Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
Why, because it's not glamour?
News Flash... there are HUGE sites outside of the glamour scene. I can't rub one off to any of the sites in your list. Quality photos for sure, but totally un-wankable for me. Met-Art is the only site of any quality that I find hot. Met-Art kicks total ass.
Many of you photographers are too one track minded. I read on some photo boards when you guys get into little piffs over one guys lighting or other petty shit as if the majority of surfers even notice if a pic is white balanced or not. A guy with a hard cock in his hand does not care. Voyer Web is a prime example of this.
Anyway, I'm getting off track. Happy hunting.
|
Very good points. However completely wrong.
If porn had anything to do with lighting and focusing then getting it right would be so simple 10s of 1,000s could do it. Thankfully it's not about photography.
Porn is about stimulating a fantasy in the viewers brain, and nothing about photography. The fantasy can be different for so many people and needs a different approach to get right.
On a personal level I have always loved Buttman, Ben Dover and early Ed Powers. Yes I also like Suze Randall and Earl Miller but more for the photography than pornography.
And lastly if I had to rely on my photography skills to earn a living I would be broke.