camera angle

euclid60 · 21-11-06 08:46:36

I'd like to see a bit more close ups of the action, keeping the young lady's expression and cortortions in sight. Too many shadows.
Also, some of the climaxes are either not climaxes or some not quite real; some of course are quite seemingly authentic.

polarchill · 21-11-06 09:04:48

Okay, everyone, on the count of three, slap yourselves on the forehead. One . . . two . . .

Nowaysis · 21-11-06 09:46:20

I'm sorry, I wore my hands down to nubs doing that with the last barrage of identi-posts regarding camera angles/shadows and authenticity.

reellies · 21-11-06 17:27:16

The artful shadows in the studio settings seem to me (a photographer who has done a series of figure studies of women -- www.thebodyproject.reellies.net ) just bad lighting. I prefer the less self-conscious lighting in some of the homemade videos. A truly lovely orgasm, however, can overcome (sorry for the pun) the poorest of lighting.

dyslexius · 21-11-06 20:15:07

May I join in reddening my forehead (in spite of the fact I succumbed to temptation in another thread)?

--dyslexius

Nowaysis · 21-11-06 21:21:13

reellies wrote:

The artful shadows in the studio settings seem to me (a photographer who has done a series of figure studies of women -- www.thebodyproject.reellies.net ) just bad lighting. I prefer the less self-conscious lighting in some of the homemade videos. A truly lovely orgasm, however, can overcome (sorry for the pun) the poorest of lighting.

I may agree in some part, sometimes the shadows do take up far too much of the screen and one's attention, but there have just been so many threads on this subject, and so few of them phrase it in a respectful manner or invite any kind of discussion, it just gets tiring reading them.

Also, what you (and many others) call bad lighting may be exactly what the person setting the lighting was trying to achieve. That's the peculiarity of IFM -- it is, or at least tries to be, to a lesser or greater extent a work of art, as well as a smoking hot erotica site, and the artist always has final say in that case. We may have opinions, and we should voice them as long as it's done respectfully and with due tact and consideration, but we shouldn't expect things to change simply because we disagree with the artists'/creators' vision.

Last edited by Nowaysis (21-11-06 21:26:06)

polarchill · 21-11-06 23:47:20

reellies wrote:

The artful shadows in the studio settings seem to me (a photographer who has done a series of figure studies of women -- www.thebodyproject.reellies.net ) just bad lighting.

Which would be inescapable logic, if art were something that came in a series of pre-manufactured identical boxes.

richard · 22-11-06 01:29:46

reellies wrote:

The artful shadows in the studio settings seem to me (a photographer who has done a series of figure studies of women -- www.thebodyproject.reellies.net ) just bad lighting.

Bad? What is "bad"? If the photogrpaher fixes the shadow to satisfy a particular intention who are you to say it's bad? It's not a clear mistake like, for example, making a web site that is difficult to navigate, makes the user wait through posey fades before they can select something, and opens images in the main browser window.

monkey13 · 22-11-06 03:41:30

reellies wrote:

The artful shadows in the studio settings seem to me (a photographer who has done a series of figure studies of women -- www.thebodyproject.reellies.net ) just bad lighting. I prefer the less self-conscious lighting in some of the homemade videos. A truly lovely orgasm, however, can overcome (sorry for the pun) the poorest of lighting.

I agree with reellies and euclid 60. There are too many shadows. They are not artistic; they just reflect the editor's ego, and as such, I think they are just annoying to many of the subscribers.

dyslexius · 22-11-06 03:54:29

T h r e e !

- - l e x d y s i u s

dyslexius · 22-11-06 04:18:44

My esteemed friend Nowaysis, I think you've got a near-coinage there. From among Altavista, Yahoo, and Google, this is the only interesting citation I could find (some blog, somewhere in the cybersphere):

Friday, March 18, 2005
identi-post
this post wouldnt delete, it used to be a double post. yknow like when you post, and you think it isnt working, so you post again. and then you end up with two identi-posts? yeah. well im just changing it cause it wouldnt delete. it used to be like the one with the tater tots. thats all. bye.
posted by Turd Ferguson

. --dyslexius, IFM's resident pedant

richard · 22-11-06 05:31:10

monkey13 wrote:

reellies wrote:
The artful shadows in the studio settings seem to me (a photographer who has done a series of figure studies of women -- www.thebodyproject.reellies.net ) just bad lighting. I prefer the less self-conscious lighting in some of the homemade videos. A truly lovely orgasm, however, can overcome (sorry for the pun) the poorest of lighting.
I agree with reellies and euclid 60. There are too many shadows. They are not artistic; they just reflect the editor's ego, and as such, I think they are just annoying to many of the subscribers.

The editor doesn't set the lights, monkeyboy. If you don't like the lighting, piss off. You made your point about 13 posts ago.

gala · 22-11-06 05:59:07

haha. ah. richard.

Desertgirl44 · 22-11-06 06:39:50

To those who don't like the shadows, why bother paying your subscription and downloading the videos? Follow Richard's advice and go somewhere else. Plenty of brightly lit, non-artistic sites out there.

I accept the shadows. But then I accept that the camera persons and contributors have set out to achieve a certain look to their finished product. I view IFM as artistic erotica, which allows for full creativity and artistic expression.

msnevil · 22-11-06 09:25:21

Wow, That really won them over to your cause.

As a older gentlemen, Let me tell you a little secret. Woman like the lights off. Its natural for them, And that is what most of us want to see.

Why Are most hidden voyuer Cam's "dark". Because most woman like to "jill" in the dark.

So you three amigoes can deny reality. (And go somewhere else.) Or join the Head smacker's society. The choice is yours.

monkey13 wrote:

I agree with reellies and euclid 60. There are too many shadows. They are not artistic; they just reflect the editor's ego, and as such, I think they are just annoying to many of the subscribers.

polarchill · 22-11-06 10:15:09

Desertgirl44 wrote:

To those who don't like the shadows, why bother paying your subscription and downloading the videos? Follow Richard's advice and go somewhere else. Plenty of brightly lit, non-artistic sites out there.

Personally, I like www.nakedfivefeetfromthesun.com. You very rarely see any shadows on that site.

#1 21-11-06 08:46:36

camera angle

#2 21-11-06 09:04:48

Re: camera angle

#3 21-11-06 09:46:20

Re: camera angle

#4 21-11-06 17:27:16

Re: camera angle

#5 21-11-06 20:15:07

Re: camera angle

#6 21-11-06 21:21:13

Re: camera angle

#7 21-11-06 23:47:20

Re: camera angle

#8 22-11-06 01:29:46

Re: camera angle

#9 22-11-06 03:41:30

Re: camera angle

#10 22-11-06 03:54:29

Re: camera angle

#11 22-11-06 04:18:44

Re: camera angle

#12 22-11-06 05:31:10

Re: camera angle

#13 22-11-06 05:59:07

Re: camera angle

#14 22-11-06 06:39:50

Re: camera angle

#15 22-11-06 09:25:21

Re: camera angle

#16 22-11-06 10:15:09

Re: camera angle

Board footer