I totally get peoples frustration with these situations.

A person that may have bad intentions or are in the process of doing something shady will often try and deflect their nervousness with humor. Security officers are trained to consider joking and humor as a potential red flag. Then he has to try and assess friend from foe.

Almost everyone that joke have outgoing personalities and is merely trying to be friendly. However, officers have to be vigilant and not become complacent with these types of personalities. You would be surprised at the large number of people that try and joke on a daily basis. The officer often has heard the same joke/funny comment 5 times earlier that day, that week, or that month.

Just like any other group of people, you do have "jerks". However, most of these guys can be quite fun and have outgoing personalities at the end of the day when the uniform comes off.

I've been on many Cruises. About a dozen or so. You truly have to do your homework. Some cater to children. Some to the partying younger generation with many bars/bands and all night dancing. Then some for the older generations with fine dining, art shows, and bingo. The bigger ships try and do it all.

First-time cruisers should speak with a travel agent or at least experienced cruisers. The first question to ask yourself is, "Do I want more stops for excursions and site seeing or more leisure and boat time? Do I have to keep kids entertained or only worry about me and my other half?" An agent can help with that.

First reporting to a Muster Station upon castoff is mandatory. But some are now letting you report to a lounge and watch an instructional video.

It sucks what your friends went through. I've had those experiences as well. However, most of my experiences have been positive. So tell your friends not to give up. Just find the right cruise line for them. My personal favorites for the big ships are Royal Caribean and Norwegian. I haven't been on enough small ones to give my two cents.

She is not restrained, however, for some reason I consider this bondage.
The eyes are out of focus just enough to bring attention to the breasts. The lighting is great. The model is gorgeous and its almost a sin to have those eyes out of focus though.

Not trying to comment on this to draw away from the poster, but this is exactly the changes that I was referring to.

It's hard to be a critic because I like it. Excellent model. Good pose. Maybe close up the aperture a couple stops and add light. I think that you will get the effect that you are looking for.

I don't know about this peticular ad, but this is very real. Not something I talk about, but I have done this more than three times. However it was not wedding night, I was reluctant the first time. They were more at eas than I was. Then two months later I got a phone call from another couple. I was recomended by the first couple. Did it two more times. Each session was strictly from referals.
I would do it again if asked, however I would not advertise. I was very new into photography then. I often wonder how much better that I could do now.

I must be the black sheep here. I like the second one best and I think that I would like the first one without DAP.

How did you get her to hold so still.

I was referring to the article that the poster was referencing. Not Tony's. Why would I reference a link that someone else posted. In fact Northrop's post was spot on. Maybe you should go back and read the original post. Kodak did in fact invent the digital camera according to history. I think that it was 1973. not 1975. And I only stated this fact to prove that the "guy" from the link that the poster was referring to, not Northrop's link, clearly did not do his homework.

Before you criticize me maybe you should read the original post and click on the link.

Don't be concerned. This guy has clearly not done his homework and is simply speaking his uneducated opinion. He starts off talking about Kodak plunging because of not "staying with the times"and going digital. History shows that Steven Sasson, form Kodak, actually invented the digital camera.

In my opinion any company that can make a decision to downsize in a poor economy even after a heavy investment in their research department for a mirrorless is solidifying their future. They would not throw that money away unless they knew that they would not make a product that's profitable.

Nikon is not going anywhere.

Wow!!!! I love the picture. It makes me feel like she is "commanding all of nature with her stance. I am trying to imagine what kind of camera that you used for this shot 10 years ago. Film???

Sorry, I know that you are looking for a critique. It's hard when I couldn't have done that good to begin with.

Two things that stick out to me.
1) There is a white ring around her hair that extends down her right shoulder. It doesn't match the natural colors of the cloud. I thought that it was the sun, however the sun appears to be off to the left of the shot going by the reflection on her left arm. I would love to see the pic with a full stop open more. I know that it would have burned out the clouds a little more, but to see more skin tone in her back would have been a great trade off.

2) Too much gray sky over her head. Would have liked to see her take up more of the top of the shot. For me it's a minor distraction to her perfect body.

That's the best that I can do for critique, because there is no way that I could have taken a picture that good.

A lot more pixels. Weather Resistant. Wi-Fi.

The D500 has many improvements, but not a whole lot
that's advantageous for what you shoot. "No moving targets."

Seams to me that you may want a FF for that kind of money
and for what you shoot..

Yes, I bet that is exactly what is now happening.

However at the time with her altered state of mind I would imagine that she was under the impression that she will be thinking of it every day for the rest of her life anyway.

I wonder, if she waited about two years later, if she would still have wanted that identical tat...

This is how a rational person with good reason would think.

But what if something traumatized you so bad that it became difficult to function in simple everyday life?

I believe that her being able to see that Tattoo every day can be very important therapy in leaving the past in the past and moving on.

I agree with you. However I think that she is afraid that she will one day forget about a moment that caused her much pain.

I don't suspect that the tattoo on her thigh is for the public to understand at all. My opinion is that it's a reminder for her.

She opened her heart to someone that seemed to be innocent and harmless. "The birds" Her trust allowed this person to get inside. Then this person hurt her with that trust in the most vulnerable and hideous way. "The wounds on her face and heart" She is quite particular of her appearance."The necklace and hairdo".

I don't believe this pain was from a lover or even a friend. I think that it was from someone very close. A father, a mother, a brother or sister. Maybe an uncle. "The tree branches from within her"

I think that she wants to be reminded to never let that happen again because the pain and humiliation was unbearable. She can't tell anybody, so the tattoo is her release.