Thanks everyone!
This was cropped from a 645 negative (maybe 40% of image area), shot with a 200mm lens on HP5+ (EI 320), and lit by a set of windows about 6 feet by 15 feet (indirect sun, cloudy day) located about 7 feet from the subject. [Gotta get me a square format camera one of these days.]
The print was made with a low contrast filter, then the eyes, lips and hair were burned in slightly with a high contrast filter.
Photoshop was used to get rid of dust and to make the scan look more like the print.
Though it's fun to do studio stuff on occasion, my seedy side is in no danger of disappearing. It just get put on hold sometimes.
The marketing of ideals of beauty is a really tricky topic that I haven't really sorted out yet. Ironically, the fashion-model type that Christel mentions (tall, thin, distinctive) is primarily marketed toward women; the women who are primarily marketed toward men are generally shorter, more curvy, and prettier (rather than more striking). I'm not sure who's making the decisions. . .
My own taste regarding female appearance is fairly eclectic ("know it when I see it"). But I will say that 5'8" curly-haired ballet dancers who look like Mona Lisa are about as appealing as it gets. . . : )
