The mysteries of fashion

[KimC]

Hi Steaphany, I don't believe my post implied that...of course it does not.

In regard to Kim and Robert, does having a tattoo come with a clothing requirement mandating clothing choices must prominently and clearly shows off the tattoo, all the time ?

[Shadowman]

Hi Steaphany, I don't believe my post implied that...of course it does not.

This particular ruling (U.S only) suggests there is clothing requirement, at least in a privately owned company. I know I've seen many news reports where employees chose to hide their body adornments in a job interview and hoped once they proved their worth to the company dress policies would be relaxed. In a public setting, the requirement wouldn't apply.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/laws-...ace-15395.html

[RBSinTo]

I've followed this thread with interest.

Two points to be made:-

1) I agree with Brian, the focal point of the image is confusing. The Body Art (tattoos') is at odds with the eccentric dress choice and leaves the viewer unsure what to focus on. If the intent was to capture the young woman as an example of the eclectic fashions one can encounter these days, then a longer shot, showing more of the young woman in a larger street scene would have been more successful. I do understand though that the circumstances of the capture did not give much time for capture.

2) Over the years I have often answered' my wife and friends with RBSinTo's Law, (although I thought it was JGE's Law ).
I'm pleased to find another 'like-minded' person/philosopher who see's the world much the way I do.

James,
This comment leaves me at a loss.
I was carrying two bodies, one with the 135 and the other with a 24 F2. I made a quick decision to get reasonably close to eliminate the surrounding clutter as well as her clothing below her waist (which wasn't particularly interesting), and just focus on her back, and so grabbed the camera with the 135, and chased her until she was tight in the viewfinder.
If there is a point to be made by the shot, it is exactly that there is a contrast between the very well done tattoos and the woman's choice of "eccentric" clothing.
So I don't understand your difficulty deciding what to look at. It is all intertwined and for me, that tells the story I wanted to tell.
Robert

[JBW]

James,
This comment leaves me at a loss.
I was carrying two bodies, one with the 135 and the other with a 24 F2. I made a quick decision to get reasonably close to eliminate the surrounding clutter as well as her clothing below her waist (which wasn't particularly interesting), and just focus on her back, and so grabbed the camera with the 135, and chased her until she was tight in the viewfinder.
If there is a point to be made by the shot, it is exactly that there is a contrast between the very well done tattoos and the woman's choice of "eccentric" clothing.
So I don't understand your difficulty deciding what to look at. It is all intertwined and for me, that tells the story I wanted to tell.
Robert

Hi Robert, one of the first lessons I learned about preaching was that what I said was rarely what the congregation heard. Seems to me that it works the same way in photography. The story I see in the shot is often not the story someone else sees.

[Mike Buckley]

The story I see in the shot is often not the story someone else sees.

For me, that is one of the most appealing characteristics of photography. I'm not the least put off that someone sees something in a photo that I don't see or that someone doesn't see something that I see. Just the opposite, I find those situations at the very least fascinating and at times enlightening.

[James G]

This comment leaves me at a loss.

Sorry Robert, It's just me...I've just looked at it again in the lightbox on my desktop, (rather than my laptop as before). And the 'first' thing I'm seeing is the stronger contrast between the clothing and her dark hair. I'm afraid the tattoos lose out. I suppose it's a good example of how each of us can see the same image differently.

[RBSinTo]

Sorry Robert, It's just me...I've just looked at it again in the lightbox on my desktop, (rather than my laptop as before). And the 'first' thing I'm seeing is the stronger contrast between the clothing and her dark hair. I'm afraid the tattoos lose out. I suppose it's a good example of how each of us can see the same image differently.

James,
I suppose it is.
Robert

[zen]

No Donald, no need to retreat. There ARE others who are in full agreement with you, including me. I just can't understand why a lovely young [or older] lady ruins her appearance with tattoos.

Furthermore, when [if?] they ever go out of style, and have to be removed, for the person to stay IN style, the cost and physical result will be enormous.

Not for me!

Zen

[Rider in the Sky]

................... I just can't understand why a lovely young [or older] lady ruins her appearance with tattoos.

Not for me!

Zen

Zen,

I fully agree with you, in your part of the world, you may find tattoos ugly.

However, expanding our horizon, there are other places in this world where tattoos are considered beautiful.

Cheers

( btw, Zen, are you a Buddhist? Thanks )