When your photos are just too good.

Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html
is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to a
previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them couldn't
possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I think it's an
interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a black background.
That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate on the body but it
must have made exposure a real challenge.

As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Calvin Sambrook wrote:
Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html

is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According
to a previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in
the UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them
couldn't possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I
think it's an interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a
black background. That really forces your eye to work hard and
concentrate on the body but it must have made exposure a real challenge.

Great publicity for the 'tog, and not really all that bad for Boots.
Agree on choice of dress, b/g and exposure. Nice job, but the skin tones
are poor- which may or may not reflect reality.

--
john mcwilliams

Calvin Sambrook wrote:
Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html

is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According
to a previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in
the UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them
couldn't possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I
think it's an interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a
black background. That really forces your eye to work hard and
concentrate on the body but it must have made exposure a real challenge.

She could prove it by taking another snap with her camera and comparing
the nearly consecutive file numbers and perhaps other info in the exif.


As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Lol


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 10-04-03 13:30 , Calvin Sambrook wrote:
Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html

is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According
to a previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

The portraits shown are not that mindblowingingly "professional". They
are good and what anyone who likes to shoot portraits would achieve by
themselves with a little care and a plan - and dumping the crud.

The impact that probably got the store all atwitter is the simple,
uncluttered scene and execution.

That makes it look like a "photographer" shot it, and not a snap shooter
which is there usual clientele.

The store may be right to question the copyright - not to over-zealously
enforce it.

As an example of an amateur's efforts well done:
http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/t...o333/one-1.jpg
(Photog: "sambo" (real name not given)
(Amongst his first ever flash shots....)

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in
the UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them
couldn't possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I
think it's an interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a
black background. That really forces your eye to work hard and
concentrate on the body but it must have made exposure a real challenge.

This is why in studio photography, one sets the lights with a light
meter for a given desired aperture (expose manually) - bypass the camera
meter altogether. (Or use the histogram as an aid to setting the lights
or finding the aperture. If it's a hot light, then speed too.) Once
set you can shoot all you like and you will get the exact same exposure
on every photo.

Personally I'm not crazy about this treatment for a pregnant woman.
Prefer something lighter in look.


As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

The first 2 stanza's were funny, after that...



--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Calvin Sambrook wrote:

Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html
is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to a
previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the UK
who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them couldn't
possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I think it's an
interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a black background.
That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate on the body but it
must have made exposure a real challenge.

As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI



Don't be too hard: at least Boots are trying to protect photographers'
rights. The problem seems to be that untrained staff havinh too much
authority and that is just a management problem within the Boots company.

Alan

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:30:39 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:
: Apparently this article:
: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html
: is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to a
: previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

I'm pretty sure I've heard of that happening in the US. We're considered to be
the most litigious society on earth, so I guess it would be simple common
sense.

: Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
: UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them couldn't
: possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I think it's an
: interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a black background.
: That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate on the body but it
: must have made exposure a real challenge.

The pictures were taken on a digital camera. Couldn't the photographer have
cited the Exif data? It might have shown the photographer's name and would
have shown the serial number of the camera.

: As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

I've never seen the DM, but that song is hilarious.

Bob

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:43:02 -0400
Robert Coe wrote:

The pictures were taken on a digital camera. Couldn't the
photographer have cited the Exif data? It might have shown the
photographer's name and would have shown the serial number of the
camera.

The Boots employees were clearly being silly, so why would they believe
that the woman hadn't changed the metadata of the images that she was
supposedly attempting to steal?

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 03:39:32 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:43:02 -0400
Robert Coe wrote:

The pictures were taken on a digital camera. Couldn't the
photographer have cited the Exif data? It might have shown the
photographer's name and would have shown the serial number of the
camera.

The Boots employees were clearly being silly, so why would they believe
that the woman hadn't changed the metadata of the images that she was
supposedly attempting to steal?

If the photo department people at Boots are the same as their
counterparts at American drug stores, they might not know what EXIF
data is. It is not necessary to understand cameras to process images
on the machines they have.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...
Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html
is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to
a previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them
couldn't possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I
think it's an interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a
black background. That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate
on the body but it must have made exposure a real challenge.

another case for the Canon EOS 5D MkII giving superb results!,
this wouldn't have happened had she used a Nikon :-)

--
Vass

"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...
Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html
is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to
a previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them
couldn't possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I
think it's an interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a
black background. That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate
on the body but it must have made exposure a real challenge.

As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Damned if you do, damned if you don't - it's a no-win situation all to often
these days. Imagine the fuss if the pictures HAD been copyrighted. The
song is brilliant, thank you.

Geoff.