Voyeuristic?
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:14 pmThe wife hasn't seen this one yet, but I can imagine what she'll say when she does...
When the wife sees it then: "NO MORE CAMERA"
all photography gears will be confiscated and locked up 
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
https://d70users.net/
Voyeuristic?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:14 pmPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:16 pmJohn,
When the wife sees it then: "NO MORE CAMERA" all photography gears will be confiscated and locked up
When the wife sees it then: "NO MORE CAMERA"
all photography gears will be confiscated and locked up Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:19 pmIt is a nice photo of an attractive woman. But, that doesn't rise to the definition of "voyeuristic" as I understand it. But, that definition seems to be a slider and your wife may have a valid point, since she knows you better than I.....
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:21 pmJohn,
When your trouble and strife see's this, all will be lost .
When your trouble and strife see's this, all will be lost
.Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:09 pmJohn - now you know why I am not married 
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:10 pmWhy would you show your wife in the first place 
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:21 pmPiroStitch wrote:Why would you show your wife in the first place
Coz she will find out anyway... She always does... It's just easier to disclose everything
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:34 pmIt's called a hidden folder with password protection 
Even better, a remote backup
Not that I'm condoning that sort of behaviour
Even better, a remote backup
Not that I'm condoning that sort of behaviour
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:06 pmAnd if it's not enough to hide this file, you can always get one of those 128mb encryption software for added security Personnally, I didn't find it too voyeuristic, the light is beautiful and there is no deliberate atempt to focus on this lady's "assets"!
Link.
Personnally, I didn't find it too voyeuristic, the light is beautiful and there is no deliberate atempt to focus on this lady's "assets"!
Link.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:06 pmI hope she wasn't at Maroubra!
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:08 pmDon't worry John, she has her clothes on so it doesn't count. (I bet your wife will see it differently though).
Delete the evidence i say, that way you don't have to lie to the wife, but make sure you have a copy on smugmug first though.
Delete the evidence i say, that way you don't have to lie to the wife, but make sure you have a copy on smugmug first though.
Voyeuristic Revisited...
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:59 pmKillakoala wrote:Delete the evidence i say, that way you don't have to lie to the wife, but make sure you have a copy on smugmug first though.
There's no chance of me deleting it after the amount of photoshopping I had to do in it... Besides, I don't feel guilty at all and I quite like the photo...
Here's the original photo complete with flower-bed, seagull on her shoulder and assorted plastic bags...
BEFORE
AFTERPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:01 pmI like the pic leek, what lens did you use for that?
How close were you?
Cheers,
Darryl.
How close were you?
Cheers,
Darryl.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:05 pmplukaduck wrote:I like the pic leek, what lens did you use for that?
How close were you?
Cheers,
Darryl.
I used the Sigma 70-300mm at about 200mm... 1/640 sec F5.3 on a monopod...
How far away was I? Far enough not to be noticed...
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:53 pmHi Leek,
where have you got a full sized image ?
I cannot ascertain if this little one is voyeuristic.
I cannot determine the potiential of this image being voyeuristic.
However, nice sight !!!
Yummy picture.
Cheers
CD
where have you got a full sized image ?
I cannot ascertain if this little one is voyeuristic.
I cannot determine the potiential of this image being voyeuristic.
However, nice sight !!!
Yummy picture.
Cheers
CD
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:54 pmchristiand wrote:where have you got a full sized image ?
I cannot ascertain if this little one is voyeuristic.
I cannot determine the potiential of this image being voyeuristic.
However, nice sight !!!
Yummy picture.
Sorry CD, but I couldn't possibly release the full-sized image for fear of action due to inappropriate publication
It's not about the photo that you take - It's the way that you use it - Leek
As promised, I have now shown the photo to Mrs. Leek and she didn't mind a bit... She actually had a worse reaction to another photo I took on the same day - Yet to come...
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:59 pmPLZ.........bring it on! Mrs Marcus will never know!
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:03 ammarcus wrote:PLZ.........bring it on! Mrs Marcus will never know!
Is that her??? Oops - sorry...
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:04 amI wish! 
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:34 pmAw... no-one's commented on my newly acquired photoshop skills 
I thought I'd done a pretty good job of cleaning up that image to the bare (no pun intended) essentials... Now that I look at it again, maybe I should have left the flower-bed in the photo... ???
I thought I'd done a pretty good job of cleaning up that image to the bare (no pun intended) essentials... Now that I look at it again, maybe I should have left the flower-bed in the photo... ???
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:38 pmPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:47 amNice PSing.
However, a small thing: Due to your cloning in the seagul area, lines are visible (where the same bit has been used to clone again). Try a bit of healing brush on this to smooth the area out, and get rid of the lines. This is rather minor though, and I wouldn't have picked it up if I hadn't done the same for a photo I was putting in for a 30x20in print.
However, a small thing: Due to your cloning in the seagul area, lines are visible (where the same bit has been used to clone again). Try a bit of healing brush on this to smooth the area out, and get rid of the lines. This is rather minor though, and I wouldn't have picked it up if I hadn't done the same for a photo I was putting in for a 30x20in print.