Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
The Evil I’s
Jul 20, 2021 18:17:38 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
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?
We're all here to see quality nude and/or boudoir photos. Because art is a subjective thing, it always presents a moving target. How about having an in-forum contest for best inked implants? I'll definitely vote on that one.
Jul 21, 2021 00:40:43 #
a small ink is OK but not an all over body ink it is as bad as over inflated boobs..I am just saying
Jul 21, 2021 13:33:44 #
buckwheat wrote:
Implants...Nothing ruins the natural lines of a woman, no matter how small, slender or flat chested than bolt-on boobs!
+1
Not a fan of ink either. I like women to look the way they were made. You can generally spot fake boobs a mile away, especially in nude photography.
Kmgw9v wrote:
There are many talented, knowledgeable photographers who contribute quality work to this section. But for many others, it is no different than a porn site for old guys. Ink and implants should not be deal breakers in the appreciation of good photography.
I agree some of the guys here don't come for the photography as an art form. They come to see nekkid women. But I disagree with the idea that the attractiveness of the model isn't important. Tattoos are an intentional disfigurement. Same with overly modified breasts. Some of us just find it unattractive. We prefer a model that looks the way nature made her (or him). Well done implants, the kind you can't tell if they're real or not, are fine. It's the slender woman with the gallon sized jugs strapped to her chest, so big the skin is stretching nearly to the point of tearing, that are a big turnoff to most me and most other men, I suspect.
If you're going for shocking or freak-show stuff in your art then I get it. It's not a new or fresh idea but I get it. It's just not for me or a lot of other viewers.
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Jul 23, 2021 23:43:38 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
roadenphotos wrote:
implants
OK, so what? What do the implants have to do with lighting, composition, or anything photographic? To comment on specific physical characteristics of the model is irrelevant. Mona Lisa was a brunette (dammit, I like blondes)…
Jul 24, 2021 00:15:55 #
Bill P wrote:
Implants are like toupees. You guys think they are all bad because you only see the bad ones. Same thing with toupees. I know two guys that wear a rug that I guarantee you would never know from real hair. And for quite a few years I dated a woman with implants that no one knew they were, and trust me, I inspected them closely. What you are considering is the fault of the "fake" item isn't inherent, it's the skill of the person doing it.
100% agree. I have seen literally hundreds of women with implants that you would never know. How is this possible? I was a paramedic for years. There are factors there that define what will look natural and not. Just like the tasteful placement of tattoos and piercings. I have seen a couple of the "suicide girls" in person with some serious tats that were literally works of art. I was amazed at the 3D effect of the artwork and the colors were mind blowing.
With that said, I prefer no tats and no implants but if I am taking photos of someone I am not judging them, they are judging how well I photograph them.
Jul 24, 2021 00:44:51 #
Leo_B
Loc: Houston suburb
Out of 100 naked women with moderate implants done by a highly skilled surgeon how many would you even know had implants? Pretty close to zero. Out of 100 naked women with tattoos how many would you know had tattoos? 100. Ink is far more obtrusive. No ink. Get a custom made shirt with whatever design and wear it when required.
Jul 24, 2021 13:14:39 #
Leo_B wrote:
Out of 100 naked women with moderate implants done by a highly skilled surgeon how many would you even know had implants? Pretty close to zero. Out of 100 naked women with tattoos how many would you know had tattoos? 100. Ink is far more obtrusive. No ink. Get a custom made shirt with whatever design and wear it when required.
Maybe the solution for those WITH tats and who no longer like them is a skin coloured tight outfit with just the essentials patterned onto it.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Jul 24, 2021 14:10:31 #
INK is far more unlikable to me. Implants are in the same category of ink though, in that anything to an excess is unsatisfactory.
Jul 26, 2021 04:00:26 #
I can live with the tats but the implants are a no go unless it is for loss of a breast due to cancer.
If I wanted to play with fake boobs I would play with a Barbie doll.
If I wanted to play with fake boobs I would play with a Barbie doll.
Aug 14, 2021 22:49:15 #
I find it distressing to see graffiti defacing a beautiful female form, piercings a close second and enhanced breasts, so long as not too extreme, not that objectionable. In the end only an opinion for what its worth.
Aug 15, 2021 07:37:43 #
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Aug 16, 2021 09:32:57 #
Aug 18, 2021 14:55:30 #
Implants are worse. If the woman is a cancer survivor that is different. Bless the natural breast small to large.
Aug 18, 2021 15:08:25 #
Kelly52 wrote:
Implants are worse. If the woman is a cancer survivor that is different. Bless the natural breast small to large.
Amen to that. The size of a woman's heart and smile is what really counts.
~Lee
Sep 6, 2021 19:34:37 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
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?
Neither. A Woman's body is hers to express
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 Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.