|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Question for all the Photography fans |
| 1-50 of 55 Posts | Page 1 | 2 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 12-26-12 10:02pm - 4378 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
bibo (0)
Suspended Posts: 179 Registered: Sep 16, '10 Location: GER |
Question for all the Photography fans Despite my addiction to videos, I recently had to admit that picture sites can be quite fun as well. Browsing the sites here on TBP, I found out that many picture sites are badly done with lots of low res, photoshopped pics. Not really my cup of tea. I joined hegre-art a couple of days ago and found it to be almost exactly what I was looking for. So here's a challenge for all you pic aficionados: I'm looking for a site with crystal clear, NON-photoshopped XL pictures (6000p and more). I prefer indoor shootings with good lighting over out door beach side stuff. EU or US models, amateurs or pros, I don't mind as long as they're good looking and natural, although noth hairy, so no abbywinter for me  . Also, I don't care about videos (this time).Any suggestions? | |
|
||
| 12-26-12 10:50pm - 4378 days | #2 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
ALS Scan has awesome high-res photography. The site owner hates boob jobs, so you won't see any on their sites. ALS Scan is by far the busier site, focused mainly on younger small-breasted models. ALS Angels is not as busy, focuses on women with larger breasts - natural breasts. Both sites have a trememdous amount of material, both indoor and outdoor. Their Caribbean trip material is legendary girl/girl material, and they have as much photography as they do vid - both wonderfully high-res. | |
|
||
| 12-27-12 06:30am - 4378 days | #3 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
I second Pink Panther's recommendation of the ALS sites, and add TorridArt, MPL Studios, WowGirls, and the Diesel Network, which you can find I believe by looking up 18OnlyGirls. That should be enough to keep you occupied for a good long while! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 12-27-12 07:52am - 4378 days | #4 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
You mean MET-Art photoshops their photos? If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee. If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! | |
|
||
| 12-27-12 10:30am - 4378 days | #5 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I am not a big fan of met-art they are ok for me, but not my number one for pictures. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 12-27-12 01:44pm - 4378 days | #6 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
I am curious as to why you want such large pictures. That size excludes virtually every camera on the market and hence also excludes the huge majority of quality images which are shot with cameras that cannot deliver such a high pixel count. Personally, I would rather have fewer pixels and an in-focus shot than a large number of blurry pixels. Edited on Dec 27, 2012, 01:48pm | |
|
||
| 12-27-12 08:36pm - 4377 days | #7 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I'll vote with the panther on this one. I'm not a big pic collector, but I ALWAYS download pics from ALS. | |
|
||
| 12-28-12 12:44am - 4377 days | #8 | |
|
bibo (0)
Suspended Posts: 179 Registered: Sep 16, '10 Location: GER |
Thanks for the replies so far, guys! Appreciated! @jberryl: Yes, Met Art does photoshop. Maybe not for all their shots, but definitely for some of them. During my search for pic sites, I've seen sample pics from Met Art, that were obviously enhanced by "the force" (tm). @Claypaws: I just find it interesting how close/large you can get. It's part of the fun for me. The 10000px shots by hegre are all far from blurry. Ironically, when I was browsing sample pics from sites that are offering a maximum of 3000px, I found many of them to be blurry and lacking colour depth. | |
|
||
| 12-28-12 06:32am - 4377 days | #9 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I love still photography, but the crispness & composition of the shots is far more important to me than the sheer size. As long as it looks good on my monitor, I am happy. 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! | |
|
||
| 12-30-12 07:20am - 4375 days | #10 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
The blurry issue is mainly because of shooting at larger apertures, which places less demand on the studio lighting. But as for those 10000 pixel images - well, there is no digital SLR that can produce that size. He shoots a medium format with a digital back - Hasselblad I seem to remember. You will find almost no site photographers use those because they cost about $50k each. I am not exaggerating. There has been a trend for ever larger images on the niche photo sites but it has topped out at the largest sizes delivered by the top end Canon and Nikon DLSRs. DSLRs have really reached the limits imposed by physics on the number of pixels in a standard sensor size and that is around 6k pixels on the long side. I do not think you will find much content above 6k pixels apart from the place you have already mentioned. | |
|
||
| 12-30-12 01:11pm - 4375 days | #11 | |
|
RustyJ (0)
Suspended Posts: 79 Registered: Aug 04, '10 |
What do you really mean when you mention 10000 pixel images? 10000 pixel wide? That's a lot and as you say, more than I can imagine anyone needs in porn. I think the modern camera stuff from Canon and Nikon produces 20+ megapixel images with maybe 6000 pixel image width. Personally I think 3000x2000 is more than enough for me although some sites like 21Sextury offer four times as many pixels if I remember correctly. Most of it is wasted anyway as you need to resize them down for any screens available today. | |
|
||
| 12-30-12 11:10pm - 4374 days | #12 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Alex at ALS Scan told me a while ago that he and his staff all work on 30" monitors when they're working on their photo-sets. Their stuff is all cleaned up and you can definitely see treatment in the faces, especially, on their site, but it's not distracting as with the MANY sites that treat their photos to the point that they eradicate any skin tone. They just make everything cleaner and neater and prettier and more seductive, which is what a good pic site ought to do, in my opinion. | |
|
||
| 12-31-12 01:16am - 4374 days | #13 | |
|
KET924aab (0)
Active User Posts: 60 Registered: Dec 18, '12 Location: California, USA |
I had a membership at Hegre-Art a few years back, and they definitely had quality photos, but were not consistently explicit enough for my tastes. I would say that Met-Art, Femjoy, and MPL Studios are all defintely working joining for a month, as they all have a focus on quality (they don't always succeed, but they do it better than most). I second the positive reviews of ALS Scan--excellent video and photo sets there, and a site I really need to get back to for a month. Ron Harris is another site with quality work, although some of the photo sets were more tease than please for me. I haven't seen a couple of the sites that Drooler mentioned (TorridArt, Wowgirls), so I'll have to check them out. One thing I have noticed over the years is that a good number of photographers could improve their lighting. I hate shadows that obscure what I want to see. I guess some of them may not be full-time pro photographers, and so they can't afford a bunch of pro-level studio lighting gear. But even a lot of outdoor sets suffer from harsh shadows. I'm not a pro photographer, but it doesn't seem that difficult to go out at the right time of day, and orient the model in the right direction with respect to the sun, and maybe use a longer lens so your own shadow doesn't get in the way. I think 15 to 18 megapixel photos are the max size that I'd prefer (15 megapixel is roughly 3000 by 5000 pixels). Any larger and the zip files get really big. I don't like photosets that are one gig in size and larger--they fill up the hard drive way too fast! | |
|
||
| 12-31-12 01:37am - 4374 days | #14 | |
|
KET924aab (0)
Active User Posts: 60 Registered: Dec 18, '12 Location: California, USA |
I just checked out the free tour at Wowgirls, and it looks really hot! Another site added to my list of sites to join. | |
|
||
| 12-31-12 02:56pm - 4374 days | #15 | ||
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Yes. I used the term that way because bibo did in his post that I was replying to. Terminology in images has become rather ambiguous because "pixels" now is as often used for the maximum image dimension as for the number of pixels contained in the image. I.e. it can be a linear or a square measure.
Personally, I agree with this. 24mp (square measure) is the largest image size offered by the big two manufacturers and, as I said, this is really a limit of physics on a 35mm sensor rather than technology. I am certainly not about to go out and buy a 70mp medium format camera. Edited on Dec 31, 2012, 03:28pm | ||
|
|||
| 12-31-12 03:24pm - 4374 days | #16 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Studio lighting that has strong shadows is regarded as an artistic advantage. Photographers who come from an "art nude", fashion or portrait background have been educated by teachers and peer pressure to produce images with strong shadows. There is actually something called a "lighting ratio" which is a number used to define the ratio between lighting strengths of main and fill light. This is actually technically more difficult to do than "flat lighting" in which everything is lit without shadows. I shoot with flat lighting. Most "art" photographers would ridicule flat lighting. "Skilled" photographers gain admiration from their peers by having shadows! Models love shadows because it makes them look moody and sophisticated. Models especially like being lit by just one main light but with another light set to cast a very narrow beam just onto their hair. Shooting outdoors is HUGELY more difficult than shooting in a studio. Shooting when the sun is not obscured by cloud is the most difficult lighting to shoot people. The shadow is not caused by the photographer's own shadow. It is caused by the model's shadow, or even by the shadow of parts of the model's body or face. The sun is effectively a point light source. The part of the body or face which is directed towards the sun is in full light. The part which is shaded by the model's own face or body is almost in darkness as far as the camera is concerned. Again, many "art" photographers like this very large lighting ratio. It can be reduced by using reflectors but these need an assistant to hold them to stop them blowing away in the wind and they greatly slow down the process of shooting. Or you can use studio flash outdoors, powered by large heavy battery backs, as fill lighting. Again this is cumbersome, difficult and slow. It is easier to shoot under a grey overcast sky because this is a large soft light source but it is still coming from above so you can get shadows below the model. Studio lighting is easier to control because it uses diffusers on the lights and you can completely control it. It stays at the intensity you set it at. Whereas sunlight under partial cloud cover varies greatly in intensity from one moment to the next. So not only do you get light and dark on the one shot but you are constantly having to alter the exposure. It is true that studio lighting is not cheap but I doubt that anyone shoots for websites using on-camera flash. Even in the studio, or in an indoor non-studio location, you can still get problems lighting the underneath "interesting" areas of a model. You can use more than two lights and some photographers do this. I have shot sets using three lights but this all adds time and complexity and may be impossible in small rooms which, sometimes, can only accommodate one light. Shooting models for sites is carried out under huge pressure of time. You have to set up and shoot incredibly fast. You have a model for a finite time. She has to catch a train home. You do the best you can with the simplest lighting you can get away with. I can add one more thing to this. It used to be that a photographer would do a shoot on film and perhaps shoot ten rolls of film to get two or three good images. Nowadays, for a porn shoot, you are expected to produce 1500 images in the same amount of time. Edited on Dec 31, 2012, 03:36pm | |
|
||
| 12-31-12 03:56pm - 4374 days | #17 | |
|
exotics4me (0)
Active User  Posts: 664 Registered: Jan 12, '07 Location: USA |
Have you tried In The Crack? I don't know how many would agree, but I think In The Crack has some of the prettiest pictures in porn. And these are hardcore solo. The locations are also usually really nice including outdoor sets and indoor sets in large mansions with plenty of props. I don't think In The Crack uses photoshop and most of their models are natural. Only downside is cost and they do tend to focus more on video. Unless they've changed it they have a pretty good tour too with previews. My first time I jacked off, I thought I'd invented it. I looked down at my sloppy handful of junk and thought, This is going to make me rich. - Chuck Palahniuk | |
|
||
| 12-31-12 07:01pm - 4374 days | #18 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Fascinating behind the scenes glimpse. Thanks, Claypaws. Just a couple of questions. Who whittles those 1500 images down to about 150? Is it the photographer or the site? Number two, if it is the photographer, could you please keep some of the pictures where the models wear panties and bras! | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 12:11am - 4373 days | #19 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
In The Crack has truly awesome photography. Like ALS Scan, they clearly treat the photos to clean them up - one only has to look at the raw photography in sites such as ATK's to know that nothing in the real world is ever as perfect as the glorious images in In The Crack. But their treatment is spectacularly done, never does away with skin tone and does indeed look like they didn't touch a thing, which is a testament to their skill. I saw some samples of some recent beach stuff they did that was breath-taking. | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 01:06am - 4373 days | #20 | |
|
bibo (0)
Suspended Posts: 179 Registered: Sep 16, '10 Location: GER |
@Claypaws Thank you very much for your detailed and well informed explanations! Really appreciated! I'm very curious about the physical limitations of the camera sensors you're talking about. Can you maybe recommend me a site where this is explained in an undersstandable way for someone who is familiar with physics but lacking all experience with photography and the technology behind it? And to enhance messmer's question: Are you currently running a site? @exotics4me Yes, I've been a subscriber of ITC a couple of years ago. But like PinkPanther says: their images are shopped way too obviously. I don't mind seeing a spot, a bump or even a scar on the skin of a girl. In fact, small imperfections are part of the kick for me. | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 03:53am - 4373 days | #21 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I really don't see why you require the images to be so large. For me anything around 1600 pixels wide in horizontal format is fine. There are plenty of sites that shoot around those dimensions. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 04:33am - 4373 days | #22 | |
|
tangub (0)
Active User  Posts: 132 Registered: Feb 03, '10 Location: UK |
I agree with Cap'n, I don't see the point of those massively large images where you can only see one tit on your monitor especially given the hard drive space required to store them not to mention the download time. Even on sites like Met and Armour Angels where I found images of 6000+ I always opt for the mid size 2000-2500px where available. Since I upgraded my monitor to a 24 inch a couple of months ago anything under 1600px that doesn't fill my screen leaves me feeling unsatisfied. I'm finding it hard to justify joining sites now that don't have at least 1600px images. | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 05:27am - 4373 days | #23 | ||
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Thanks messmer. I mean 1500 images for all sets combined, not for just one set. I shoot about 170 images per set and I whittle that down to between 120 and 150. If I submit more than about 150 per set, the site prunes it down.
I include lots and lots of shots with panties, bras and other lingerie. I am finding that, to get high ratings, there are specific body parts that must be shown in a very specific way. Bras and panties do not guarantee high ratings. The body parts do. But I do not have to sacrifice the lingerie to get them. | ||
|
|||
| 01-01-13 05:43am - 4373 days | #24 | ||
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
I shall have to see if I can find a site that explains it but it will take me a good few days to find the time to do that. I can do a brief explanation here though. It comes down to the size of the pixels and quantum mechanics. If you take a sensor of a given size, say 36x24mm and try to fit more pixels onto it, the pixels obviously have to be smaller. The pixels are made of a light sensitive silicon that emits electrical signals when stimulated by light. They also emit random electrical signals due to quantum mechanical effects within the atoms of the silicon crystal structure. So you get a signal to noise ratio. The signal to noise ratio is inversely proportional to the area of the pixel. So, as you reduce the pixel size, you get hugely more random signals swamping out the image data. This gets rapidly worse as temperature increases and only becomes unproblematic at temperatures close to absolute zero. On 36x24mm sensors, it is not possible to fit more than about 24 million pixels without having everything swamped by the quantum mechanical noise. Cameras have sophisticated noise redction algorithms to try to filter out the random noise but even those cannot invent data which has been completely nuked. To get more pixels, you need larger sensors. And those are incredibly expensive to make, requiring very high tech factories that cost billions of dollars so there are very few of them in the world.
Please see this thread https://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_thr...d.html?threadid=3283 | ||
|
|||
| 01-01-13 06:27am - 4373 days | #25 | |
|
bibo (0)
Suspended Posts: 179 Registered: Sep 16, '10 Location: GER |
Thanks again, Claypaws! Don't worry about searching for a site, I can look it up myself based on your explanation!  | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 07:52am - 4373 days | #26 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
I'll admit I have never subscribe to the site itself but did subscribe to their newsletter which published a lot of photos in it. What I really like about it was that even the quality of the photos were great. And I was able to do things like this:  cropping & softening     So that's why i like MET If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee. If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! Edited on Jan 01, 2013, 08:10am | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 10:36am - 4373 days | #27 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
My view exactly, Claypaws. Why not leave in a couple of pictures where the women still wear bras and panties and display them clearly and frontally, and then show the rest of the subscribers what they want to see. Both factions could have their way. It would be win-win all around especially since I appreciate naked full body shots as well. The truncated shots of a torso etc. don't appeal to me though .. I like to see the women attached to them! | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 11:18am - 4373 days | #28 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Yes, I really don't care for obsessive gyno close ups. IMO it is much nicer to see most or all of the lady concerned. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 11:42am - 4373 days | #29 | |
|
bibo (0)
Suspended Posts: 179 Registered: Sep 16, '10 Location: GER |
Well, different strokes for different folks I guess. Obsessive? Maybe, I dunno. What's obsessive in your books? Gyno shots? No, far from that! Actually I love to "investigate" practically any other part of the female body except the gyno parts. Face, arms, legs, back, whatever comes to mind. If it fits on my screen, I'd like to see it moving. If it doesn't, I'd like to be able to zoom in. Simple as that. | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 11:56am - 4373 days | #30 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Well, I would define many of the photosets published which focus almost exclusively on the genetalia as being obsessive. There seem to be an awful lot of photographers who do that. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-01-13 12:03pm - 4373 days | #31 | |
|
KET924aab (0)
Active User Posts: 60 Registered: Dec 18, '12 Location: California, USA |
Claypaws, Thanks for your response and excellent insights regarding photo lighting! I guess perhaps there are more photographers out there trying to do artistic nudes than I realized, and what I thought of as bad technique really isn't. I will say this though, when I join a porn site, I'm not going there to find artistic photos--I'm going there to find photos of beautiful naked women that include the poses and general level of explicitness that I prefer. So when I come across a photo where there's a shadow obscuring a girl's pussy, I don't find that artistic, I find it annoying. The artistic qualities of the photos are of secondary importance for me. I suspect that this is true of a majority of porn users. I wish more photographers could keep this in mind, or at least try to please most of the people most of the time. luv lickn clit | |
|
||
| 01-03-13 12:17pm - 4371 days | #32 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Another observation I would like top throw into this thread is photo orientation. I really do not get why many photographers still insist on using the vertical format. It adds nothing and subtracts a lot when viewing on a modern widescreen monitor. Horizontal format shots win for me every time. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-03-13 01:47pm - 4371 days | #33 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I completely agree, Cap'n. Remember that was MY personal fight almost 5 years ago: "Give us more landscape shots." I've given up in the meantime. Fighting for a strip sequence with mature women is hard enough! I watch some picture sets on my flatscreen 42" TV and the landscape shots are far more appealing than the portrait ones because they fill the whole screen. And with a bit of cropping you still get a good close-up view of the model. I really don't understand why some (most) photographers prefer to shoot in that format and why so many users accept that format so readily.  | |
|
||
| 01-03-13 01:57pm - 4371 days | #34 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
It is time for photographers and websites to get with it. IMO there is no longer any excuse for using the vertical format except, perhaps, for artistic impact eg a facial portrait. Sure there was an argument when CCDs were somewhat challenged in the resolution, but we are now way beyond that point & that argument is no longer valid. If you like you can crop or zoom into a well taken horizontal format image for what you want with little, if any, perceptable loss of quality. 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! Edited on Jan 04, 2013, 05:55am | |
|
||
| 01-03-13 06:02pm - 4371 days | #35 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
This was one of the most interesting reads about nude photography I've ever come across. You explain well. I'm going to be blunt here. Not to you personally. It's just my view as a consumer who has viewed thousands upon thousands of images. Here goes. As far as I'm concerned, flat lighting in the studio is pretty much the way to go. Those "art" photographers with their fetish and ego trip and snobbishness and pecking order about shadows in photography can just go crawl into one and and disappear and never return! THEY are the ones who TIME and AGAIN have RUINED my enjoyment of a model's beauty and sexiness with their excessive shadows. Things that I PAID for! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-03-13 10:42pm - 4370 days | #36 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
Every time I see where you rail on the shortcomings of excessive Gyno closeups (ugh) and esp. your superb arguments supporting angle-shots, you are then getting my wild (unseen) applause. So..... Hang in there comrade ...... bet on the fact you have more people than you think joining us in this important pursuit.  | |
|
||
| 01-03-13 11:38pm - 4370 days | #37 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Thanks for your continued suppport. I sincerely hope so, G. Now it is just a matter of some Webmanagers & Photographers catching on. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-04-13 06:02am - 4370 days | #38 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Another thing that irritates me about certain photographer's styles is thankfully getting rarer, but still really irritates when I see it, is that 60's & 70's habit of artsy crazy random angles generated by twisting the camera about.  FFS hold the camera square!!  There feel better now! ( I know some folk like low angle shots & whilst I don't like it, I don't have an issue with that.  )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! | |
|
||
| 01-04-13 03:55pm - 4370 days | #39 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Thank you. | |
|
||
| 01-04-13 09:32pm - 4369 days | #40 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
Completely and totally disagree. If I'm looking at a picture of an actual person, I want the person filling as much of the frame as possible. If they're lying down, that means landscape. But if they're standing, I would much, much, much rather have the shot be portrait than landscape. I shouldn't have to do any extra work with the photo just because you don't like portrait shots. | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 02:43am - 4369 days | #41 | |
|
KET924aab (0)
Active User Posts: 60 Registered: Dec 18, '12 Location: California, USA |
Capn, I gotta disagree with you on a couple of points. Just like hodayathink, I like the vertical format for a majority of the shots where the model is standing, so that she completely fills the view. On the other hand, lets say you have a model at a beach. A landscape shot with the model off to one side, and then the sand and water on the other takes advantage of the scenery. So what I like to see in a photo shoot like that is BOTH types of photos. One shot in landscape that shows the landscape, and another vertical shot focused on the model. The vertical shots obviously dont use all the available screen space on most wide-screen HD TVs, laptops, and monitors, but I usually set my IrfanView to show the entire photo, and then enlarge with magnifier as needed. Point 2, gyno close ups-I love pussy close up shots, and if there aren't a few good ones in every set, I'm disappointed. Having said that, a photo set should not be exclusively close up shots. Some of my favorite poses are full body shots. As you see from the varied responses here, you can't please all of the people all of the time. In my opinion the photographer should do the shoot with the idea of pleasing as many people as possible. Thus, every photo set should include a variety of photos, landscape and vertical, good variety of poses, full body and close ups. The custom zips that some sites are using can also help you to download only what you want. Hopefully those will become commonplace. I do agree with you on the angle shots--very annoying. KarupsPC is one of the worst offenders. I just joined them a couple of weeks ago (for one month), and I think its gotten worse than it was the last time I was there a couple of years ago. They use it a lot in the solo videos too, so I have to keep tilting my head! Very aggravating. I'll be posting a review of Karups pretty soon for anyone whose interested. Happy new year to all! | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 02:47am - 4369 days | #42 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
It still won't fit your monitor.  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! | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 02:55am - 4369 days | #43 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
The main issue I have with the vertical format is that it often clips bodyparts unintentionally & uneccesarily. The horizontal format, seldom, if ever does that. If you want to zoom in, you can without significant problem. I can still see no benefit from vertical format now that CCDs are so advanced & just about everybody has a widescreen monitor. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 09:56am - 4369 days | #44 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
And I still agree with you, Cap'n! Landscape does not necessarily mean a small figure surrounded by sand and sea. The picture can be taken so that the head touches one end of the screen and the feet the other, when viewed on a widescreen. And as you so rightly stated, if that isn't big enough for you you can always zoom in. Exception, a true portrait (head shot). There are many sets in my collection where the photographer was smart enough to offer almost identical shots in portrait and landscape, and since portrait leaves me cold I simply sort the set by size and keep landscape only. True, I miss some good shots in portrait now and then, but there's nothing like seeing that screen filled with female beauty rather than a vertical shot with black bars on either side. Of course I do that only with sets that give me an option. Most of them I have to keep "as is" because landscape is so rare. But, as someone else pointed out, not everyone has the same taste so I guess we'll be stuck with portrait for quite a while longer. | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 10:44am - 4369 days | #45 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
I'm not so OCD that I care about whether the picture completely fills my monitor. If body parts get clipped, nine times out of ten that's the result of a bad photographer/bad cropping, not something inherently wrong with the portrait format. Also, even though most people here don't, I occasionally view pictures on my phone/tablet, which has a screen that is taller than it is wide in its most comfortable orientation. Edited on Jan 05, 2013, 10:47am | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 12:52pm - 4369 days | #46 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
OCD is a thing I have to live with every day.  Yes, clipping is bad photography, it seems mainly caused by the constraints of the vertical format, because it happens very often, unlike with horizontal format. I never use my phone for porn. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 02:33pm - 4369 days | #47 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I don't think my preference for landscape has anything to do with OCD. It's simply a personal preference, same as I no longer watch 4:3 TV but only 16:9 HD. There is simply MORE to the picture and it is esthetically more pleasing. | |
|
||
| 01-05-13 08:34pm - 4368 days | #48 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
That's my thing: I'm spending all my time focusing on what is there, so I'm not really bothered by what isn't there. I'm looking at the picture that is on my screen, so I'm pretty oblivious to the sections of the screen that don't contain the picture. I've been known to completely ignore the letterboxing of movies on a 4:3 TV before (and there are many movies that aren't actually shot at 16:9). And technically, your example isn't actually applicable in this instance, because there isn't "more" to the picture when it switches between landscape and portrait. It's generally the exact same amount of pixels in each shot, just composed differently. I could make the argument that the portrait picture will generally contain more pixels dedicated to the model as opposed to the background, so it would have "more to the picture" than the landscape one. | |
|
||
| 01-06-13 01:34am - 4368 days | #49 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
That was often the justification used by photographers when CCDs were smaller. I don't think it holds water any more as the modern equipment is more than adequate for it not to matter. TBH I don't think either camp is going to agree on this one. 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! | |
|
||
| 01-06-13 07:20am - 4368 days | #50 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
My two main websites have been at 2048 pixels (along the long edge) for years now, but I have no plans to take it any higher. I've run numerous polls in my members' forums and discussed it at length with lots of members over the years, but VERY few want photos that are 3000+ pixels. I view my desktop as bordering on excessive (3840 pixels x 1200) but that's across two monitors and I hate looking at photos that have to span the two to be seen in full. StripGameCentral's photos are usually taken at much higher res than 2048 pixels but that is so I can crop mistakes (lighting stands, cables etc.) out of the finished photos when necessary. Most members still have their monitors set to either 1280 or 1360 pixels width. There are a few with 2560 pixel monitors but they are a tiny minority. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 1-50 of 55 Posts | Page 1 | 2 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
