Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Couple of things...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Couple of things...

    There has been some really good models this week already, but I would like to just make a couple of suggestions if I may...
    • I would like to see some 'in between' perspective images - to be specific, not close up, not full model - the median area if you like - it helps create atmosphere.
    • When there are images of the full model and lower areas, I would suggest that at least half of those shots should be focussed on the genetalia. The shoots this week for example, have shot after shot focussed on the eyes. There should be a change in deapth of field imho.
    That's it, cheers

    #2
    "There have been..." as opposed to "There has been..."
    The auxillary verb must match the modified noun.
    If you were referring ti only only model, 'has' would have been the correct word to use.

    The word "focused" was misspelled. Only one 's', not two.
    Thank you.

    Comment


      #3
      Actually, it is acceptable to use two 's's in the word "focussed".

      Comment


        #4
        Dale_SanDiego
        It is actually quite discourteous to point at other people's spelling or grammatical mistakes.
        Before showing such pedantry try first to write correctly yourself.
        Your third sentence (first part) is so poorly worded one can only guess its meaning.
        Thank you.

        Comment


          #5
          Aah, Englich leson four begeeners.

          Lxm

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Luxman
            Aah, Englich leson four begeeners.

            Lxm
            Cool !

            c

            Comment


              #7
              Can we spell "Diluting a thread?" I agree, it is discourteous to point out spelling errors, however lets git back to Doggie's thread. We signed up for model appreciation, not English lessons. Try copying and pasting into a word editor with a the spell check tool on prior to posting if you are now apprehensive. It doesn't always catch everything, but it helps improve spelling and grammar.

              Does anyone agree with Doggie?

              Random Thoughts...

              Comment


                #8
                I'd like to respond directly to doggie's suggestion, for a change.

                I'm one of the people who selects from the raw sets that come out of the photographer's camera to select what shows up at the site. (Up until earlier in the year I was the only one.)

                Raw sets often have over 1000 images in them. For the sets I process I'm in charge of removing the ones that are out of focus, model not in frame, poorly exposed, etc.

                This in not the first time people have brought up your second issue, where sets are in focus in the foreground (crotch) but not in the background (face), and vice versa.

                For quite some time I've been under orders by the boss lady (Abby) to pay attention to this issue and to include images like what you're describing. I try where possible to strike a balance, but I can only select from what the photographer gives me. In some cases the photographer has made the attempt to take both types of shots but one type is completely out of focus.

                In general, I'm sure the photographer's have been made aware that the customers really like crotch shots. I certainly would make sure to include them if at least part of the image is in focus.

                In terms of your first suggestion ("in-between perspective") shots like that drive me crazy... are they out of frame, is it well-composed even though only part of the model is in frame, or what to do if *gasp* the model's head is chopped off at the forehead but it's otherwise a great image. But we'll keep your suggestion in mind.

                Arsby

                P.S. Doncha hate it when you make a well-considered suggestion and people have a long discussion about something else?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Randomthoughts
                  Can we spell "Diluting a thread?" I agree, it is discourteous to point out spelling errors, however lets git back to Doggie's thread. We signed up for model appreciation, not English lessons. Try copying and pasting into a word editor with a the spell check tool on prior to posting if you are now apprehensive. It doesn't always catch everything, but it helps improve spelling and grammar.

                  Does anyone agree with Doggie?

                  Random Thoughts...

                  And make sure it's the UK dictionary!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hi Arsby

                    Thanks for the sensible reply, there's nothing lower on a forum than some pathetic freak pointing out spelling mistakes. Sheesh, get a life

                    Anyway - yes, the thing about the perspectives, I'll refer to the image set of Emelia (sorry, this shoot was soooo dull). The progression from 184, to 187 and then 188 is ok, but may well be better off with some other shots in between. I'd suggest dropping most of the images between 178 and 183 to make way for that, as they are all essentially the same and extremely boring.

                    I think ATK gets this balance right btw, if you want to check out their content for reference.

                    They also refrain from focusing on the model's eyes all the time, and must have faster lenses, as the depth of field usually captures both body and eyes in focus anyway.

                    Cheers

                    Dog

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I see, I thought you were talking about those images where the foreground (crotch) is in-focus and the background (face) isn't. It seems you're talking instead about changing point-of-view.

                      With regards to 178 to 183 being boring, you've got to understand that many would disagree with you. Do you see that she's caressing herself in those images? You can see the progression as she does it, and watch her face. Do a slideshow of those images and you might get some appreciation of what people see in them.

                      BTW, you're spelling in that last post was excellent. Although because of the way you were treated I understand why you dissed another member ("pathetic freak"), I think you're losing the moral high ground by resorting to language like that. You're just inviting another attack.
                      Let's all try to get along.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by arsby
                        I see, I thought you were talking about those images where the foreground (crotch) is in-focus and the background (face) isn't. It seems you're talking instead about changing point-of-view.
                        I was referring to both - but to clarify, the ones that annoy me are where the face is in focus and the crotch isn't. If I wanted to see eyes, I would get a copy of Vogue

                        Maybe Emelia was a poor example, I found that set very uninspiring, perhaps it was the model.

                        I rarely have the moral high ground, but I would never resort to ridicule of grammar and spelling, it's below personal remarks concerning one's mother.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          No personal insults, please.

                          As much as pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes can be perceived as rude, we would like everyone to refrain from ever personally insulting each other on these boards.

                          Thanks.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by doggie
                            I was referring to both - but to clarify, the ones that annoy me are where the face is in focus and the crotch isn't. If I wanted to see eyes, I would get a copy of Vogue
                            That's your opinion. When doing image selection I have to keep a lot of other folks happy, as well. Would you believe that we have a large contingent here that actually prefers the softcore-type images?
                            Originally posted by doggie
                            Maybe Emelia was a poor example, I found that set very uninspiring, perhaps it was the model.
                            Omigod! She's one of my favorite models.
                            Here's my favorite Latin quote: De gustibus non disputandum. You can't argue with taste.
                            Originally posted by doggie
                            I rarely have the moral high ground, but I would never resort to ridicule of grammar and spelling, it's below personal remarks concerning one's mother.
                            What VidDude said.

                            In general, doggie, folks here are very responsive to what you do want to see. If you tell us you get turned on by the crease of the knee and others agree, then you'll find the photographers trying to get the shot and the editors including it.

                            If you don't like particular shots, don't download them. Others probably like them.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Sure, that's all fair enough - but you now have my opinion, take it or leave it

                              You shouldn't take it too much as a criticism, I rate the site very highly. More then
                              like a minor tweak

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Focus or diffusion is a way for the photographer to direct the eye. It is a difficult art form to master. As long as it doesn't get too pervasive, I'm all for it. Art is one of the things that separates this site from the porn sites.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Totally agree.

                                  One of the most fundemental aspects of a good shoot is the understanding between
                                  photographer and model (in any image), and it's done well here.

                                  I think this particular issue however comes down to the person choosing the images
                                  to go up on the site and editing out those that aren't required...

                                  Great balance with Prescilla btw, between 131 and 175. My only criticism would be that
                                  there are too many images that are almost exactly the same.

                                  And far more interesting model

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by doggie
                                    My only criticism would be that
                                    there are too many images that are almost exactly the same.
                                    Read this page of the faq entitled Hey, how come a bunch of pics in each model's gallery look the same?.

                                    Abby is so brilliant she anticipates your every criticism.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by doggie
                                      I think ATK gets this balance right btw, if you want to check out their content for reference.

                                      They also refrain from focusing on the model's eyes all the time, and must have faster lenses, as the depth of field usually captures both body and eyes in focus anyway.
                                      Much less a question of faster lenses (erm, I'm not sure it's the lenses that have the speed, it's the film or the digital sensor, surely??) than of natural light verses artificial light. ATK's stuff (and I hate to generalise as the site has the work of dozens of photographers) tends to be shot with artificial lighting (whether studio or flash). Abby (and co)'s stuff tends to use a lot more natural light. Abby and the team could use more artificial lighting and this would allow them to use narrower apertures and thus a greater depth of field. However, the natural-light look is part of the style of the photos on this site and I for one would be sorry to sacrifice that style.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        narrower apertures and thus a greater depth of field.
                                        This is what faster lenses do. They are built to a higher quality and can go to lower apertures, hence greater depth of field - but they are very expensive.

                                        Hey, how come a bunch of pics in each models gallery look the same
                                        Nah, I don't buy it. Even on the good shoots. I'd rather see more variety.

                                        Back to my first 'critique' however, re no in-between shots...

                                        The current Jacqui is a perfect example. Lots of full body, and lots of ultra close ups. Nothing in between...

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by doggie
                                          This is what faster lenses do. They are built to a higher quality and can go to lower apertures, hence greater depth of field - but they are very expensive.
                                          Pretty wrong.

                                          A fast lens is a lens that has a very wide maximum aperture, (small f-stop number).
                                          A lens opening up to 2.8 is faster than one opening up to 4.
                                          This lens is especially for low light use, but you'll get an even lower depth of field if using the greater aperture.

                                          If you use a lens at an aperture of let's say 8, the depth of field of a slower or faster one will be the same.

                                          Lxm

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Yup, I should have said lower f-stops rather than apertures.

                                            But if I wanted a chat about photographic technicalities I would have gone to a different forum

                                            Comment

                                            Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                                             
                                            Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                                            Working...
                                            X