not kind enough! I'll Tell You a Story

Sensual and fun, the models do look like they are enjoying themselves!

This Picture is intended as a part of a story. I am adding ten new

pictures this time. More to come. Please give your opinion on any of

the aspect you want (narrative power, composition, technicalities).

If you ar rating it severely, please let my understand why. Thank you

It is exactly what I aimed for!

wish i was in the middle...thats the only critique i can think of for this one.bravo!!

Not to sound juvenile, but this is pretty much pure porn. Granted, it is an evocative image, and the other comments are very valid, but I highly doubt these two are in a commited life relationship and showing a glimpse of personal intimacy. I really do like it. But I also like Jenna Jameson.

 

D

Thank you Dan, The idea was of something like the stroy from the movie "Showgirls" or something like Russ Meyers' movies!

you shoot this in b/w mode on the camera, or change it later? If you shot it b/w on the camera did you make any adjustments in pshop? I very much like the tones and contrast. Good work. christopher

I can't see how this is porn. Perhaps people who claim it to be need to produce a definition, because the definition I've always read, and understood, would not classify this as such.

 

As for the shot, the standing model looks to posed to me. Her hand seems forcibly placed, and not very natural, and her torso seems static and rigid. You definatly need some work on balancing the tonality of the shot. The sheets and wall on the left are way to hot, and the lower right corner as well. Their tones are good however. If this is digital, I'm not sure why you didn't clean up the mark on the standing ones leg.

 

The idea is good...I mean, who doesn't want to see 2 women going at it?

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

Dear Alberto, for me the important is the message of a photo. Yours are plenty. This photo remember me some masters like Newton and von Unwerth. Let me see more. Congratulations from Brazil.7/7

I shot in BW mode. I just made some quick correction of contrast and brightness in photoshop. I am still not very able with PS and need more practice. Thank you very much for your compliments and the time you spent here.

I don't consider this picture to be porn, and if I understood Dan correctly the meaning was "sensual in what it makes you imagine, even what is not actually shown". If it is so, I am happy with his comment.

As to your comment, I do agree with them: the hand, wall and sheets. The standing model back is probably quite acceptable. As to the spot on the leg... I must admit I was in too a hurry to notice is.

As I said I am not very able with PS, but I will try to work after your suggestions and post an emended version of this picture. I know you are a professional of Fine Art printing, so your comments are really appreciated. Thank you

Even though I don't really deserve your compliments, they make me very very happy, as is just to those masters I am looking up at.

interesting...don't know how to rate....very sensualyet normal....like a small play in the theatre!

It's everything. I'm going to try my best to sound professional and not crude, but still use appropriate language. Pornography is Hustler. Pornography is Penthouse. It shows the internal surfaces of a woman's vagina. It's images that are jerk-off material. Nudes and Playboy playmate shoots are not porn. This picture is close to being in the latter category, but I still feel that it was photographed primarily to get you off, and not to display woman as a beautiful feminine creature, an object of beauty, or the grace of the human form.

 

The studded leather, the spiked heals, the tatoos, it doesn't add up to a something like a Playboy Playmate spread, where you appreciate a ridiculously beautiful woman for her own sake, with some playful sexuality thrown in. This screams, "God, I wanna make a Dan sandwich and Fu&k those chicks so bad." That doesn't mean that it's a bad image, that it's in poor taste, that it smut, or degrading. It's evocative, and the artist, by his own comments, states that this was his intention. It's well done and sexy. Everyone knows porn can be done badly. Porn certainly has it uses, and the bottom line of the porn studios will certainly tell you that. It says to me, that it was created to make you feel a certain way-namely, horny. Images that are designed to make you horny are not bad, there just different that images done my Bob Atkins. (Look up his nudes, and I think you'll understand what I mean.) I personally like this image, and think it's very well done, whatever slight exposure problems there might be. I never noticed the first time I looked at it, because a photo like this isn't designed for you to look at the sheets. It's sexy, it's playful, it's interesting, but in my opinion, it's still porn. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. You may feel differently, but hey, that's why I love America.

 

Dan

Maybe this will help me clarify the issue. Here are nude photos that I consider art, or simply, a nude. I.e., they do not make me want to jerk-off, so they are not porn. My definition, anyway. I'm pretty sure a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

 

Dan

Here's another.

I love this one. I want to figure out who did it, pay them, and hang one on my wall.

 

D

Nicely provocative!