I'm obviously too nit-picky and ignoring the main point of his/her rant. Here's what had me thinking:
> The way porn has gone, and given how good some FF cameras are, do you really need a medium frame camera just to shoot porn? I'm fairly certain most viewers aren't too concerned about the detail of the background.
> Since most porn is shot on location, why would you need a linen from Wally World as a backdrop? That's only for artistic
nudity, not wow-chicka-wow, bad 70's music nudity.
> The colour profile issue: When looking at a cut sheet of 3x5 shots to determine whether or not to work with someone, has anyone really said "wow, that's a really nice shot, but you know what? Something seems wrong...I KNOW! That first photo is in aRGB and that fifth photo is in pRGB. I knew something was fishy!" If this was a magazine, okay, but he's faking for a TF. If we're gonna be outrageous, let's at least be reasonably outrageous!
> "later I intend to sell the photo's" "I have a professional lights" Okay, grammar nazi moment (and no, this isn't a Godwin's Law moment). You spent all that time working on the advert in the first place, and then didn't take two minutes to read it over at the end? I would have let the photos/photo's slide, but then you had to go off with that "I have a professional lights" and sound like Cleetus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel. And you were doing so well, up until then!
But, as Ally said, I'm sure there are already 30 replies to it, asking for details of the shoot!