| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Some photoshop is acceptable if it improves the picture. But photoshop can be overdone and produce artificial-looking results. Some photographers go way overboard in using photoshop so that the model appears to be an alien instead of a beautiful earthling. My feeling is that photoshop (or a similar process) is being over-used lately at Met-art, and the photosets are less attractive because of it.
|
12-16-09 12:36am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I'm glad this isn't the forum, or Wittyguy might come down on me next winter with a "Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-Dum" award.
I mean, this probably isn't the first time I've said, effectively, "Yeah, what Ik2fireone said."
But there's more. Sometimes light and color have to be improved, and besides that, zits, bruises, and hickeys 'n such just aren't my cup 'o cha, no matter how real they may be. (I wonder if Photoshop has an "exfoliate, cleanse and refresh" tool.) Anywayeez, Porn is about fantasy; it's not about reality.
To a point anyway. When the girl's been so overly, Tweedlely-dum done, and she looks like something that could be hanging around in the older woman's room in that "rape with the precious work of art" scene in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, well, it might be worth considering that things have been taken a little too far.
|
12-16-09 01:07am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Capn (0)
|
For me it depends what they have 'shopped & how well. As D. said, porn is about fantasy, so any particularly unsightly blemish being removed is fine.
It is a shame they don't do that more often with unsightly piercings & ugly tattoos. :0(
|
12-16-09 09:19am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Monahan (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
Drooler said:To a point anyway. When the girl's been so overly, Tweedlely-dum done, and she looks like something that could be hanging around in the older woman's room in that "rape with the precious work of art" scene in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, well, it might be worth considering that things have been taken a little too far.
My term is "Twistied," not "Tweedlely-dum" -a take on the Twistys site's over use of photoshop on its photos and why I am a member of the site just for the videos that cannot be photoshopped. So many of the Twistys babes look almost like they were computer simulations rather than real naked girls.
My response to the poll is no photoshop. If she can't pass muster without photoshop, does she really belong on a porn site in the first place?
|
12-16-09 03:03pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Monahan :
OK. And so when the light's too low or too high or the skin tone needs less red and the zits on her ass are in plain sight, well then, she's just not good enough!
"Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought." -- Clint Eastwood
|
12-16-09 03:30pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
pat362 (0)
|
My problem with photoshopping photos is that it's rarely about correcting some slight problems, but more like doing some major alterations. Another issue is that it's often quite obvious so instead of enjoying what the photographer had in mind. We instead have what the phoshopper has in mind. The human body is abeautiful thing to look at. I'll take the reality of blemishes over the perfection of a photoshopped image.
|
12-16-09 05:58pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
I like Monahan's term "Twistied." Anyone who's ever subscribed to Twisty's knows exactly what he's talking about. I'm for natural, let the chips fall where they may, and if a picture (or a set) should turn out to be too light or too dark I just throw it out. Imperfections are fine with me when it comes to the model herself.
|
12-16-09 06:43pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
turboshaft (0)
|
In this day and age Photoshop is inevitable, whether it's cropping, fixing white balance, blurring out the owner's license plate number on the car the model is posing in, and of course the long list of natural skin ailments, not to mention the bruises, track marks, and all the other unpleasant things that get left behind.
But c'mon, what can "pass muster"? I say you better be prepared to go the whole way--no makeup, no hair dye, nail polish, etc. I mean if a hot girl needed to have her appendix taken out, who are we to judge the scar that it left behind? I just don't like the bizarre, over-touched shit that you see on so many sites, especially their intro and tour pages.
|
12-16-09 07:05pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
anyonebutme (0)
|
It's always a balance. I really like non-photoshopped look. I also really like the look of, say, the met-art contributor erro.
Sometimes photoshop makes the photos nicer, sometimes photoshop turns them into a blurry mess of an image.
If all websites had the same look, images would get boring. That they each usually have their own photoshopping style, makes them more interesting.
|
12-16-09 07:12pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
I 3rd Monahan's term, since Twisty's often paints their pics to an infuriating degree for my tastes.
At the same time, when I see sites post pics of completely untreated pics, I'm not very turned on, since harsh lighting can make the girls look like they're ready for a police line-up or something.
I remember Alex at ALS Scan wanted to demonstrate the amount of treatment that they do and he used a pic of petite Latina Kat as an example. Due to being freshly-shaved for the shoot, her pussy had horrible razor-burn and other "issues" that were not in the least attractive and they had taken care of that with the treatment of the pic - they hadn't done much more than that and I think that they're one of the best sites because of that.
I think I've talked about this before, actually, but I also like the very minimal photo-treatment of solo-girl site photographers like Phil-Flash and Spunky, who is most well know for his work with Kate's Playground. They mainly deal with what they want to deal with in their lighting with very little photo treatment as compared to other adult photographers, and their pics have a lot of erotic power as a result.
Some solo-girl sites use cheap auto-treat software that gives all of their pics a lacquered look and takes all the eroticicm away.
Holly Randall frustrates the fuck out of me with her heavy painting of her pics - be a painter or be a photographer, I scream at my monitor. Make up your mind!
Nubiles.net is another site that gets it right for my tastes. They're certainly posting treated pics, but they're not painting them heavily and they're not lacquering them in an art-less way.
As a fan of hot erotic pics, this is a topic that I could go on about for a long while.
I want to see the models, I want to see what they look like, I want to see why the photographer thought they were hot in the first place. I don't care how skilled their photo-shop guy is - he should go photo-shop pics of dolphins and wheat fields and leave the adult photography biz to people that want to see hot women looking like hot women.
|
12-16-09 07:12pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
I hadn't given it a lot of thought previously, but Turboshaft brings up an interesting idea: "I mean if a hot girl needed to have her appendix taken out, who are we to judge the scar that it left behind?" Should we ban all porn stars with appendix scars, or allow them in as long as the scar has been photoshopped with taste? My honest opinion is that most appendix scars are less distracting than tattoos and piercings.
|
12-16-09 09:21pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Once you go down the photoshop route, girls lose all natural beauty and become plastic dolls. I like real women with minor flaws, not Barbiedolls. Playboy went that route long ago and lost my interest....I'd get more excited seeing pictures of kitchen utensils.
|
12-17-09 05:35am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
"Tweedle Dum" ; mmmm, sounds promising and with oh so much potential ... or lack thereof depending on one's perspective.
Back to the issue at hand, when you consider websites as a whole, then for god sakes yes do some re-touching. Most of the photographers taking pics out there don't understand that the dials and menus on cameras today are there to help make pictures look better. Leave your point and click at home and figure out what the hell you're doing.
As for the primo sites like Met-Art, there already is some airbrushing going on I bet but it's done well for the most part so I don't mind. It's when it goes overboard like Playboy or Suze that it sometimes gets annoying.
|
12-17-09 02:55pm
Reply To Message
|
