>I think it has to do with the claimed intent of the mag; that is,
>"Figure Studies for Artists". You were studying the pics as an artist,
>not to ogle the model. Who the model was was irrelevant.
If just studying the pics from an artistic POV, then even the
cameraman's name would be unnecessary but it gets prominent show. So, it
appears there's a bit more than just composition being given the reader.
I think the reader, assuming he/she really was a developing photographer
(pun intended!), would have been better served given the model names.
Their names would be relavant to their engaging the same models for
their own shoots. Perhaps the models didn't pay to get their names
mentioned (no free advertising)?
>No smut here - just educational material - no need to bring in the law.
>Ri-i-i-i-ght!
Heheheh! Yeah! I'm looking too hard at the surface layer of the reality.
--rwl
|
|
')){kind=link}