|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » "Cool" Sites! |
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 05-30-08 10:21am - 6050 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
"Cool" Sites! I think I discovered why I am disappointed with so many sites that get such high marks (e.g. Galleria) by the majority of subscribers and reviewers. I am a participant in another forum where the subject of "warm" vs. "cool" color tones is being discussed and I find, to my very real surprise, that most of the participants prefer "warm and soft" toned to "cool and crisp." So, here's the reason for this new thread: In order to save myself further disappointment (and money) does anyone know of any sites where the photographers prefer "cool" colors in pictures and videos? And what is your preference? | |
|
||
| 05-30-08 11:38am - 6050 days | #2 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Soft and crisp don't need to be tied to color tone. It is just a matter of aperture size when photographing the scene. If you open the aperture wide, you'll get a very narrow focus field, blurring out backgrounds and so on - close it down and everything will be in focus. It is an aesthetic choice. I prefer wide apertures for portraits and outdoors photography and medium to small apertures for everything else - leaning more towards crispness at most times. Warm colors versus cool colors is any easy choice - humans are largely red based, so a cool color tones (blues) generally don't work well making the images just look washed out and unhealthy. It can work well if you are doing the goth look and want your subject to look like a vampire, especially if your subject already has naturally pale skin. Now granted sites often go a bit overboard on the warm colors - and everything looks like a shade of yellow or red - but generally, a slightly warm color set is much more flattering to humans. So finding photographers that intentionally aim for cool color tones in standard nude photography sytle like ATK Galleria is going to be pretty hard. I know Sean R. at ATK Natural & Hairy used to do that and also aimed for extraordinarily crisp looking photos - but it laid such a harshness on the photos that they looked less like porn and more like crime scene photography. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 05-30-08 01:57pm - 6050 days | #3 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I agree with you in connection with SeanR, Toadsith. I took him to task in a comment and review for using too much make-up on his models, making them look more like painted dolls than human beings. His photos were too harsh as well, as you stated. But I find that, lately, I've been downloading a lot of his material because he's eased up on the make-up as well as on the harshness. But to return to the subject, it's awfully hard to express through words what exactly one is looking for. I simply want pale to look pale and not orange/brownish colored as is so often the case. Surely not everyone is sporting a tan. I think Abby Winters was one site (so is Girls Out West) where I was quite comfortable when it came to crispness and flesh tone of the pictures. But demanding consumer that I am I got quickly tired of socks and cotton panties and denim at AW and would like to see the same kind of flesh tones and crispness in a more adult site where nylon and silk still reign! All I need to do now is find one! (Goths need not apply) :-) Edited on May 30, 2008, 02:01pm | |
|
||
| 05-30-08 02:23pm - 6050 days | #4 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User  Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
Suggest Met-Art for virtually all types of photographic styles. I have no particular preference on the temperature so long as the image is sharp and the photography is professional. | |
|
||
| 05-30-08 05:53pm - 6050 days | #5 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks for the suggestion, Monahan. Sharpness is very important to me as well. One big reason why I keep mentioning temperature is because all too often too much color saturation and "softness" (lack of detail)seem to go hand in hand. | |
|
||
| 06-02-08 12:50am - 6047 days | #6 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Indeed I have noticed that Sean R.'s more recent stuff previewed on ATK has appeared much more palatable with the harshness toned down and the lighting becoming warmer. I admit, over saturation is wildly prevalent in porn photography - Photoshop is definitely to blame for making adjustment of saturation so easy. But I'm a bit surprised that you mentioned liking Abby Winters - as while that site has very good color, they tend to do a lot of outdoors photography or near natural light photography (say only on umbrella on low power to avoid extreme shadows) and so often have quite warm color tones in their photos. Not unreasonably so, but certainly if I had to place them on a chart, it would be with the normal reds and such - I can think of a few exceptions, but I'm not entirely sure those were intentional. They are good about trying to keep things well in focus though. Even if they like to play around with the depth of field. I think Sean R., on the other hand, used to just drag in a few hundred stadium lights and then shoot through a hole the size of a common bacteria. I swear I could pick out the model number on the electrical wiring that happened to be in the background on some sets. Anyway, it sounds like you might not be looking for cool tones per say, but just good photography. That is much less prevalent than people will lead you to believe. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 06-02-08 08:16am - 6047 days | #7 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
You might very well be right, Toadsith. I'm no expert on photography. When I'm talking "warm and soft" I am referring to all those models that seem to have been dusted with a brownish powder and then blurred slightly with Photoshop in order to hide imperfections! :-) So, maybe I should stop using the term "cool" and replace it with "natural and crisp." | |
|
||
| 06-02-08 01:03pm - 6047 days | #8 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
The point is that you have been effective in defining your preferences, whatever terminology you use and they pretty nuch match mine. What drives me nutz with photos is when the photographer is focusing on the labia and the model is in a partial supine position and he pays no attention to depth of field. The result is a sharp pic of the target but an out of focus set of tits and even more out of focus face. This kind of thing is correctible in most cases but when a photoset has a bunch of pics with that characteristic, either the photog is lazy, or the photog is trying to be artsy fartsy. The technique occasionally is used as well for older women with age lines or young girls with complexion issues, but that's where a little PhotoShop work could preserve sharpess. Earlier I suggested Met-Art for any and all kinds of photography because the sheer volume of stuff is so big, if you find a saturation level or fuzzy focus issue with one model, you have a lot of alternatives. | |
|
||
| 06-02-08 02:47pm - 6047 days | #9 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I know what you mean about the out of focus problem. You feel like shouting at the photographer: pull back a few feet, take your picture, then crop and enlarge and you'll have everything in focus, not only the labia. I would bet on "artsy" among the reasons mentioned by you. And I must pay Met-Art a visit. I thanked you for the reference, was going to go there to have a look at their preview and then something else caught my eye and I forgot. This time I'll do it right after I post this reply! And thanks for the second time! | |
|
||
| 06-02-08 04:23pm - 6047 days | #10 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
MET Art will definitely set you up with a plethora of models and photographers to choose from - and you will find some exceptional examples of both. But do note that sexually explicit photography is pretty minimal - the models aren't usually all that shy, but they are generally just posing and not fiddling around with the naughty bits. Also, many of the models are close to exclusive with the photographers they are with - rarely do you see a model shot by lots of different people. Due note that it has been a while since I've been a member, but MET has some pretty strong principles, so I doubt too much has changed. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 06-02-08 07:15pm - 6047 days | #11 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I am glad you answered, Toadsith, because I had a question about the site and was going to put it under comments next to the reviews. This way is better: Are we basically talking about nude photography or are there niches like lingerie, upskirt etc. to be found on the site? I couldn't get that info from the preview. "Sexually explicit" is not a must but the niches I mentioned are important to me because I get easily bored with plain nudes no matter how attractive the model may be. I appreciate beauty but don't want to look at nothing but naked for a month. Blame encroaching old age for that. One does become slightly jaded after a time! :-) And Monahan, the models are extremely good looking and the quality appears to be outstanding so I don't blame you for recommending the site. | |
|
||
| 06-03-08 12:20am - 6046 days | #12 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Again I must stress that it has been a while since I was a member (read that as a few years) but at that time, and from the reviews I've read of recent - I believe it to still be sorted by photographer and by model but with no particular interest in fulfilling any niche per say. You may want to go ahead with that comment though, as I'm certain there are current members among the Porn Users community that can give you a direct answer. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 06-03-08 10:52am - 6046 days | #13 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
To give you some idea of what's on Met-Art, drill down into their free website to page 4 or 5 and go to the bottom - "subscribe to our newsletter" - and you'll get a good idea of their stuff. (Be patient. The javascript for the subscription template is rather draggy.) To summarize the content, 1. It's all young women. Only. On the Met-Art Planet, there are no men. 2. The shoots range from partial nudity (some but not that many) to legs wide open gynecological examination shots. 3. The only self touching, curiously, is a very casual hand drop that might brush a breast or the labia. Definitely no insertions of anything; not even labia lip spreads. 4. There are several lesbo sets where the sexual contact is far more suggestive around the breasts (licking, kissing, etc.) as well as 1980's Playboy style "close call" shots around the labia. In shorter terms, I recommend that you try the free newsletter samplers first because I suspect you'll be disappointed when you see that Met Art is, indeed, nothing but naked BTW, if you are into video stuff, Met Art has video but don't join for that. The resolution isn't great and manyu times the video is just of a photo shoot and nothing else. | |
|
||
| 06-04-08 04:09pm - 6045 days | #14 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Way ahead of you, Monahan. Just got my first newsletter this morning. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't include a couple of high resolution pictures. In vain hope I clicked on the first couple or so but only got the sign up form instead. :-) The models are indeed as gorgeous as the preview led me to believe! | |
|
||
| 06-13-09 03:13pm - 5671 days | #16 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I'm not sure that I know what you're talking about - Met Art is great because they have so many updates on such a consistent basis, that if you like the basic framework of what you see in the preview of the site, you should find what you're craving. Femjoy is another site along the same vein except more restricted in that they don't have the glamour aspect that Met Art goes to at times - Femjoy specializes in very un-adorned women with very little make-up in natural settings and just photographs them very sharply. It's a pleasure to see such a lack of photo-shopping, in my opinion. They have much better vids at Femjoy than at Met Art, in my opinion. The vids at Femjoy keep me wanting to watch them, simple as they are, while the vast majority of vids bore me to tears, even though they're short. MPL Studios is another interesting site along similar veins, one that I've never had a membership to, so I've never had a chance to explore it in any depth. It's one of those sites where I'm checking in periodically to see if they have some great special on their join price, but they never do. | |
|
||
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
