|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » It's In The Eyes... |
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 12-14-10 10:51pm - 5121 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
It's In The Eyes... There's that old cliche about eyes being the mirror to the soul. Sometimes you can have intense likes and dislikes without really hitting on the source of it entirely and I think I just had an ephipheny as to mine. Many here have seen my rants about photo-shopping. I especially hate blurred faces - it just completely ruins pics for me. Looking at a couple of pics that I found incredibly wonderful helped me nail it down. As justme commented, ATK Galleria has enhanced the size of their pics really nicely - and on a 23-inch screen to have hot models like Francizka, a huge fave of both ATK and ALS Scans, basically life-size and being able to gaze deep into her gorgeous eyes - what a fucking rush!! Yesterday, Twistys had one of their best photo-sets ever for my tastes - Danni Kalifornia - a model I'd never seen before - and they didn't fuck it up with excess photo treatment - and again, with the pics at the largest res available, it was a complete thrill to be able to take in her gorgeous-ness. So my plea to the over-exuberant photo-shoppers of the world continues - give it a fucking break! Leave us with skin tone to enjoy. Leave us with un-blurred faces to enjoy. Leave us with eyes to gaze into - or admit that you really want to be a painter and go fucking be one and quit fucking up photos that could be great. And for people who want to dependably gaze into gorgeous model's faces without all the unnecessary photo treatment, get yourself a nice big monitor and check out ATK's huge new pics - fucking thrilling! | |
|
||
| 12-14-10 11:37pm - 5121 days | #2 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I dislike excessive photoshopping too. I take it you don't spend much time with uploaded amateur shots then. The entire head is often entirely blurred out. Personally, I have never seen the point of that as it really does spoil the pic. If you don't want your face seen don't post it. At the very least just crop the head, then the photo won't be spoilt quite as much. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 02:37am - 5121 days | #3 | |
|
otoh (0)
Active User Posts: 159 Registered: Sep 17, '10 Location: UK |
I agree wholeheartedly about the eyes! Of course I like to see (quite a bit) more, but a girl's eyes are what does it for me and a hint of what's to come in them (oo-eer) can make me harder than anything else. Am a big fan of modern pinups - eg models like Angela Ryan and Mosh - they could teach many a porn starlet the value of a sultry and seductive look! | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 11:02am - 5121 days | #4 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Hear, hear! Photoshopping ruined my enjoyment of Twistys because everything was too soft and orangy for my taste and I haven't returned for that reason despite the fact that they have beautiful models. And I completely agree about the eyes! | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 11:07am - 5121 days | #5 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
I hate blurred faces, too. The "point," as was once expressed to me by a party involved, it seemed, at one of the "shoppier" sites, was "selective focus," or, as said party put it in a rather patronizing way, "Photography 101." 101. Yes, I'd say that's pretty damned plausible. But I don't see the point in blurry faces, or female skin shopped to look like it's Lucite or sea-floor-crustacean orange. And if it's a natural effect due to the setting sun, then go the fuck indoors. Getting to the eyes, they're the one thing that I look at consistently when I review photos I've downloaded. It amazes me how some women are able to convey a sexually inviting message so well with them, under hot studio lights. Franziska is definitely one of them! And so is Marina/Euphrat. They both been showing up recently at ATK Galleria. They are awesome! And this new upgrade to 3000 pixels is excellent! (OK, Khan, you can laugh now.) I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 11:10am - 5121 days | #6 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I don't go to pure amateur sites, for that reason, Cap'n. I used to but found very quickly that I don't enjoy a picture with the head blurred out, and that I absolutely despise the ones that substitute a swirl for the face. This totally ruins the picture! But at the same time I can understand why they are doing it since they are ordinary people submitting naughty pictures of themselves. | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 05:55pm - 5120 days | #7 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User  Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
I love those huge closeups of the eyes. Although when it's _so_ detailed you can see the photographer's reflection in her pupils  The large pics you have the dual capability of seeing the full-body shot and a closeup in one file | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 06:11pm - 5120 days | #8 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Yes, and it also does away with Drooler's "selective focus," unless the site thinks blurred faces are more artistic. I've seen so many sets where the eyes are blurred and the genitals in focus (and vice versa) that I am starting to believe that the photographers were indeed taught to do this in Photography 101. When it comes to your large, 3000 px pictures, they can be taken from a bit of a distance and everything is in focus. Just the way I like it.  | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 10:36pm - 5120 days | #9 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
I don't mind focused photos, if done right, they add a good sense of depth to the photo. As opposed to the sites where if you gaze at the photo she begins to look more and more like a cardboard cutout. There was a site, probably take me forever to remember which one, the guy used a camera that had an auto-focus, and all the wrong objects in the image would pick up on the focus - like a girl laying on a couch, and the couch arm was what was in perfect focus | |
|
||
| 12-15-10 11:43pm - 5120 days | #10 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
A photo set where I don't get to see the face is a photo set that I have no interest in - 99% of the time anyway. Does that make me a face-fucker? Perhaps. Once the face excites me, I'm ready to focus on other appealing bodily aspects, but a woman with no face, why would I care? | |
|
||
| 12-16-10 10:05am - 5120 days | #11 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
In principle, I agree with you. I would much rather have the full body shot including a crisp shot of the face. Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 01-19-11 08:27am - 5086 days | #12 | |
|
Shap (0)
Active Webmaster Posts: 12 Registered: Jan 10, '07 Location: Bahamas |
We definitely had a problem with that in the past. I've worked hard to make sure we keep it under control. Sometimes it flares up but we try to keep things as natural as we can. | |
|
||
| 01-19-11 11:38am - 5086 days | #13 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks, Shap. That's good to know. Nothing like natural, even if some imperfections should show up now and then. To me this adds to the value of a set. | |
|
||
| 01-19-11 06:02pm - 5085 days | #14 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I appreciate your posting here, Shap - and your general attitude and low-key reaction to criticism. I still find that Twistys treatment of photos lessens their eroticism more than it heightens the eroticism. Like, for instance, yesterday's set of Nina James. She's a gorgeous girl. But I click on the first pic in the set and the treatment of the pic has done away with all skin tone and all definition of her upper body to the point where her chin is dissolving into her neck. It's like it's supposed to be a pic of a ghost in a Twistys shirt and instead of thinking of how hot she is, I'm just wondering "What the fuck did they do that for?" When I get to pic 14, her chin still is fairly translucent and her left boob has been rendered definition-less, dissolving into her torso, though you can see the nipple. It's exactly the kind of photo set that has me damning photo treatment altogether and praising the far more treatment-less style of ATK, where they're not making their models into ghosts for no apparent reason. And, unfortunately, I find this the norm with Twistys pics - they soften the edges to the point that the models faces get blurred, their bodies get blurred and I just don't get what the point is in the least. I have to say that today's post of Cydel's photo set is worlds better in treating her pics without doing away with everything that's interesting about her. Edited on Jan 19, 2011, 06:07pm | |
|
||
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
