At Busso: Sexy YSL Tributes on the Beach at Meelup

People who know me know that I am not, and never have been, a beach-going kind of person. Maybe it harks back to being from the bush. I don't know. Maybe it's because my mum and dad weren't the beach going type. But, for whatever reason, unlike the vast majority of Australians I don't head for the beach every chance I get. In fact, even though I live in Perth, it would be at least ten years since I even saw the ocean close up,

But today the wife and I found ourselves taking an unintended drive along the stretch of beach up Dunsborough way between Bunker Bay and Meelup Beach. Firstly I need to make a general apology in relation to Dunsborough. I have often made the statement that I don't know why people like Dunsborough so much because, although they may have a great golf course there, they sure don't have any beaches worth going to.

Well, as it turns out they do. In between the various rocky outcrops along the stretch between Bunker Bay and Meelup Beach there are some very nice stretches of white beach with shallow water.

Following is a picture I took of my blue YSL Tribute heels at Meelup Beach.

So, as I had my current favourite photographic subject with me, I decided to take a few pictures of the YSL Tributes on the beach.

Normally if you were photographing something in full sunlight on a beach you would have a polarising filter on your lens and also, most likely, a reflector handy to calm down the harsh shadows that are going to occur. This picture was taken without a polarising filter and without any kind of shadow fill light being used—hence the somewhat harsh shadows being cast to the right by the shoes.

On the upside, partially due to the low angle of the shot, the water looks amazing. The low shooting angle has enhanced the blueness of the water—which is an old photographer's trick when shooting the ocean.

Also I have taken advantage of some natural dispersed shadow coming from the trees near the edge of the beach. I have placed the shoes so they are slightly in the shadow. This has two benefits. I don't get harsh glare coming off the shiny shoes that I have to deal with (which I don't have a polarising filter to calm down), and the shadows being cast by the shoes are softened just a bit so they are not a solid black shadow but more of a dark grey shadow.

I have to say that the matrix light metering on the Sony a6000 worked perfectly. The exposure is really spot on. And, as usual, the Ziess f4 17-70 lens has captured the shot with stunning clarity.

As usual, click the picture to see it bigger and at higher resolution (assuming you have the screen to do this with).

Also, I have put this on 500 pixels. If you have a 500 pixels account then please vote for it. You can find my pictures on 500 pixels by searching for "abalook".

How I (don't) vote for many of the pictures posted to 500 pixels

Over the last four or five months since I started contributing the occasional picture to 500 pixels I have become a regular voter and commenter (I don't think that is actually a word) on 500 pixels. But I do have some rules:

  1. I don't vote for 'postcard style' pictures.
  2. I don't vote for sunset/sunrise pictures, unless they have something else in them as the primary object (following the PST rule).
  3. I don't vote for close-up pictures of flowers, which seems to be about 10 percent of the pictures submitted.
  4. I don't vote for close-up picture of bugs, which accounts for another 10 percent of the pictures posted.
  5. I rarely vote for pictures of naked or semi-naked ladies unless there is something scroll-stoppingly (another non-word) good about the shot—which is generally not the case.
  6. I don't vote for pictures that are not full screen when viewed. If the person posting the picture cannot be bothered with making the picture full-screen when they post it then I really don't see why I should vote for it.
  7. I rarely, almost never, vote for pictures where the photographer could not be bothered giving the picture a name. Seriously, if you are going to post your pictures(s) to a site like 500 pixels and not bother to give them a name then I figure you don't deserve a vote. It especially annoys me when people upload pictures to 500 pixels and they still have the sequence number assigned by the camera on them (e.g., DSC_004412).
  8. I don't vote for pictures that are blurred or out-of-focus where this is obviously not an artistic attribute of the picture. Again, if you are posting pictures to a site like 500 pixels then the subject should be in focus.
  9. I tend not to vote for pictures where the photographer has not revealed the camera used to take the picture.
  10. I tend not to vote for pictures taken with a smartphone camera. But it depends on the subject, whether the picture is in focus, colour balance, and if it has been cropped well for posting to a site like 500 pixels—which is almost never the case with smartphone pictures.

Just my thoughts.

Me and 500px

As you would have gathered from my recent posts, I have created an account on 500 pixels and I am posting to 500 pixels on a semi-regular basis. You can check the "500px Pages" item on the main menu above in order to go and see some of the pictures I have posted to 500 pixels although I have not got those pages fully up to date yet.

If you would like to help my pictures get some extra votes then you might like to create a 500 pixels account for yourself. Then you can vote on my posting (insert 'big grin' here). I will be endeavoring to post them here as soon as I post them to 500 pixels—so you would know when to go to 500px and vote.

Creating a 500 pixels account seems to be more or less harmless in that you don't get spammed by 500 pixels. Also you might like to vote on pictures by other people who  post images to 500 pixels. An example of this might be the picture in the posting before this one.


Stunning picture from 500px—taken by Mark Prinz

Had to post this. This picture is what I refer as a 'scroll stopper'.

This stunning picture is from 500px. The photographer is Mark Prinz. When I did this post there were 157 votes for this picture on 500px.

It is hard to find anything at all wrong with this picture. The model is stunning—which is always a good start. The make-up is faultless, and not too heavy such that it doesn't allow her sexy freckles to show through. Very well done. Big thumbs-up on the make-up.

The facial expression is spot on. 100% spot on. As is the lighting.

The photo-finishing is also just right. Not too much softening so the freckles are still well defined and you can still see skin texture.

Just the right amount of depth-of-field for a full-face shot with the neck just falling out of focus.

And then the eyes. This stunner's eyes are amazing. No doubt in the photo-finishing a little extra sharpening was done on the eyes—as is almost always the case. Even so, this girl's eye are hypnotic. When I look at this picture I cannot help but look into those eyes.

It is well worth checking out Mark's other work at 500px, which you can do here (opens in a new Tab).

500px Post: The Flying Red Horse

This is the Plume Oil trademark Pegasus Flying Red Horse which was adopted by Mobil Oil as Plume became Mobil in the late 50s.

People my age will likely remember seeing this striking trademark image everywhere 'back in the day' on petrol stations, stores, tanks, drums, oil tanker trucks, bowser pumps, and the sides of buildings.

Click the image to link over to the posting about it when I posted it onto 500 pixels.