Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 29/03/24 10:11:49 GMT |
Message # 28288.3.1 Subject: Re: Thinking of building a pool Date: Sun 01/04/07 04:27:05 GMT Name: Russ |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
You can if you aren't into heels :). Tennis shoes are perfectly safe in an above ground pool! |
In reply to Message (28288.3) Re: Thinking of building a pool
By David - spawn75@bellsouth.net Sun 01/04/07 01:04:38 GMT Also, one of the bad things about having an above ground pool is you can't really wear shoes in it. Kinda odd what happens when spike heels hit a rubber liner.... |
In reply to Message (28288) Thinking of building a pool
By Wetfan - wetfan@earthlink.net Sat 31/03/07 18:31:18 GMT As WK indicated in an earlier posting, an in-ground pool does require some work, but not nearly the amount you might think. We had an inground pool installed when we lived in Western Maryland ($25,000) and except for cleaning it out ofter the winter, it was quite easy to maintain throughout the summer. I did a LOT of wetlook photography in that pool and seldom had any problems with fibers, lint, etc. in the filter. After an extended shooting session (e.g., three different changes of outfits) I simple 'shocked it' with chlorine that evening and it was perfectly clear and sparkling the next day.
We had above ground pool for several years prior to 'biting the bullet' and putting in a nice kidney-shaped inground pool. The above-ground ones required a LOT of care and the water was seldom as clear as in the inground pool. It was also more difficult to properly photography the girls getting into and out of the pool, not to mention being pretty much unable to do ANY underwater shots. The girls LOVED the inground one! The bottom line is that if you're going to do wetlook pix regularly, an inground pool is definitely the way to go.
(The original) Wetfan
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.055 seconds to generate ]