at home arkansas

**SHATOUSHKA** · May 15th, 2006, 02:57 PM

i figure i'd take the time to go ahead and
mention that my friend scott managed to get
a shot at designing some shit for the local
magazine AT HOME ARKANSAS...

let me go ahead and inform everyone that it
is very tough to get selected to design for
this magazine -- as the positions are usually
held for those that take out advertising, etc.

i only know this as a fact because one of
the previous florists i worked for got to
design for AHA every friggin month...

anyway, as i understand it, a usual
patron wasn't able to make the new issue
deadline and therefore, scott was asked
to submit some designs to cover for them.

naturally i'm quite jealous.... no, i'm
highly jealous...

but scott will never see this post and
therefore, it doesn't matter.

i just wanted to make a mention of this to
those of you who know him (or know of him)
because its a pretty big deal.

the AHA site doesn't show their wedding
issue... so fortunately i was able to
snag a copy and scan the images for you
all to see.

when i first saw his designs... i was quite
impressed... for two reasons.

1) these designs are not reflective of
scott's true work -- meaning, i was pleasantly
surprised to see such a nice quality design.
(yeah... thats harsh to say, but i CAN say
that with all due respect)

2) seeing these images really does show
exactly how talented some photographers
can be... especially when i see the lighting
effects and the impact it makes on the color.

meh... anyway... here's the links to the pics.
they are big... but tough cookies. click on them
to see the full image, if you wish.

**SHATOUSHKA** · May 15th, 2006, 02:59 PM

p.s.... i hate the fucking pearls in the roses

**demon chloe** · May 15th, 2006, 10:22 PM

groovy

and blah to the beads/pearls

**Blazey** · May 16th, 2006, 05:33 PM

I'm actually impressed! I didnt think Scott had it in him to be honest. But I do think you would have came up with something much more artistic.

**Blazey** · May 16th, 2006, 05:34 PM

Oh yes and the pearls stuck inside the roses yuck..thats not attractive at all..but I did like the other ones in with the flowers. it gave it a bit more sparkle!

I had tiny irridescent butterflies in mine and it was very pretty!

<font color="#5b5b5b" size="1">[ May 16, 2006 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Chele ]</font>

**SHATOUSHKA** · May 16th, 2006, 11:00 PM

[img]redface.gif[/img] that really means a great deal to me (as you know)
i appreciate that immensely, girl

one day i will have some of my own images [img]tongue.gif[/img]

i also agree about adding a bit of glitz to a
bouquet will really set it off. but something
about the pearls in those roses really rub me
the wrong way.

i suppose another thing i should point out...

that first bouquet is a good example of scott's
*selling ideas*... meaning, scott likes to
really give a big punch with his product in the
hopes that it will make a good turn-out with
brides.

while i think this is a nice idea in advertising,
he doesn't seem to follow through with it.

the first bouquet SHOULD cost around $500 - $600 retail...
especially considering the high end flowers he
used.

and considering this bouquet was a freebie...
props to him for that.

however, on the flip side, there is no question
in my mind that if a bride walked into his shop
and asked for that bouquet -- he'd prolly charge
around $150 for it... tsk tsk

i REALLY love the second image bouquet. its just
so friggin wild and natural... and the colors
really pop. i'm almost tempted to let everyone
know that half that bouquet is artificial.

ooops! did i say that??? [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]

but again, a good advertising trick... especially
when decent artificials can look just like the
real stuff....