Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Posts for: JohnFrim
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 927 next>>
Dec 16, 2023 21:10:01   #
Racmanaz wrote:
... Why do you keep going on with this deflection about where the money goes? That wasn’t the point my argument. ...


Hey, Rac, it was not the point of your argument. But it was a question posed to you since you raised the issue of money owing. So the one deflecting is YOU because you are avoiding answering the question.

I, too, am curious as to whom you think the money was owed.
Go to
Dec 15, 2023 14:04:57   #
RichieC wrote:
I have no particular issue with it per-say.

But the question in any photograph, IMHO, is, does it pass the hang test... would you hang it on your wall? Would you hang it on any wall? Would the model want it hung where people who know her would see it? Does it contain some special provocative light or a pose that evokes something, like a dance move is poetry, or does it tell a story. Is it beautiful...

I think she is attractive and a good sport... but out of respect for her, I wouldn't hang it in my house, nor find anything to be proud of it as a photograph.. I might be proud or honored that she trusted and invited me to take it.

I think this should be allowed... but I don't pretend its anything but exactly what it is, a snap shot of a naked lady, in a particularly intimate pose. People seem to be confused about what nude photos at a photography site are about... hint, nudity isn't the only important aspect, isn't really even the primary aspect- there are landscapes and there are LANDSCAPES... there should be way more.
I have no particular issue with it per-say. br ... (show quote)


I like your “hang test,” but I am sure there are places where this image would be hung on the wall… with pride.
Go to
Dec 15, 2023 14:02:15   #
bwana wrote:
AI image generation doesn't start from a void. It starts from a model derived, in most cases, from numerous examples of what is requested by the user. In this case I would suspect several examples of blondes, breasts, bodies, bikinis, facial expressions, etc., etc. were brought together for the final image.

Call it smarter 'photoshopping' if you will but it is far more than that. I highly doubt you would find a single real female that looks like the image presented.

bwa


I recall an image from many years ago of a model wearing a bikini made with diamonds. The “photographer” explained how he had “processed” the image, which included skin blemish removal, making her waistline slimmer and even relocating her navel. With AI today one might simply ask the computer to modify the texture/colour of her skin, the shape/size of her breasts, her waistline, her smile, her lips so as to look like any or multiple named people without having to do the manipulation yourself.

So for me, AI is simply another level of processing, but not really anything revolutionary. And whether I click individual pixels myself (I actually did a B/W self-portrait with blocks of “pixels”) or let a computer algorithm do the work, it just comes down to time and effort.
Go to
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Dec 15, 2023 10:56:43   #
bwana wrote:
I'm sure the image started with a photo of a real human female (or probably many real human females).

Regardless, I have to consider any thread a success when is goes over a couple of pages AND we're at five and counting...

bwa


I have no idea whether or not there was a real human as a starting point, but the real problem is deciding where image processing has crossed a line into the domain of AI. NO ONE using software to “touch up” a digital image works with individual pixels; virtually ALL mods are done by computer algorithms that apply specified gradations of change over a limited region of an image, be it brightness, colour, noise, sharpness, etc. AI is just smarter “photoshopping” in my view.
Go to
Dec 15, 2023 10:40:58   #
PaulG wrote:
So are you saying that if something is not appropriate to view, don't look at it? If so, how would you know without looking in the first place?


You are, of course, absolutely correct.

But taking the notion a bit further, people know to avoid certain named sites because of the known and expected content. UHH is a photography site that has a section for nudity where, for the most part, viewers “look” because they are OK with nudity and expect to see a certain style/quality/content. Let’s not turn UHH into a site that is avoided because of objectionable images.

That said, after seeing an image viewers have the option of giving an opinion, not only of the photographic merits but also on the appropriateness of the image. In that way, the viewers are the ones who establish the guidelines for content.
Go to
Dec 13, 2023 14:49:07   #
midnightlight wrote:
I'm suggesting that no part of the human body should be off limits. I don't feel that that photo was inappropriate.

Tom


There is nothing inappropriate in the photo, nor in any photo for that matter. The “appropriateness” is where and why it is posted. (To be blunt, a picture of an anus is fine… in an anatomy text… or maybe a perv mag.)

And I am not asking for a change in rules for UHH; I am simply expressing my opinion that the posted image is not what I expect to see on UHH. At one point in time there was a noticeable distinction between photos in Playboy vs Penthouse and Hustler. I prefer to see UHH be the Playboy of that era, and I know where to go (elsewhere) for the more explicit.

And bottom line regarding the posted image, as a “photograph” or even “nude photograph” I see little to appreciate or enjoy. At best it is exhibitionism.
Go to
Dec 12, 2023 13:41:48   #
Real Nikon Lover wrote:
It's mild compared to webcam sites which have become the modern Sodom and Gommorah of the day. Times change, ask Pee-Wee Herman... oh wait we can't. Life goes on.


True. But I for one would rather see UHH not compared to those sites.
Go to
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Dec 12, 2023 09:50:04   #
JeffDavidson wrote:
That is just an explicit nude. This is a photography forum. Contributors are usually trying to show off lighting, composition, technique, etc. not just a naked body.


It used to be photograph vs snapshot. Now we have snappershot.
Go to
Dec 10, 2023 12:17:07   #
Call me the “prude” if you like, but I am far from a prude. But this is a “photography” forum, and I guess I look for “good photography.” This image is not, in my view, good photography. The pose screams “look at this” and little more. I can’t admire any other aspects of the model because of the obvious center of focus. And there is little else to comment on as a photo.

So my thinking is that these sorts of images are better posted elsewhere where the reason for looking is NOT photography.
Go to
Dec 9, 2023 10:43:54   #
mjc925 wrote:
This image was scanned and processed in 2007, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy but I did pull the negatives. Three things were manipulated for the final images you see. The "after shot was flipped horizontally so that it looked more symmetrical in the final composite. I cloned out a couple pubic hairs cause you know in 1998 women had pubic hairs but it sorta messed up the overall silhouette look. Final thing was it was a not great silhouette as I hadn't done many silhouettes at that time and my shooting space was pretty limited so in Photoshop I really compressed the highs and lows to get it close to almost completely black or white pixels. I am guessing that compression may have made a few transition areas a bit odd as the pixels went one way or the other. The before butt probably suffers from that as I didn't alter anything with that and it looks the same in the negative. Is she sucking in her stomach, what women doesn't in this situation, but she didn't really have to. Whatever you see that looks manipulated really isn't, just possible artifacts of making the silhouette. Two other things I discovered, the film for the after was actually Illford HP5+, and it was actually about 10 months after the birth, not 2-3 months, so that was my bad and just poor memory, I remember it differently than my notes say and at my age I believe the notes.
This image was scanned and processed in 2007, so m... (show quote)


Re timing of the after shot, she must not have been nursing.
Go to
Dec 8, 2023 17:08:10   #
Effate wrote:
Surely we must all have better things to do than continuing to poke this dog!


I don't think he realizes he is the dog!!!
Go to
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Dec 8, 2023 15:01:07   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Aww now you are lying, I am more truthful and credible than you will ever be.


OK. Right. You win. Bye.
Go to
Dec 7, 2023 21:33:06   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Prove it. You can’t because you know you’re not telling the truth.


I wasn’t trying to be truthful. But then neither are you most of the time.
Go to
Dec 7, 2023 21:31:47   #
A bit over saturated for my liking, but maybe that is what you were going for.
Go to
Dec 7, 2023 21:28:37   #
Very nice… model, pose, framing, lighting, exposure, … everything!
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 927 next>>
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.