Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 292928750; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:34:38 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.223 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2002122219344023431 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:34:40 GMT
Received: from pii400 ([66.222.165.205]) by priv-edtnes28.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id 
          for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:34:33 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Old softy
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:31:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

Wayne Young the Wise of , thus proclaimed unto
all the People:

>> From: karen.wattie{at}fanciful.org

>> I am frequently told, on PhotoSig, that my pictures are rather
"soft".
>
> Looking at some "old" movies, Grace Kelly came across as
"soft" with her
> gentility and charm, while Sofia Lauren came across as
"hard". Yet both
> have their admirers. I somehow prefer Grace over Sofia.
> The beauty of a photo or of a woman is in the eyes of the beholder. Who
> can really draw the line?

In fact a lot of movies are routinely shot through various levels of soft
filters. Without them, the normal pores on the skin become a foot wide on
the big screen. Not a pretty sight.

larry!
ICQ 76620504
http://www.larry-bolch.com/


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5