Amazing pics. I love the lighting, the colors, and the way she stands out from the background. A number of you keep referencing the 200 f2....I'm curious - would these same shots been much different with the 135 f2?
When I see a photo with an ugly watermark right in the middle of the image, I don't bother to even look at the photo, I just click the "return" browser button. If I am the only one doing that, you have nothing to worry about.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
RE the 'ugly watermark' if you've had your images stolen as many times as I have, you might possibly be using a larger even uglier one. Just sayin'.
It's a matter of cost vs. benefit: such ugly and conspicuous watermark detracts so much from the image, that I just have to wonder how many of the images were "stolen", whether the fact of "stealing" did you any real harm, and how many of those that are bent on stealing images lack the skill to retouch out the watermark...
Just sayin'. (And I wouldn't be saying if the images were not worth looking at
As I "hang out" here more often learning about lighting and composition, I love seeing posts like this. These are simply amazing. I can't pick a favorite, as each one shines in its own way. Incredible work.
Thank you all. @rayross - not as bad as it appears - 4 or 5 feet? I don't remember exactly, but I never ask my clients to pose somewhere that makes them uncomfortable or isn't safe.
