Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 351540109; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:06:47 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.61 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003013012073640661 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:07:36 GMT
Received: (qmail 22164 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2003 17:06:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.74.100)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 17:06:25 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:09:01 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re:Re:RE: An inspiration!
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 05:26 PM 1/29/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Ed Buffaloe's web site is very good.
>
>I thought so too.
>
>  ... but his nudes always remind me of the first efforts by a
>shy male photographer. Lots of tentativeness as he gradually works up the
>courage to get it all, so to speak.
>
>I don't see that as anything like "bad".  I hope always to retain that 
>"shyness". To me, that is an indication of the fact that I am
reacting to 
>the sitution as a human being - and that reaction is certainly the polar 
>opposite of treating the model/s as "pieces of meat".

The shots aren't "bad," just not shot with the confidence or
skill Buffaloe 
has when shooting his landscapes. His nudes are that of a shy beginner. 
Nothing wrong with that in itself, but thank goodness his model had a sense 
of humor.

>  One of the worse examples on his web
>site is the wide angle shot of his model from below looking up. Not too
>flattering of her thighs.
>
>There are .. how many ... images on his site?  I, for one, would not 
>expect every one to satsify MY ... or for that matter, anyone else's 
>"standards" of "photographic merit."

Goes back to the inexperienced statement. My impression of the series in 
the order he has placed the shots, is that of a guy on his first nude shoot 
trying to work himself up to shooting the model's -- hmmm, how can I say 
this in a 'G' rated forum? Oh, I guess I just did!  Once there, he tends to 
stick around for awhile, making this is the focal point of those images. 
Big deal for sure, but like I said, one shot is not too flattering of the 
woman's thighs. Nothing like a wide angle lens and a set of thighs. I could 
hear the claps of thunder from here.

Considering the woman's personality, I wondered what she thought of the 
series, did she get to see the shots before they were posted, and most of 
all, considering Buffaloe's considerable skill in other photographic areas, 
I wondered why he didn't edit out the shots that did his model no favors. 
She seems like a pretty fun person. I hope she wasn't disappointed.

Then again, maybe the woman is his wife and it's a big So-What!

 >If only ONE viewer of my work says that ... Check that ... If *I* can say 
that about my own work, I'll be more than happy.  >Bringing out "the 
model's personality and sense of humor" ... what else even comes close?

I think it was Berenice (sp) Abbot who was firm in her belief that nude 
studies should not in any circumstance show any of the personality of the 
model. It was her view to show the model as a real person was to make the 
image sexual in nature and  wrong. Boy, she's like Cleopatra, Queen of 
de-Nile! The nude human body is by it's very nature a sexual thing. 
Something to do with basic reproductive processes, culture,  or something 
like that.
>
>

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com

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