Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Cheryl With Rose Petals  (Read 1299 times)

alangubbay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Cheryl With Rose Petals
« on: May 17, 2011, 12:00:54 PM »

Any merit in this?
Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2011, 01:00:55 PM »

Alan

If you want an honest opinion -

This is technically very well done, but a piece of appalling kitsch which harks back to the 1960s (perhaps intentionally?).

Not my cup of tea.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7492
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2011, 02:02:56 PM »

+1

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2011, 02:07:32 PM »

I like it for what it is. I don't find it appalling. But her blotchy, purple feet kind of stand out on an otherwise pristine nude. I would have changed her pose so that the soles of her feet were turned away from the camera. Or I would have covered them up.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 02:11:03 PM by popnfresh »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7492
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2011, 03:43:52 PM »

Oooooh... Yes. Those soles are gross!!! Come on, Pop, John's right. This is kitch at its worst. Technically well done, but so what?

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2011, 04:37:45 PM »

Oooooh... Yes. Those soles are gross!!! Come on, Pop, John's right. This is kitch at its worst. Technically well done, but so what?
No no no, this time you are flat out wrong.

This, my friend, is kitsch at its worst.


Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4868
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2011, 05:04:18 PM »

I like it for what it is. I don't find it appalling. But her blotchy, purple feet kind of stand out on an otherwise pristine nude. I would have changed her pose so that the soles of her feet were turned away from the camera. Or I would have covered them up.
That was the first thing that struck me as well. Pretty, skinny girl. Ugly feet.

Jeremy
Logged

alangubbay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: Cheryl With Rose Petals
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2011, 02:39:22 PM »

Thanks a lot guys.  The soles of her feet were originally quite black, having been walking around on the floor.  I lightened them but clearly did not pay enough attention to the colour.  I will now have to attend to this as it has caused such a strong reaction.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up