Posted by Gail. on 10/12/2006, 5:22:36, in reply to "Re: Anja Rubik's three shots" I was speaking generally... that touching up pictures for imperfections is fine; touching up or glossing pictures for to remove human "imperfections" is something I'm against. Go to a magazine stand, check out all of the "men's" magazines - Maxim, Playboy, etc... Let me repeat that like your scans and I don't think you "strip away the uniqueness and detail that makes is special". Besides, you shouldn't care what I think. What do I know anyway, I like women natural too: natural hair, unshaved, and no make-up or perfume. Sorry for bringing you down. here's an example of a scan I really like(which has obviously been retouched, but still preserves the quality -- which I think your scans do too):
68.98.114.94
oh my, no.
I cannot speak for Roland, but I do like your scans... as well as liking Anja here.
I would hope that if I spent a few hours on one of my own scans it could be considered nearly as good as yours. You do excellent work.
What's the point of getting a beautiful woman to photograph if the uniqueness and detail that makes is special is stripped away.
All are useless.. as waste of paper! Some _do_ use good photographers, but by the time the picture makes the final release it is so defaced that it the true beauty of the woman is completely lost.
(in defense of some(eg. Playboy), they used to use soft lenses and lights before there was computer "enhancement" and their product was better than today)
Message Thread:
« Back to thread