Based on your closing comment! Put this one aside and come back to produce a series. All tools, or A , B , C or any theme. Twelve would make a great calendar. The technique lends itself to that approach.

I would second "ry" as being very good advice. Particularly the comfortable part. Another cover is take a lot of poses, people get comfortable with time. Then portfolio the best for them. It will probably get you a second session.

Well young man, if years of observation and reading and study and being trained as an analyst are not enough education for tastes then so be it. I heard the declaration on Pearl Harbor in 1941, was a soldier during the Korean War. I believe that in trying to set yourself up a "fair", you ignore the facts. This Osama bin Laden is the leader, financier and general master craftman of the terrorist movement. He has a grudge against the US for many reasons, partly a family death that he blames the US for. As stated in the previous reply the facts are there. He did not fly the plane. He only sent a few of his own "soldiers" to death. He is a sponsor of treachery and would no more care for your freedoms than a broom swatting a bug. (Ignorance is a cureable condition, stupidity is not.)

Gabe, The young lady has the capacity to be different looking in each picture. Therefore an excellent model. This wistful pose is an example. As for the picture. Remove the stile, add clouds and crop a little. I hope you don't mind the suggestions. Better do some work myself! I spent all day Saturday at a large Art Fair, promoting our local computer society. We gave away over 200 4" x 6" digital prints taken of those attending.

Ditto to the above and this is the best yet! The head line and arm line sync'ed, nice. Hair highlight, just right. Clean as a "hound's tooth".

A very good effect. The fan gives a differnt modulation to the light than anything else. Center of interest the navel. Critique: ON my 20" monitor, 2" too much top, either light the bust area or omit. A good use of dark (no detail)space.

Gabe, I was referring to a slight amount of light on the lady's back. Much as you see in a picture of a bottle, a slight line that defines the shape on the dark side, no more than that. It would hint at the beautiful line of an arched back.

When the artists start condemming the media for gross public display and being money crazy, it bodes well for the return of sanity to everyday life. Too soon you get a "Clockwork Orange", and we get extremes in both directions.

This is very good! In the spirit of critique, a wisp of light on the back to define the arch would have given you a real winner. The drama is in the lighting, as ry said above. Working with the same model at different times and different moods of both the photographer and model can result in body (no pun intended) of work that highlights both talents. A good start and good luck!

To our new moderator team: From what I have observed the two of you will make a good team. Loads of creative talent and background. As the expected improvements (technical) are implemented I believe you will see increased participation and some new talent. The current group will continue to learn through increased interaction. The combination of photography and digital techniques is in the infant stage. Image control is now very much in the hands of the artist involved. We can go from stark realism to near fantasy and still be within the scope of the craft. I hope to follow along. Regards, Bill

walking r Do you regularly take 5 minute exposures? You have to be very familiar with the characteristics of the film you are using. The film reaction to light is very non-linear at those times. With twice the dynamic range of sensitivity digital cameras generally don't need those kind of long exposures. As for complete replacement of analog film you are right at least for many, many years. In both capability and investment film will be here for a long time.

Ckeckout digital-fineart@yahoogruops for unending discussions of archival prnting of digital images. I'll research the digital to film process. It has been done for years to get microfilm images direct from a computer. I have not experienced color negative or positive transfer. Technically it shoud not present a problem.

I commented your posting and would like to add that after reviewing the series I think it is very creative. The last one breaks into new ground. Not the figure use so much as the concept of a human presence in a spirit world. It will touch a lot of people in different ways. As for the sun behind to clouds, keep looking and you will see many configurations.

ry, WOW! Back in 1952 we shot Panatomic X and Tri X Kodak film and thought it was special to have 35 mm that would develop to 25 ASA and 100 ASA standard (400 ASA pushed). Good old Kodachrome (Multilayer) was 64 ASA. Even then the larger format cameras would produce the truest print. So while the cameras get more technical the "laws" of film remain the same. When I purchased my 4'x 5' press type camera for sheet film it was to get clean prints from part of the negative. The cost of color sheet film and processing would be beyond most people's budget. In the darkroom it was you, the negative, the paper and all the talent you could muster. Sometimes that got just a little edgy if you screwed up the shoot and had no way to get better negatives. Now I sit at the monitor and work the digital tools. I can post-process color images with ease. No way I can do that with film. The commercial world of print meduim that produces everything with a screen involved loves the digital world, The Nikon D1 at $3600 (no lenses) is the least camera level they will use for their work. Still there are limitations. Digital pictures don't rotate very well. If the axis of the image is wrong a 10 degree rotation will produce a junk a image. "Double exposure" is common in outdoor plus flash. The combination produces poor quality images. You must determine the image you want to print before you take the picture. With digital it is better to be too close than too far away. Using film and a good film scanner($2500) would seem to produce the best of both worlds. Working from prints and a scanner requires that you have a print as large as you want to produce. If I were doing commercial work today I would shoot both media and be able to chose the elements I wanted from each source. So, to be complete in my knowledge and explore the limits of image processing I am working with a "fu%#ing" digital camera as you refer to my tools (toys).

What I see are some fabulous background scenes. Super impose anything from a classic female form to a holloween mask.