loot at this picture. How on earth can you allow a picture with a shadow in the background? This is a very basic no-no in photography, yet I see it ALL THE TIME! I can see if you're a schlub who shoots for fun, but to post something like this on a website where you expect people to buy your shit, I just don't understand it.
Who the hell decided that shadows were a no-no? I think their eyes should be removed from the sockets. I think shadows show a sense of realness. Granted, shadows don't belong in some shots, but I see nothing wrong with the picture you've linked. I think Matt is a great photographer and hes been shooting for a LONG time, and if there is a shadow in his shot, he meant for it to be there.
Edited by - aiden on 2/20/2005 4:06:13 AM
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Feb 20 2005 : 4:26AM
Shadows like that are a distraction. You're only defending those pics because you know the photographer who took them. If he's been shooting for such a long time, he's the one who should have his eyes removed.
I'm glad we picked an earth-shaking topic to get all hinky about.
Edited to add that, I agree with nietzche that the shadow, whether by accident or design, isn't good in that shot. It just emphasizes the harsh lighting.
Edited by - hardware on 2/20/2005 5:55:03 AM
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Feb 20 2005 : 6:20AM
I guess it bothers me because it says "I don't give a shit my work." It's like listening to live music by a musician who can't be bothered to tune his instrument. I know, I know, if I don't like it don't look at it...
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Feb 20 2005 : 2:50PM
My only question is why does it matter?
I mean we do get to see Lily, it's not like she's in the shadows...
There was a thread about political incorrectness in porn titles and it was shrugged off as 'it's just porn' - I think this is far less worrisome than movies having racial slurs in titles don't ya think?
So here's where I employ, the 'it's just porn' saying, just because I don't think too many people care about if there are shadows in porn pics. What people care about are the girls and/or the action going on in the pictures.
Well I think Yes lights are very important in a porn pics or movie bad lights may damage the whole film or may not allow you to see nothing so light is important .
I don't know from where those pics come from but if it is a pseudoamateur site that shadow maybe logical in order to fake an homemade picture if not light like these allow only one angle and only one point of view they're useless for a complete shooting
Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 2/20/2005 3:25:37 PM
Chasing shadows on the wall Chasing shadows as they dance on the floor Chasing dreams that were forever young Now I'm on my own Chasing shadows on the wall Shadows on the wall
They're only two pic but consider a scene for example if she touch herself you cannot see anything due to the shadow of the hand or imagine a fuck . First of all they cannot change position but a reverse cowgirl because of this particular light and second thing Male shadow may cover the actress in almost every other positions even cowgirl is impossible because of the shadow of the ass covering the scene under.
Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 2/20/2005 3:37:47 PM
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Feb 20 2005 : 4:02PM
Agreed, but there's no action (sex) going on here. Based on the two pictures I seen, this is where my comments stem from. Give 2 more pics of her in action with this lighting and I could comment of this is "bad" lighting
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Feb 20 2005 : 7:08PM
I can see if you're going for a "noir" look, but that not case here. And i don't buy that the guy's angling for verite in his shoots.
Nietsche you are over-reacting. If you do't like this guys work then find somebody else who doesn't use shadows- its that simple. This Matt photographer can't satisfy everybody.
It all comes down to a question of taste.
Like artichokes... don't like it? then don't eat it. Eat something else
i agree with nietzsche. it seems many websites go for quantity over quality. they just dump everything they shot of a girl into their galleries. so 1/2 of a stock of 200 pics are plagued with things like questionable focus & lighting, to say nothing about composition. a little quality control would be much appreciated.
I don't think it is fair to slam Matt in this case. His site proudly boasts his "anti-glam' stance. He has been at this a long time with a lot of memberships sold so obviously someone doesn't mind a shadow here and there.
I think I would be a little more upset over something that wasn't supposed to be there. Like the last VIVID feature I saw where you could see the boom mic hovering through half the scene. Your freakin VIVID for crying out loud, a little attention to detail would be nice.
Sinclair
[Link]
Mayor of Chatsworth Freelance Pornographer
Chatsworth, CA 178 Posts 1/05
Posted - Feb 21 2005 : 6:17PM
Hey, look: another pal of Matt's posting. This thread must really be bugging the self-styled "King of anti-glam".
OMG, an amateur (styled) porn site with crappy photography, quick somebody call the ART POLICE! It's just porn, relax. Notm everybody can be Justice Howard.
Posted - Feb 19 2005 : 11:55PM
