seanstreiff

I like it this dark, I titled it as I did so that a viewer would have some information about the subject. I don't say that this is always desirable, but for this shot, at least, this is what I wanted to do. To me, at least, the clearly-defined stone-work on the right-hand side, and the nearly clear brick-work at the lower left suggest that these are buildings, and that's enough of a start for the viewer. In my opinion, of course!

-Sean

Feedback would be appreciated!

 

Thanks

Feedback would be appreciated!

Feedback would be appreciated!

Feedback appreciated

I like it, mostly, but I'd like it better without the color manipulation of the eye.

Well, I do find this image sexually arousing, and I doubt anyone would bother trying to deny that the image is intended to have this effect. I also doubt that anyone would seriously argue that the image has "artistic" merit, or any other qualities to offer other than sexual arousal. So, I conclude that this is porn. Now, this doesn't necessarily make it evil, or even despicable, but I don't think that anyone wishing to look at porn needs photo.net to meet that need.

 

I'd rather not see *lots* of this sort of image on photo.net, and I wouldn't mind if there was none at all. However, enforcing an outright ban would be really, really problematic. I guess I'm left hoping that people try to be really honest with themselves when posting photos, and not post if they conclude that a photo (*their own* photo) really is meant to elicit or satisfy a purely sexual desire.

Feedback appreciated!

Comments appreciated.

Feedback is appreciated.

I'm interested in feedback.

Thanks for your comments, James. I especially like the bean-bag suggestion. I actually like the slight gritiness that the focus and noise issues create. But they are technical faults, for sure.

Well, I'm interested in feedback. This is my first request for critique.