Orbs

Sometimes pornography is not what you wear or do not wear but

your 'style' (or lack thereof) in doing so. Notice the 'orb' of the man's

head as he looks on, left. This from the annual 'porn' convention in Las

Vegas one year, at which there is really NO PORN, just porn stars,

wannabe porn stars, porn hucksters, and porn aficionados who pay

outrageous prices for tickets to get a glimpse of an extravaganza that

is, , , well . . . all 'squeal' and no 'pig', - oh . . . perhaps there is a

little 'pig', but any form of nudity is prohibited. There's really more sex in

an Iowa strip club. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful

and constructive comment; please share your superior photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. (Please rate the

photography, not your feelings on the subject of pornography or whether

you 'like' her.) Thanks! Enjoy (if you can) John

Make much eye contact?

Sorry Peter, just hoping to avoid getting a black eye.

 

Maybe she's the dream babe for the guy, left, not me.

 

My girlfriend is 10 times more beautiful by any subjective or objective standard (I cannot send or reveal photos however, but she's a model and has a terrific thin figure.a terrific mind as well, and is loyal as all get out.

 

I just try to take interesting photos. I hope I succeeded.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Now I can relate to that, nice shot :-)

ehehe, compliments for the courage you had in shooting this.... dangerous, i think....and more, is a photo that tells a lot about this place, people there, etc. bravo, from the particular to the general, this is photographie

John, I know exactly what you mean.

 

just a comment, I don't understand why anyone would want breast that big!!!! You can look at the skin holding them to her chest ad see the skin is not happy :) Great angle of the photo, but gosh, I just don't understand women who do that to their bodies!!

Men are programmed to look and some to desire. It's just that simple.

 

It's in the genes of some men.

 

So some women exploit, not having anythig else to fall back on. After all, why not?

 

You and I agree of course.

 

I'm not promoting this, as you can see, I think.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

I undergo all sorts of dangers to please my viewers.

 

Thanks for recognizing that.

 

John (Crosley)

Yes, from the general to the particular . . . here are two particulars . . . overstretched mountains of drooping flesh and a starry-eyed onlooker.

 

Not to my taste and more than a bit bizarre for mine.

 

That's what I hope I captured, of course.

 

I think you do understand me.

 

I LOVE to look at pretty women, but not grotesquerie.

 

As here.

 

She may be very nice, but is no archetype in my pantheon of archetypes.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

My comment to Carl above, relates to you also. The dangers I undergo to please you guys (and gals) . . . .

 

John (Crosley)

John,terrible Bokehs and for ruining my lunch a 3/3 :-)

Rate as you will, but ruining lunch for you -- think about me, and my stomach is not so delicate (think squashed cat with bulging eyeball shot that's kind of PN famous), but still . . .

 

And a ruined lunch is not in the guidelines, but oh, well, rate as you will . . . . still, don't forget 'impact' is an element of 'aesthetics'.

 

Just as I was afraid of 'impact' and the threat of black eyes ;~))

 

John (Crosley)

 

P.S. I just looked at your rate, and you were funning me . . . . good sense of humor..

 

JC

Excellent capture, a lot of woman. Great portrait in fact..

good wide angle effect as far as I know. Cetainly not from Philadelphia but she looks like a good sport and a nice girl .

This one is 'up close and personal' if I do say so myself.

 

Unlike 'Dasha', previously posted, whose very large bust may be every bit as big, I think but much more 'elevated' and 'firm', this woman has a few years on her and a great deal of droop.

 

I met a man today who hauled from under his jacket a porno glamour magazine of women in their 40s and 50s and said,'these are true women', and he certainly was entitled to his taste. They all were American women and quite fleshy. German men, if their magazines and many videos on their television are any indication, like big bosoms a lot.

 

Now how, do you ask, does a total stranger show me his porno magazine from its hiding place beneath his jacket where he conceals it from all others?

 

It's part of my secret of the same thing that allows me to get close,very close, to this woman, and not have her feel that I'm a 'perv' or a 'creep' -- I have legitimate intellectual and personal interest in people and I just 'reek' of that and legitimacy rather than just being a 'voyeur' . . . not that there's anything wrong with that (Helmut Newton said that was probably OK, to misparaphrase him . . . . .;~))

 

And if she had perfect breasts, not the oversize ones, and Mr. Baldie weren't looking on somewhat wistfully but somewhat leeringly this would not be much of a photo at all, and I had a lot of thoughts over a long time before I decided to publish this here.

 

It's taken with a D2x or a D2xs with poor low-light capabilities at higher ISO, accounting for poorer capture quality . . . . damn if I only had taken it with a D3 or a D300.

 

(By the way, I can get a D3 or a D300 for amazing discounts, with warranty (USA) if you have interest. Contact me . . . .honest to gosh!!! I tried one of the D3's and the flesh tones were amazing and it shot wonderfully, in 'demo' mode without a chip, factory set. Wow! Not a D700 but a D3 at an amazing price. No 'battery pack' needed or special ENEL4a battery, because it comes supplied, and those are a couple of hundred dollars apiece and last 'forever'. My D300s, have those battery packs on the bottom, just do if I got a D700, I'd pop them on the D700, but I can do better going straight to a D3 -- can you believe that?)

 

I've had it with failed photos on account of high ISO and low-light causing them to fall apart; I've missed some world class captures because of that . . . .and most fans know i shoot at night, in extremely 'iffy' conditions, etc., with the most failed light.

 

The D300 is a help, but its smaller sensor means some noise, and a full-size sensor will mean even less noise, by the laws of physics.

 

So, this is not just about the capture itself, but about the quality of the capture and the camera's role in that.

 

And how I managed to get 'up close and not be personal . . . . which is something I Do all the time. I did it with a total stranger tonight by tapping him on the elbow. He looked exactly like Samuel L. Jackson someone who looked at the captures said, and by God it may even be Samuel L. Jackson, but he said his name is 'Ray' so that's his name for me.

 

I don't photograph celebrities without their permission unless it's in a place where it's invited.

 

Even though I often have the chance (If I knew who the celebrities are, and frankly since I don't watch television *other than Craig Ferguson*, I haven't a clue who anybody is, outside of a few wonderful award winning movie stars from this year's bumper crop of great movies.

 

And Vladimir.

 

I practiced evasive tactics.

 

(no black eyes)

 

;~))

 

John (Crosley)

Notice that she seems to be leaning back?

 

She's not.

 

That is a matter of perspective and not necessarily 'wide angle' though one does not negate the other -- both effects may be present in the same capture, as here.

 

But not in all captures.

 

I say this because I believe you are Meir Samel's doppelganger, and have asked you before if this is true or not, but you have not replied to confirm or deny.

 

Mr. Samel seems not to know the difference betweem wide angle distortion and the simple appearance of backward 'lean' when taking a photo of a vertical subject from up close.

 

I am not the only one who feels that you are an assumed name for Mr. Samel; I have been approached by other(s) in the membership with the same comment.

 

How about an answer?

 

John (Crosley)