Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Trying again...a B&W
Jul 9, 2016 12:23:11 #
Wow, the flames on my last effort leave me singed!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
Jul 10, 2016 05:41:01 #
That is a difficult object to comprehend. I think that I would not have done the "peekaboo" effect.
Jul 10, 2016 05:48:43 #
RickH wrote:
Wow, the flames on my last effort leave me singed!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
I'M not sure what the white object is, it's a bit distracting to me.
My idea of most Bodyscapes is the line and form of the body and should stand alone without embellishment .
However the post, framing and lighting are great.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Jul 10, 2016 07:29:57 #
When I downloaded an viewed, it took a second or two to comprehend what this photo was of. Then I realized it wan not nude photography.
Jul 10, 2016 10:23:36 #
I hate to burst your bubble, but in my opinion, this leans more toward porn than art.
Jul 10, 2016 11:25:06 #
Heather Iles
Loc: UK, Somerset
RickH wrote:
Wow, the flames on my last effort leave me singed!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
At least you took it in good spirits and have moved on.
Jul 10, 2016 13:04:05 #
tainkc wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but in my opinion, this leans more toward porn than art.
Agreed.
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Jul 10, 2016 14:06:49 #
Heather Iles
Loc: UK, Somerset
RickH wrote:
Wow, the flames on my last effort leave me singed!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
trying again with a more classic image --and, yes, comments are desired, that's why we are here!
Sorry,RickH, another one that hasn't worked!
Jul 10, 2016 14:09:08 #
Jul 10, 2016 18:57:10 #
Lots of prudes here it seems, NSFW covers a wide range.
I've even seen hardcore porn that was artistic !
....about this picture, I noticed some good skin grain that would have benefited from more DOF.
I've even seen hardcore porn that was artistic !
....about this picture, I noticed some good skin grain that would have benefited from more DOF.
Jul 10, 2016 19:34:04 #
tainkc wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but in my opinion, this leans more toward porn than art.
Really? Why? It doesnt seem remotely like porn to me.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jul 10, 2016 21:13:53 #
ptcanon3ti wrote:
Let me see if I can explain it. It seems too explicit to me. It is just genitalia plain and simple. If people think of this as erotic art, I do not think so. For me, erotic art shows less, not more. Nothing for the imagination to me. This is not art in my opinion, it is some lady's pubic area. Big deal. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion. On the other hand, I have seen some really fine photographic art work that was categorized as porn where I did not understand that one at all. Even though these photographs were somewhat explicit, I looked beyond that and saw a very serious attempt at displaying the body perfect. As in all things, the criteria for judging is purely subjective.Really? Why? It doesnt seem remotely like porn to me.
Jul 11, 2016 03:49:18 #
Heather Iles
Loc: UK, Somerset
ptcanon3ti wrote:
Really? Why? It doesnt seem remotely like porn to me.
It does to most people, as the focus of attention is the public area and is not at all artistic. It needed another element which would have been more pleasing to the eye.
Jul 11, 2016 10:06:00 #
I really can't see how this is remotely pornographic. But more to the point, given the topic of the forum, I dont understand some of the unpleasant comments. Its an honest effort, the image isnt crude, it's suggestive, and the B&W really works, especially with those angels
Jul 11, 2016 12:16:28 #
Heather Iles wrote:
It does to most people, as the focus of attention is the public area and is not at all artistic. It needed another element which would have been more pleasing to the eye.
I'm not debating the "artistic" value of the image. As it stands - in MY opinion- it is not a particularly flattering or "artistic" image. However to view the top of a woman's pubic hair, as seen from an angle above her hip, is far from pornographic. Voyeristic? Yes. Porn? No. I just about see that much each time I go the the beach.
As per what "tainkc" said, this is not even close to viewing "genitailia". Is it "art"? Well, thats is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I do not find it so, but I am certainly NOT the final word on what is and is not "art".
All I can say to both Heather and "tainkc" is that our visions of what "porn" is, differs greatly.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.