A Sleeping Beauty

I think Jorge beat me to answering this one, but I'll just add that the point of this site isn't for the mass public so it doesn't matter what they like. It's for photographers. It doesn't matter if those photographers are pro's, semi-pro's, enthusiasts or hobby shooters but the thing that ties us together is we are analog.

There's plenty of other sites that cater for all sorts or photography and techniques, but here the spirit of analog is what makes this site different! Well that and we try to help rather than snipe each other (most of the time).

I think you are all being a little harsh on the poor guy. He's only been a member of APUG a couple of days and this is his first post, in the Standard gallery not the Critique gallery. No, I don't like, and have no interest in the use of PS either, but as he is new to the site I think it would be better to give him a chance to show his non-PS work, rather than intimidate them into never returning!

Al... if you are still about, may we see this without the PS manipulation?

Andy errrrm if you look at the second post on this thread

I don't care about Photoshop, but: why must there be so many takes on the same textural theme? Flawless smooth nude against grass/trees/rocks/ruins... some high-frequency grainy busy BG. Forever the same thing. I mean, sure, hot chicks, I can understand that. But I sure wish they could be better contextualized. ymmv

The effect of gaussian blur is not the same as other diffusion effects. It's its own specific look, and it's always dreadful in my opinion. Part of the reason it always looks fake is that it blurs the grain, so you have sharp grain in part of the image and soft grain in another part of the image.

Diffusion under the enlarger lens with something like a sheet of glass with Vaseline around the edges and clean in the middle does something similar to the grain (as well as spraying the shadows into the highlights), and it also looks fake, but at least it would be in the spirit of APUG.

Even though I have a few soft focus lenses for large format, I'm not a big fan of soft focus. The attraction of a real soft focus lens (some of them at least) is that they can be both sharp and diffuse at the same time, as if the soft image were layered over a sharp image, with the plane of focus really sharp. Used subtly this can be effective. Most diffusion screens and filters, by contrast, are indiscriminate--they soften everything equally.

Unfortunately there aren't many real soft focus lenses for 35mm photography (but if you're inclined, it is possible to adapt large format lenses for 35mm), but there are a couple of effects that are natural without being too cheesy. If you can afford one, a Zeiss Softar 1 most resembles a real soft focus lens to my eye. Not quite as costly, but still pretty good is the Harrison Black Dot filter.

I thought we weren't supposed to critique in the standard gallery? So far we've all passed judgement on the use of the digital effect but I'm also seeing criticism of the theme and blur itself. Just because a 'rule' has been (innocently?) broken doesn't mean it's open season.

Since the whole PS thing has been talked about already I have my own question to ask-If I'm in Ukraine can I expect to find a sleeping beauty like her in my travels-you know just lying there or is the image all just a big set-uo

To jim kirk jr.: Yes, you can expect. And not only in Ukraine.
To all: I will repost the picture without PS.

Nobody even saw the picture, did they? :/

Next time, tell them you shot it with an Imagon lens... they'll buy into it 100%