mostly nude portraits

[lynnma]

thought that would grab your attention...:rofl

I've been asked to take some shots of ladies (real ones) similar to shots of the Calendar Girls done in England. Local ladies in the act of just performing their jobs or hobbies. Most of their bodies will be covered but necks arms legs etc will be exposed. Now then... I don't do portraits... or skin... have not a clue where to start. I'm assuming that I will need a lot of soft big lighting and A LOT OF PHOTOSHOP which is fine, and maybe a filter or two.
I need all the help I can get here pros.. this is for charity. I thought I'd do it in soft color, b&w is too hard, (these women are not young) and sepia sounds blah.. whaddya think.. impossible for an inexerperienced shooter like me?? I"ll show them to you all as I do them as reward...or maybe horror show.
:D Lynn

[DoctorIt]

you really think BW is too hard? I'd have said the opposite... with most of the people shooting i've ever done, mostly of my ladyfriend (no one else would let me do repeated portraits) i usually make her look much better in BW. Especially in the winter when we look pasty or too blushed... make sense? all those unflattering pinks or reds fade away in BW.

Just my highly inexperienced .02

[Deacon]

A cheap solution to using color filters is to get gel samples from a theatrical lighting company. They are just the right size to attach over the face of your strobe. Experiment with different ones to get warmer or cooler tones as needed.

Deacon

[pathfinder]

you really think BW is too hard? I'd have said the opposite... with most of the people shooting i've ever done, mostly of my ladyfriend (no one else would let me do repeated portraits) i usually make her look much better in BW. Especially in the winter when we look pasty or too blushed... make sense? all those unflattering pinks or reds fade away in BW.

Just my highly inexperienced .02
I second what Erik says - esp since you will be shooting with a 300D - Just shoot away and then look at images in the RED Channel - you might find the b&W you are looking forward to - and the skin tones may be much nicer in the Red channel than the blue or green channels

Go for soft window light or filtered late afternoon sunlight - or the equivalent softbox light - look at portraits in oil done by the old masters - they always drew in soft window light - they sure were smart fellars.http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif

Looking forward to seeing your pics, Lynn.

[lynnma]

I second what Erik says - esp since you will be shooting with a 300D - Just shoot away and then look at images in the RED Channel - you might find the b&W you are looking forward to - and the skin tones may be much nicer in the Red channel than the blue or green channels

Go for soft window light or filtered late afternoon sunlight - or the equivalent softbox light - look at portraits in oil done by the old masters - they always drew in soft window light - they sure were smart fellars.http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif

Looking forward to seeing your pics, Lynn.
Thats true.. I'll take a couple and post them for help...and by the way, I don't have a strobe:huh looks like afternoon light will be it.....oh god, now I'm really panicked.. these things are gonna be printed and go all over town.. the printer wants them done in cmyk does that make sense to you? why would that be and what difference does it make..methinks I may have mithspoke..

[lynnma]

Thats true.. I'll take a couple and post them for help...and by the way, I don't have a strobe:huh looks like afternoon light will be it.....oh god, now I'm really panicked.. these things are gonna be printed and go all over town.. the printer wants them done in cmyk does that make sense to you? why would that be and what difference does it make..methinks I may have mithspoke..Husband is helping now.. suggested taking them out side.. I have a little courtyard with flowers, rock, bistro set etc... completely private, may be nice to take them out there using props like ..watering cans, old pump, afternoon teas, parasol... parasol??? book reading etc. Did anyone see the movie? http://calendargirls.movies.go.com/

[Baldy]

In my opinion, the most important thing is to get a big light source and get it as close to the subject as you can. The bigger and closer it is, the more the light softly "wraps" around the subject, softening the shadows.

It isn't that you get no shadows so the lighting is so flat as to be boring, it's that the sharp lines of the shadows become soft. I use a 4x6' softbox for the primary light and a 6' round reflector to fill the shadows some.

I'm not the best portrait photographer, but here's some examples of the big softbox and reflector:

http://emphoto.smugmug.com/photos/19033-M-1.jpg

http://tlrtots.smugmug.com/photos/52576-L-1.jpg

I shot some Halloween piccies for a church party and took a smaller soft box, and you can see the shadows getting sharper and a little more shine off the skin (the reflector was further away to provide darker shadows because it was....scary):

http://heritageoaks.smugmug.com/photos/1194743-L.jpg

[zero-zero]

Lynn, Erik, Pathfinder and the Bald One are giving you right-on-the-money advice. I'd advise, too, to go B&W, soft window light and reflectors. I think the black & white conversion tip I posted elsewhere in this site will yield a betted result than red-channel only, however. Whatever you do, try to kill those shadows as much as possible if you're going for a flattering look, as it seems.

Re CMYK: don't worry, in this case you just need to work as usual and at the end go to image / mode and convert to CMYK, being B&W you'll have no problems there (this is not always the case).

Before you do that, make sure that your color settings in Photoshop (under the edit menu, towards the bottom) are set to "US Prepress" and your CMYK working space is set to sheetfed coated. After you finish, you can revert to whatever you please, but if this sounds like ancient greek to you, just leave them there. Not a matter of life and death, but the printer will probably appreciate it.

[lynnma]

Lynn, Erik, Pathfinder and the Bald One are giving you right-on-the-money advice. I'd advise, too, to go B&W, soft window light and reflectors. I think the black & white conversion tip I posted elsewhere in this site will yield a betted result than red-channel only, however. Whatever you do, try to kill those shadows as much as possible if you're going for a flattering look, as it seems.

Re CMYK: don't worry, in this case you just need to work as usual and at the end go to image / mode and convert to CMYK, being B&W you'll have no problems there (this is not always the case).

Before you do that, make sure that your color settings in Photoshop (under the edit menu, towards the bottom) are set to "US Prepress" and your CMYK working space is set to sheetfed coated. After you finish, you can revert to whatever you please, but if this sounds like ancient greek to you, just leave them there. Not a matter of life and death, but the printer will probably appreciate it.
Thanks Zero and thanks Baldy...all this is very very helpful. I am very limited with what I have for lights and reflectors but I can get creative (I hope) If these shots come out looking anything like anything it's gonna be a miricle! but I'm very game...hey!I'll just send em to you guys to fix:dunno

[zero-zero]

Rule of thumb: If you're not used to work with artificial lighting, it's best you try to use available light and reflectors, maybe with a flash bounced into one.

Reflectors can be easily made of white foam, white cardboard and such, no need to go the LastoLite way. Overcast wheather is a favorite, although I prefer open shade on a sunnier day.

[mystic7]

If I may add my two cents, I've always felt that a lot of B&W nudes were the result of the color version not looking so hot, so I'm in agreement with the others.

I myself will be doing some nude photography this weekend with a stunning model. At least she looks stunning with clothes on. Hopefully she won't have a Photoshop body. Hey I think I just coined a new phrase :rofl

I'll post some of them here (can I do that?) Of course I'll start my own thread.
M7

[Shay Stephens]

I'll post some of them here (can I do that?) Of course I'll start my own thread.
M7Post links, that way people can decide to view or not.

[mystic7]

Post links, that way people can decide to view or not.
Well DUH! How stupid of me to not even think of that. Thanks Shay.
M7

[wxwax]

I myself will be doing some nude photography this weekend with a stunning model.

Will your model be nude too?

[mystic7]

Will your model be nude too?
She'd better be, or I'm gonna look like a fool! :whip
M7

[gus]

She'd better be, or I'm gonna look like a fool! :whip
M7
heres some info from the olympus site....you may get something from it.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lessons/angela/index.html

[mystic7]

heres some info from the olympus site....you may get something from it.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lessons/angela/index.html
That was REALLY informative. Thanks! But there's no way I'm gonna be able to afford any of that equipment for a while, so it's gonna be post production for me. There's something sensual about magnetically lassoing a nude female anyway :wink
M7

[lynnma]

heres some info from the olympus site....you may get something from it.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lessons/angela/index.htmlThanks Humy... I did actually, I printed it all out. Very interesting indeed. AND I'm gonna get creative and make some equipment...
Lynn:nod

[lynnma]

Thanks Humy... I did actually, I printed it all out. Very interesting indeed. AND I'm gonna get creative and make some equipment...
Lynn:nodBy the way... does anyone else know of any online tutorials (free) on portraits?

[fish]

Will your model be nude too?
:lol

[jimf]

By the way... does anyone else know of any online tutorials (free) on portraits?

I found this one:

http://www.dcmag.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/339/v/1/sp/328765336475364149534

which is brief but has some good tips. I note that their comment about reflector stands being expensive may be a matter of opinion; I literally just bought several stands at Calumet in Cambridge MA (which I mention because you're in Lynn, right?) and got a 31" collapsible reflector, reflector cover with several options, stand, and reflector support arm for about $100. Compared to all the other stuff I've been buying that is cheap.

I have been experimenting with indoor portraiture on account of having to shoot my dad's wedding next weekend and the big problem I've had is harsh lighting and difficulty in managing the flash in the hot-shoe. Taking shots at different angles meant changing lighting and/or maneuvering the flash. Worse the diffuser I thought would help with sharp shadowing didn't do squat (I know why, now, but I had to learn :-). Plus camera, big lens, and flash starts to get pretty hefty.

My solution, which I'll try out this weekend, was to get a remote trigger for the flash (I have Canon ex-series flashes which can be triggered by IR), a stand for the flash, and another stand and arm for the reflector. The theory is that now I set up the light however I want it, it's big and soft, and I can move around much more freely.

That's the plan, anyway. I sure wish my dad's wedding were to be in daytime, it's so much easier. And also that it weren't in Miami.

[lynnma]

I found this one:

http://www.dcmag.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/339/v/1/sp/328765336475364149534

which is brief but has some good tips. I note that their comment about reflector stands being expensive may be a matter of opinion; I literally just bought several stands at Calumet in Cambridge MA (which I mention because you're in Lynn, right?) and got a 31" collapsible reflector, reflector cover with several options, stand, and reflector support arm for about $100. Compared to all the other stuff I've been buying that is cheap.

I have been experimenting with indoor portraiture on account of having to shoot my dad's wedding next weekend and the big problem I've had is harsh lighting and difficulty in managing the flash in the hot-shoe. Taking shots at different angles meant changing lighting and/or maneuvering the flash. Worse the diffuser I thought would help with sharp shadowing didn't do squat (I know why, now, but I had to learn :-). Plus camera, big lens, and flash starts to get pretty hefty.

My solution, which I'll try out this weekend, was to get a remote trigger for the flash (I have Canon ex-series flashes which can be triggered by IR), a stand for the flash, and another stand and arm for the reflector. The theory is that now I set up the light however I want it, it's big and soft, and I can move around much more freely.

That's the plan, anyway. I sure wish my dad's wedding were to be in daytime, it's so much easier. And also that it weren't in Miami.
Hi Jim,
thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Good luck with the wedding. Show us what you get, we'd love to see it.
Lynn
p.s. did you mean to put your email on show? could be an invitation for spam for you.

[wxwax]

Jim, you're bouncing that flash into something, right?

[fish]

So lynn...yer gonna share all these nudie pics with us, right? :wink

[jimf]

Jim, you're bouncing that flash into something, right?

I wasn't, generally, and I know that was the problem (or, at least, a problem).

This one was the best shot I took out of the series:

http://www.frostbytes.com/gallery-albums/portraits-2004/CRW_0512_RT8_C.sized.jpg

That was using the main bounced off the ceiling and a slave lighting from directly in front of her. Both had diffusers.

I've done a couple of portrait shoots this week trying to figure out how to use the flash(es) effectively. That taught me a few things: 1) I don't want an on-camera flash at all. It's bulky, heavy, and has to be rearranged too much to get decent light; 2) Portraiture is a lot easier if you use a constant light source location. I can move around with the camera but the light stays the same; 3) Diffusers don't work very well for portraiture, I really wanted a big reflector.

These things spurred the purchases of a remote flash trigger for the camera plus one of those fold-up reflectors and stands for flash and reflector.

I note that I liked that shot better in B&W:

http://www.frostbytes.com/gallery-albums/portraits-2004/CRW_0512_RT8_BW.sized.jpg

I've figured out how to use Photoshop to get a TMAX-like image out of the 300D, woo-hoo! I always loved TMAX.

[jimf]

p.s. did you mean to put your email on show? could be an invitation for spam for you.

Hah, my email has been very public since before there even was spam. Or, for that matter, the web. I have an excellent filter system; it was the only way to keep my sanity.

[wxwax]

It sounds like having at least an umbrella in which to shoot the flash might make a big difference to the harshness of the light. Have you explored an umbrella or a softbox? I'm not knowlegeable, just curious.

I watched the movie links on lighting that someone posted this week. I found them to be terribly interesting. Most interesting was the concept of big light versus little light - a fundamental I had no idea existed.

[lynnma]

So lynn...yer gonna share all these nudie pics with us, right? :winkyep... got one comin up soon fish..

[jimf]

It sounds like having at least an umbrella in which to shoot the flash might make a big difference to the harshness of the light. Have you explored an umbrella or a softbox? I'm not knowlegeable, just curious.

The problem with an umbrella is you need some real power to use them, and I'm just using a 550ex and/or 420ex. But as I said, I hit Calumet and bought a zip disk and some stands. The results speak for themselves, go see my thread on "Two moods of a child" in "Show us your best stuff." I still see a number of things I can improve but hey, it was a lot easier to get good results.

I like how cheap the reflectors and stands are, but it's sick to have to pay $230 for Canon's IR flash trigger. Ouch! Though it dropped like a pound off of the camera versus using the 550ex as the master.

[AltPro]

Thanks Zero and thanks Baldy...all this is very very helpful. I am very limited with what I have for lights and reflectors but I can get creative (I hope) If these shots come out looking anything like anything it's gonna be a miricle! but I'm very game...hey!I'll just send em to you guys to fix:dunno
Hello: As you may tell, I'm new to the forum, but not new to photographing the "human landscape." I agree with all the others here on the topic of film choice. B&W is really the most flattering way to go, although it is not always as simple as point and shoot. Try and consider the possibility of zooming in close on some of your shots, unless of course, like "Calendar Girls," all of the women must be recognizable.
You can really achieve some beautiful nude work when you get up very close, and when you think you're close enough, pull up even tighter. You will be able to see some beautiful textures of the skin, pick up different skin tones between individuals.
Outside shots are almost always the most beautiful, and most fun for the photographer, provided of course that the model is able to relax and be assured that she will not be gazed upon by voyeurs. By the same token, one of my series was done of different ages, all shot indoors, with relatively inexpensive "Photo Bulbs," purchased at the local Pro-shop. One of the women was hooked to her oxygen tank, she loved it!
As soon as I can scan in some of my negatives, I will... If I can be of any help, almost two weeks out of the original thread...

Good Luck... Sounds like a fun and gratifying project.
I remain,
ginette

[wxwax]

Oh, by all means post your shots. And thanks for your input... you sound like you have a lot of experience, and so your advice is most welcome. And I'm intrigued by the oxygen bottle nude. A little unusual.

[ian408]

I'd be curious about the lighting technique. Baldy's shots are nice
looking and I wonder about placement and the use of a softbox with
egg-crates for portrait work.

ian

[lynnma]

Hello: As you may tell, I'm new to the forum, but not new to photographing the "human landscape." I agree with all the others here on the topic of film choice. B&W is really the most flattering way to go, although it is not always as simple as point and shoot. Try and consider the possibility of zooming in close on some of your shots, unless of course, like "Calendar Girls," all of the women must be recognizable.
You can really achieve some beautiful nude work when you get up very close, and when you think you're close enough, pull up even tighter. You will be able to see some beautiful textures of the skin, pick up different skin tones between individuals.
Outside shots are almost always the most beautiful, and most fun for the photographer, provided of course that the model is able to relax and be assured that she will not be gazed upon by voyeurs. By the same token, one of my series was done of different ages, all shot indoors, with relatively inexpensive "Photo Bulbs," purchased at the local Pro-shop. One of the women was hooked to her oxygen tank, she loved it!
As soon as I can scan in some of my negatives, I will... If I can be of any help, almost two weeks out of the original thread...

Good Luck... Sounds like a fun and gratifying project.
I remain,
ginetteThanks Ginette,
I'd love to see some of your black and white nudes. It might be an idea to post a link to them rather than post them directly onto the forum. I'm a little anxious about it all but looking forward to the challenge.
Lynn

[Seamaiden]

I'm curious, because of the comments regarding posting vs. linking of nudes. I would expect that the folks who would put up nudes here would be going for an artistic bend (as opposed to.. the Hustler factor). This leads me to wonder.. Are folks not allowed to post nudes directly? Or are there those who, let's say with ample warning in the thread title, might still object to artistic nudes?

[ian408]

I'm curious, because of the comments regarding posting vs. linking of nudes. I would expect that the folks who would put up nudes here would be going for an artistic bend (as opposed to.. the Hustler factor). This leads me to wonder.. Are folks not allowed to post nudes directly? Or are there those who, let's say with ample warning in the thread title, might still object to artistic nudes?
I'd agree with you about the quality but linking gives the reader a choice of
whether to follow the link or not. Helps walk the fine line so to speak.

[fish]

I'd agree with you about the quality but linking gives the reader a choice of
whether to follow the link or not. Helps walk the fine line so to speak.

Digital Grin is still in it's formative stages, and as such, has not adopted any sort of policies regarding nudes yet.

While we're hashing this out, please link and clearly mark nudes.

thanks

[wxwax]

Hashing in progress.

[AltPro]

Hashing in progress.
My Nickles Worth Regarding "Artistic Nudes"

I truly hope that the powers that be at "Digital Grin" do not vote in favor of eliminating artistic nudes from the site... There is quite a broad line between artistic and pornographic, and I would hope that on a site such as this, members would choose to post responsibly and in good taste or, face the consequence of being blocked and removed from the forum, permanently.

I view the human body as a beautiful thing. A work of art, in and of itself. When putting this work on the web, one needs to adhere to a few fast rules, i.e. nothing that tends towards eroticism, and no sex, in order to shy away from being offensive to other viewers and my models. Personally I opt to never post my nude work when you can clearly make out the face of my model(s), even with their permission. I believe that they have the right of anonymity.

I am even more careful about photographing children. In this age of “child pornography on the web,” I strive to angle the shot in such a way that no genitalia shows. It is sad that our society has stooped to such a level, but since it has, I have found myself easily bending to what is politically correct, regarding children. Not too overlook the fact that I would never want one of my images of a child to be mis-used.

Perhaps, rather than ban nudes altogether, or rather than insist all nudes be linked, there could be a trial period, to see if those who would post to the site(myself included), would “play by the rules,” and be “nice.” All this being said, I am in favor of posting tasteful nudes to the site, but feel that the subject line should be clear in stating that the image contained in the message is NUDE.

I hope I haven't spoken out of turn...
Just my nickles worth. I don't wish to offend.

I remain,
ginette

[Seamaiden]

Ginette, I don't think I could agree with you more. I can see that this site is used not infrequently by non-U.S. folks, as well, and I can't help but wonder/chuckle at what they must think of us Puritans. (No insults intended at all, I was brought up with the same mindset, and have struggled to be free of it.)

Other than that, I have little more to add other than my beau and some others just started up a site with the express intention to not censor (unless there is blatant disrepect towards another member). We have a forum that is viewable only to registered members. We (the moderators and site admins) struggled with the idea of a U.A., and ultimately decided against it. Our site is ad-free, and paid for by us, therefore we rule the roost and decide the rules. The only thing we do is, upon registration, require the registrant to be 18 because we are definitely a more adult-oriented site (all that free-speech can lead to outbursts of colorful language, plus the Den of Decadence does have some nudes posted).
It took us a few weeks to hash all this out, but hashed it has been. We have had some problems, but our worst "problem child" was apparently "over-tolerated", and when he saw that we weren't going to ban him, but instead show him the error of his ways, he up and left. <giggle>

[AltPro]

[QUOTE=Seamaiden]Ginette, I don't think I could agree with you more. I can see that this site is used not infrequently by non-U.S. folks, as well, and I can't help but wonder/chuckle at what they must think of us Puritans. (No insults intended at all, I was brought up with the same mindset, and have struggled to be free of it.)

Puritans.... Yes I guess in general, Americans, as a collective may well be seen that way... I am a dual citizen, my mother never took on American Citizenship, and I am proud of my dual French / American heritage. But really that is a different subject for a different forum.

But I guess, when I think about it, even most of my friends outside of the "artsy" world, are less open minded when thinking of the human form, than my immediate family. All five of my children have been exposed to various forms of art from a very young age. I think art and it's expression regarding the human form, is a very important to our growth. The masters never thought twice about painting or sculpting the nude form. Were I talented enough to wield the artists brush, I know for a fact I would be painting bodies, but since that is not my forte I create my view of art "through the lens."

Even so, I know and can easily recognize when the line between art and pornography is crossed, as I suspect can most of us. I would not withdraw from this forum were they to ban "the nude form," but I do think that it would be a loss of ones voice to sing a chord that might well be beautiful, and appreciated by the larger group than the minority. Then again, I concede that I might well be wrong in my thinking, --perhaps I am a small voice of the minority.

I remain, as ever
ginette

[Shay Stephens]

It really comes down to this. Regardless of what one is personally comfortable with, there are those out there who view the forums from their places of work. There are companies, organizations, etc that have a zero tolerance policy on things such as nudity. If someone were to click on a thread where it was displayed there could be unintended consequences.

The only kind and safe thing to do is to provide a link to the picture in question and inform those reading that the link will take you to the photo in question and that it does contain nudity. That way no one is censored, no one can get into trouble accidentally, and all are served.

As the moderator of the this particular forum, unless told to do otherwise, this is what will be done. If a post is made and a photo displayed of a nude, it will be converted to a link if I come across it or I am informed about it.

So save everyone time and effort. If you want to post a picture of a nude, link it, do not put it in line.

[Seamaiden]

And with that being said, I can say that, should you wish to post such photos on our site (check my profile), you certainly may. Our one request is that all such photos stay within the Den, or in Sharkky's Dark Room with notification in the title (because we do indeed have folks who peruse from work, as well as those who prefer to view when the little ones are down for the night).

Actually, Ginette, I think this subject has the makings of a very good thread, I may start one on ttth on just this very subject. At this time we don't have much in the way of foreign membership (though I do have a friend in London who operates another site that has much more 'flavor'), but we do have some real characters (oy, do we).

Then there are the geeks.. <giggle>

In the meantime, from here, we view the links!

[fish]

And with that being said, I can say that, should you wish to post such photos on our site (check my profile), you certainly may. Our one request is that all such photos stay within the Den, or in Sharkky's Dark Room with notification in the title (because we do indeed have folks who peruse from work, as well as those who prefer to view when the little ones are down for the night).

Actually, Ginette, I think this subject has the makings of a very good thread, I may start one on ttth on just this very subject. At this time we don't have much in the way of foreign membership (though I do have a friend in London who operates another site that has much more 'flavor'), but we do have some real characters (oy, do we).

Then there are the geeks.. <giggle>

In the meantime, from here, we view the links!

:spam

[Seamaiden]

Interesting, not one person from the other sites I use has accused me of spamming when I direct them to you folks. :nono
Do you think my site actually competes with this one?

[fish]

:D

[Seamaiden]

Is that a fishy grin? Or a digital grin? :P

[fish]

a digital fishy grin.

[Seamaiden]

Ok, NOW you did it. You made me laugh out loud. The dog is looking at me strangely.

But honestly, do y'all mind me telling other folks about this place?

[wxwax]

No, not at all. Quite the opposite. We'd love for you to spread the word.

I was puzzled as to why Fish accused you of spam. I think he just wanted a little attention. :wink

[fish]

No, not at all. Quite the opposite. We'd love for you to spread the word.

I was puzzled as to why Fish accused you of spam. I think he just wanted a little attention. :wink

i'm an attention whore...what can I say? i'm bummed that waxy has twice my post count :cry

[ian408]

i'm an attention whore...what can I say? i'm bummed that waxy has twice my post count :cry
Fish, you've gone way past whoring :rofl Your post count down the
hall? Approaching 30K.

Let's go shooting someplace this weekend.

[fish]

Let's go shooting someplace this weekend.
Can I bring my HK USP 45?

[wxwax]

:cry Oh no, I should have known it was only a matter of time. :(:

[DoctorIt]

:cry Oh no, I should have known it was only a matter of time. :(:No kiddin... how'd we go from nudes to guns? Sorry waxy, I feel your pain.

[fish]

No kiddin... how'd we go from nudes to guns? Sorry waxy, I feel your pain.
ha!

http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/1837519-M.jpg

[AltPro]

No kiddin... how'd we go from nudes to guns? Sorry waxy, I feel your pain.

How about this...
Will this pass the muster? Or as my son would say, "mustard?"

I remain,
reprimanded
ginette

Shot with Nikon N90, f11 Kodak Gold 200, in Natural window light, and flash at 400 asa pushed, then scanned negative into Photoshop 7@ 1200dpi converted to PSD @ 600dpi, to JPeg @90dpi then saved at gif format

[Seamaiden]

Oh my God, I am IN LOVE! <sigh> I am finally with a guy whose baby I want to have, and I just turned 40 and he just turned 44.. no babies in our future.. except maybe grandbabies. Between the two of us we've got three boys, and they had BETTER not (just yet)!

[ian408]

Can I bring my HK USP 45?
Hmmm...what's that look like in a real drive-by?

[lynnma]

ha!

http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/1837519-M.jpgGUN? did someone say gun??
now I know guns.....

[fish]

Shot with Nikon N90, f11 Kodak Gold 200, in Natural window light, and flash at 400 asa pushed, then scanned negative into Photoshop 7@ 1200dpi converted to PSD @ 600dpi, to JPeg @90dpi then saved at gif format
Beautiful shot. Maybe we ought to start a thread on baby pics?

[fish]

GUN? did someone say gun??
now I know guns.....
oh my...I am truly humbled. :bow

[AltPro]

Beautiful shot. Maybe we ought to start a thread on baby pics?

Thank you for the comments... They are always greatly appreciated... constructive critiques are welcome too.
I Love to shoot children... all ages, doing what children do best, play, sleep or cry.
Same child, (my little Grandson Brady, 4 years ago...) taken two months after the other... Shiny white pearls proudly displayed for his "Nya."
titled "joys of bath time."
Great shots of some very beautiful guns... Valuable too, I'd wager... But I don't know guns, at all...

[ReeferBen]

Hey SeaMaiden I didnt know you got out of the reefs.org box much. Guess it's a small world afterall!


Ben

[zero-zero]

Beautiful shot. Maybe we ought to start a thread on baby pics?
:D

http://zero-zero.smugmug.com/photos/3069241-S.jpg

[AltPro]

:D

http://zero-zero.smugmug.com/photos/3069241-S.jpg

Very Sweet B&W....
Here's one of mine...

[AltPro]

Very Sweet B&W....
Here's one of mine...

And here's a superimposed photo, originally done in the darkroom, of one of my twin sons. Titled:
[CENTER]"chimera"

[wxwax]

:D

http://zero-zero.smugmug.com/photos/3069241-S.jpg


OMG, that's adorable. My, what big eyes you have...

[Seamaiden]

Hey SeaMaiden I didnt know you got out of the reefs.org box much. Guess it's a small world afterall!


Ben
Hee.. Yeah, Ben, I have a lot of interests. You can also find me on gentoo.org. :D Nice to catch ya here (some peeps could use tips on how to shoot fish, too).

[Sandy]

Beautiful dimples on that baby Altpro.

[ian408]

And here's a superimposed photo, originally done in the darkroom, of one of my twin sons. Titled:
[CENTER]"chimera"
That's a nice image AltPro. It reminds me of a movie poster.

ian

[zero-zero]

OMG, that's adorable. My, what big eyes you have...
That's not me you idjet, that's my daughter... :wxwax



Sorry waxy... just had to.:rofl

[cletus]

:D

http://zero-zero.smugmug.com/photos/3069241-S.jpg
That picture is great :clap :thumb

but... no more giving your daughter double espressos just to get a cute expression on her face :nono

[zero-zero]

I almost squirt a drink all over the monitor, cletus. :rofl:rofl:rofl

But I don't! I give them to her mom and, somehow, it transfers automagically... :deal

Seriously: I'd never give her a double espresso. I sleep too little already! :cry

[AltPro]

That's a nice image AltPro. It reminds me of a movie poster.

ian

Thanks Ian...
I love DarkRoom work. In fact my favorite is Alternative Print Processing, hence, AltPro...? This was one of my first superimposed images, done in (auggh, it seems like yesterday) 1997.

Love to do Gum printing, Cyanotypes, Albumens, VanDyke Browns... Love to use large format (4x5) negatives... Gees, this really makes me miss my DarkRoom! Maybe I can get it set up this summer...

Sorry for going on...
Again, Thanks.
ginette