Thank you for reliable service, ImageHyper
WalterBosque-Art WalterBosque-Art - Roxio - Intimate Window (x41)
Thank you for reliable service, ImageHyper
Liked by 30 users: advten, alex06, BeTauM, BitsyTittsy, Boris31, brickhorn, CrazyDiver, frambueso, Germling, grendal,janusz_mc, JCKiller, joghurt123, Joli, MacroBlack, MediaPlayer, momalle1, norfs, Perkolator, pornpig, rotsch, snakebyte, temp116, thmosh, va9ra, Veldman, vynil22, wayson, zui72, zx11c3
Now this is a really beautiful model. It's too bad that Walter can't (or won't) give us any clear pictures of her lines and body tone because as usual he's trying to show us how "arteestic" he is with the use of all the shadows and bad lighting that he uses so often
Liked by 1 user: Jumala
You know why it's beautiful? Cuz it's not airbrushed. These bad lighting and shadows are showing me actual skin with pores.
Met-Art etc have the models, locations and direction.... but this is more beautiful. Those companies need to learn not to make a blurry mess.
I agree with both of you guys.
I think I am in the middle.
I like good lighted pics and a little bit of photoshop.
I also like candid photos.
However, too much of anything is not good. For example, pics above are too dark to see the entire pores of her skin. Some photos from Met-Art are too heavily retouched using Photoshop.
I think moderation is a virtue here.
Plus, taste differs. So there is no right or wrong answer to it.
Beautiful girl
.... Dodgy 'Artistic' photos (some of which, on close inspection (!)) are blurred
but, nevertheless, worthy of a space on my hard disc!!
Many thanx for sharing!!
It's not so much of the lighting really.Originally Posted by electionis
I agree with both of you guys.
I think I am in the middle.
I like good lighted pics and a little bit of photoshop.
I also like candid photos.
However, too much of anything is not good. For example, pics above are too dark to see the entire pores of her skin. Some photos from Met-Art are too heavily retouched using Photoshop.
I think moderation is a virtue here.
Plus, taste differs. So there is no right or wrong answer to it.
I used to enjoy (still do, but not as much) Met-Art, FemJoy & Errotica-Archives a lot. I prefer them more, but lately they've been airbrushing absolutely way too much. I hate it.
The shots are beautiful. The pictures and scenery are beautiful. The models are beautiful. The direction is terrible. Wrinkles are beautiful, and they take them out. Airbrush pimples, not natural beauty. If I wanted someone's artistic clean blur, I'd go look at hentai.
I'm glad I started this discussion. My point is that these pictures are presented (or should be) for OUR (all of us) viewing pleasure. I don't think any of us need shadows and bad lighting obscuring what we're looking at or plants and stuff growing in fields blocking our view and as in a few of these galleries lately, 24 (I actually counted them) shots of the same models ass no matter how nice it is. 24 is a bit much.
And the better known names such as MET, Femjoy, Errotica Archives, Zemani, Digital and all the rest should get rid of the air brushes completely
Let we viewers enjoy the naked girls the way they naturally look (and please leave a few with hair).
These magazine formats are not (or at least shouldn't be ) the place for the photographer to show us all how artistic he is above all the rest
Interesting debate, folks. My two penneth.... I prefer the more artistic approach of photographers like Walter Bosque (this set isn't one of his best though). I think light and shadow (natural or otherwise), when used well, adds depth, accentuates curves and generally promotes the natural beauty of the model. Conversely, too much focused light, whilst you can see everything, has a tendency to flatten and create a 2D effect. I also like natural settings, "plants and stuff", clothing, etc to be used in sets as I think they add interest. I also like to see progression within the shoot... not just naked-girl-spreadeagled-on-bed... Shoot... Repeat ad nauseum!
As for post shoot retouching, airbrushing, etc, then I'm all for it. But only if it's to correct focusing, reduce noise, improve colours, remove photographer reflections etc, etc. Leave the models themselves alone, let them look natural! Freckles, moles and other 'blemishes' are what makes each girl unique. I don't mind them removing the odd spot, tattoo or piercing, but too much leaves them looking like identikit cartoons! And Photographers, please allow the girls to have pubic hair. I don't want the models looking like prepubescent girls!
The fact that diffierent photographers and websites have different methodologies is a generally a good thing as it caters for all tastes. But I do think there has to be some artistic approach. Without any artistic approach, do the models become merely objects; just conjoined pieces of anatomy captured in pixels?
Artistic approach is in the scenery, poses and style... not photoshopping
why i'cant see the pictures?
Because imagehyper ate them and shat them into the ether.
Liked by 1 user:janusz_mc
FLMAO!!!!!!
Liked by 3 users: ChrisBaker, mastersq66, me2011
Posting Permissions
