Because these issues are frequently part of the comments posted in this section, I thought it would be OK to post something without a photo, but a question. Of the two evil I’s, which ruins a photo for you more? Ink or implants?
Implants...Nothing ruins the natural lines of a woman, no matter how small, slender or flat chested than bolt-on boobs!
Very interesting results so far. I suppose I should mention that I fall into the implant category.
Ink - I find implants a little more subtle.
Don
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
Either "I" if done properly and tastefully (??) can be OK. Tattoos that are "pleasant to look at" and create an interesting theme/story are not "ugly," but they can also be overdone. I compare tattoos to "natural landscaped yards" that can either look really nice... or like a bunch of weeds. Same goes for implants; a little can go a long way, but too much is... well, too much.
For me it's neither...I don't care for hardware as in piercings.
Interesting responses ABSOLUTELY no mentions of photographic quality.
2nefoto is correct: While I don't like implants or ink, for that matter, they don't affect the quality of the image, and many of the posts on this forum lack photographic quality
I agree with JohnFrim
The ink I don't mind are the things I can understand.
All the ink that looks like your looking through a microscope
not so much.
And I like the full file to download. Sometime there are things
that are pleasing. Yea it's looking at the WHOLE picture to me.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.