makes for special effects but not good fashion photography. If her face is to be in the shot, I really want to see it normally because I need to see some expression. I can't really tell what the dress looks like because of the fish-eye distortion. Background is poor, as is the flare spots from the overhead lighting. Would love to have the lens, though. But it should be used for other styles of photography.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), August 04, 2000.

Not enough model.

It's an interesting shot, but only from the standpoint of the fisheye lens. Otherwise, it's not really a good fashion image. Perhaps changing the background would help a little.

I think you were just too far away to use this lens properly...if you find a good example of fisheyes for runway photography, let me know :)

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), August 04, 2000.

Well, I'd take a different approach from fashion to look at this one -- i.e. anti-fashion --

I'd like to somehow pump up the Bingo Moma's in the front row. Do you have a different frame with the right hand side of the frame cut out and the audience showing more. Kind of an expectation vs. reality thing?

Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), August 04, 2000.

I like that it's not "the same old same old," but I agree with the others that it's not a particularly successful shot.

It is nice to see someone other that "the same old same old" posting photos.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 04, 2000.

Hi guys - thanks for looking :) I4m sorry that the text got lost in my first attempt to post. It is, as somebody mentioned, an anti-fashion shot. I wanted to make it as gritty as possible while maintaining some of the unreality that is typical for fashion photography, ie. her forced pose, grotesquely prolonged legs etc. The title also has meaning, but hey, it all depends on where we4re coming from :) I took this picture while on a mission for the small daily newspaper that I4ve been freelancing for since the beginning of May. Obviously the one that got printed was much more conventional :) Camera is Canon PowerShot Pro70, lense: Aubell Semi Fish Eye.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 05, 2000.

WAIT JUST A DARNED MINUTE!!!!! You mean to say that I'm just the same old, same old??????????? :)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), August 05, 2000.

Yep. Don't worry about it, though; you're in good company.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 05, 2000.

Fashion photography isn't about the model - and it's not even about the clothes. Fashion photograhy is advertising. And like all advertising, it's about two things: first, creating an image - a unique image - that captures the viewer's interest long enough for the name of the brand to register; and second, linking that brand to a perception - reliable, fun, exotic, inexpensive, etc.

This is a brilliant, unique shot. Very strong compositional and graphic elements in conjunction with equally powerful use of color. It's not photojournalism, it's not a portrait, it's not a catalog shot. It's fashion.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), August 05, 2000.

John - thanks *blush* - you4re too kind, but I agree ;)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 07, 2000.

Thank you Sakara - I knew it was visible in the source code, I was just to lazy to get it :)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 11, 2000.