Photographer
dgold 2
Posts: 1322
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US
jcmfinearts wrote:
I have been away for like a week and OMG the entries have been fantastic lately... nice to see this appears to be growing 
I thought I would stop by and say hi to everyone, try to catch up and I am WOW'ed ... nice going.... so anyways good to be back and will enter tomorrow's with any luck got some editing to do
Have a great night and see you all tomorrow ...
John Welcome back to the Mayhem!
...look forward to your new work.
The POD 18+ is a feasting display of talent, art and work.
Woo Hoo !
Photographer
dgold 2
Posts: 1322
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US
Amedeus wrote:
Was it ever discussed to stop bumping in the contest thread ... it's getting a bit silly ... what would happen if we didn't bump ? Page Bump...
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
Amedeus wrote:
Was it ever discussed to stop bumping in the contest thread ... it's getting a bit silly ... what would happen if we didn't bump ? Would you really like to know?
Photographer
Amedeus
Posts: 1873
Stockton, California, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
Would you really like to know? I did find the old discussion(s) on the subject ...
Teachers says the entries on the last page would get most votes because the earlier pages wouldn't be viewed .
Statistics would be skewed ...
Possible.
In the POD it seems to be working because of two reasons.
1) The banner (not possible here)
2) A link to where the page where the contest for that day starts. Helps a bit.
But I'm a pragmatic guy with a six sigma black belt ... so I'm always going to try to improve the system to avoid waste (bumps) and poke yoke the system for the human factor
So, teacher, tell me, do those who bump last onto the last page (sic) get more votes ?
The real statistical question becomes ... which process will have more outliers ? (Early votes create outliers ... votes for those that vote for links on the last page without looking at the prior pages create outliers too ... loosing links in a forest of bumps, you guessed it, another outlier ...)
Not enough data (insignificant sample size) to tell without running a DOE.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
Amedeus wrote:
I did find the old discussion(s) on the subject ...
Teachers says the entries on the last page would get most votes because the earlier pages wouldn't be viewed .
Statistics would be skewed ...
Possible.
In the POD it seems to be working because of two reasons.
1) The banner (not possible here)
2) A link to where the page where the contest for that day starts. Helps a bit.
But I'm a pragmatic guy with a six sigma black belt ... so I'm always going to try to improve the system to avoid waste (bumps) and poke yoke the system for the human factor
So, teacher, tell me, do those who bump last onto the last page (sic) get more votes ?
The real statistical question becomes ... which process will have more outliers ? (Early votes create outliers ... votes for those that vote for links on the last page without looking at the prior pages create outliers too ... loosing links in a forest of bumps, you guessed it, another outlier ...)
Not enough data (insignificant sample size) to tell without running a DOE. LOL I haven't (and will continue not to) invested the time in statistical accuracy but casual observation regularly shows "Bump" followed immediately by "Vote!!!!!!!!!!"
Just seems that a few (but higher number than voters in the first half hour) have exceedingly short attention spans and/or disinclination to go back a page or two and actually look at the entries.
Sleeping dogs and all ...
Edit:
And before this turns into something else:
1. Agreed about "out of hand" bumping - James' gentle rule reminders are good.
2. I wish people would put the word "Bump" in their bumps so I don't repeatedly open the same image when voting.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Morning all. Sorry about the late vote, I have been fighting a serious sinus infection for a couple of weeks & working crazy hours.
I got in last night & fell asleep in front of my computer about 6 PM. I woke up at 11 when my reminder alarm for the end of day went off & posted it then went back to sleep and didn't wake back up until 10:30 this morning.
My body was just worn out.
I'm off to count the vote now, and send off notes on all the rule breaking entries.
Thanks
for everyones' patience.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
This comment will be repeated in the D.T. and I will bump it for a few pages here. I would ask that all players read this.
There was an issue yesterday (7-7-08) over Thinkjeffery & Juan Steven's post regarding their appropriateness for the contest as they were both "implied nudes" and not actual nudes.
I was not able to deal with this as I normally would due to the circumstances mentioned that delayed me from addressing the vote at the regular time.
As it stands, Juan's entry WAS qualified for the contest under the "strong sexual content" clause in the MM rules. Thinkjeffery's was NOT qualified as it was an implied that he also did not have marked "M" in his own port.
The reason I am making a public announcement about this is that while I DEEPLY appreciate the members who help me out with rules issues and bring things like entries posted in violation of the implied rule or 15 day rule to my notice, and especially appreciate those regulars who help me out with covering the contest & sending notes to people who're breaking rules, I am the SOLE ARBITER of what is & is not allowed for the contest.
IT IS WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE AND UNACCEPTABLE TO LEAVE COMMENTS ON SOMEONE'S PHOTOS DECLARING THEM TO BE UNFIT FOR THE CONTEST.
If any member here sees something they think is in violation of the rules I ENCOURAGE them to PM me and notify me, and if it's an obvious rules violation like not marking an image 18+ to send a POLITE pm to the offending member to point the rule out to them.
Posting a public comment on the photo in question, especially on a subjective issue like an implied shot is NEVER permissible.
ANY such issue should be directed to me so I can address it with the member in question.
On behalf of the PotD 18+ contest, I apologize to Juan & Jeffery for any issues associated with this.
Model
catnoise
Posts: 153
Bouna, Zanzan, Ivory Coast
Just curious if anyone knows what happened to Paul Thomas?
I was sending him a reply to an earlier question and it says he's no longer on MM.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
- Jemme - wrote:
Just curious if anyone knows what happened to Paul Thomas?
I was sending him a reply to an earlier question and it says he's no longer on MM. Weird. I wondered where he'd been.
This is one reason why I ALWAYS ask people for their e-mail.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
Amedeus wrote:
But I'm a pragmatic guy with a six sigma black belt ... so I'm always going to try to improve the system to avoid waste (bumps) and poke yoke the system for the human factor
So, teacher, tell me, do those who bump last onto the last page (sic) get more votes ? I've been busy ... looking back trying to catch up. And may be beginning to agree with you - Sunday there were not one but two empty bumps in the first five posts on the last page.
Empty meaning no link ... apparently simply attention getters? Yes, lots of clutter.
So - the "banner" in the regular POTD could be done here with nothing more than an 18+ link to an image map. Any volunteers to create and maintain it?
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
I just want to grumble that I was hoping to have a pic from tonight's shoot up for Wednesday's contest but the models are late *sigh*
Photographer
Wet Ltd
Posts: 1936
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
SLE Photography wrote:
I just want to grumble that I was hoping to have a pic from tonight's shoot up for Wednesday's contest but the models are late *sigh* Glad to hear you finally got some good rest...but maybe that's not going to last long if your getting a late start tonight
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Wet Ltd wrote:
Glad to hear you finally got some good rest...but maybe that's not going to last long if your getting a late start tonight I'll live. Check your PMs
Photographer
Amedeus
Posts: 1873
Stockton, California, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
So - the "banner" in the regular POTD could be done here with nothing more than an 18+ link to an image map. Any volunteers to create and maintain it? I'm traveling, so I'll try to be short.
With some effort this banner could be automated.
1) drop picture in a bucket
2) banner generator grabs and sizes based on MM width restriction
3) while entries are added resizing and optimizing based on 2
Only one link required to see the total entries of the day.
Network time could be use to start the day and end the day.
Database needs the flexibility to have entires removed by the operator for DQ's etc.
Where are the IT programming guys with time on their hands ?
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Amedeus wrote:
I'm traveling, so I'll try to be short.
With some effort this banner could be automated.
1) drop picture in a bucket
2) banner generator grabs and sizes based on MM width restriction
3) while entries are added resizing and optimizing based on 2
Only one link required to see the total entries of the day.
Network time could be use to start the day and end the day.
Database needs the flexibility to have entires removed by the operator for DQ's etc.
Where are the IT programming guys with time on their hands ? Aside from someone needing to have available webspace for it & a machine to dedicate to the resources needed, there're a couple of problems with this.
#1, People already have TONS of issues with figuring out what links to use to various sites every day as far as page links & direct image links. If the idea of this is that the program would sweep their images and gather them it'd be even more crucial to be sure people were doing something that most folks just can't get right.
#2, if it's a requirement that people UPLOAD their images it's going to involve more work to be sure they get info in & link them correctly. Not only is that more work than many are willing to do, a lot of folks will be reluctant to upload their work somewhere.
#3, unless it DID link back to their MM pages people will be reluctant to have something that cut them off from comments, views, and lists for the images.
#4, if you're talking about dedicated sweeps where the people wouldn't do anything but post like they do now, ignoring #1 you'd run in to MM's server issues and the possibility of Tyler blocking the sweeps as he's doing with ShootNotes.
#5, editing the database for DQed entries would be even MORE work for the admin.
So nice idea, but I see several PRACTICAL roadblocks.
I HAVE (for other reasons) been looking at closing & restarting the thread with new opening/rules posts, and that might make it more practical to put a link in to the most recent page.
I see (as I have noted in past discussions) 2 issues with eliminating bumping.
#1, those images on the last page (even with a ready link to the page where a given day starts) will get more attention from people who jump in and look at the last page.
#2, and FAR more importantly, unlike the regular POD contest we are not stickied. Without image bumps the THREAD would need to be bumped with empty/pointless bumps FAR more often to keep it from being buried in the recesses of the forum, especially on busy posting days.
So while I know the bumping's not popular in some respects and we go through waves of it being misused it's the best system available at the moment.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
All it took was mailing a wireless G card to Nurse Susie and I got a short IM chat last night. :-D
She says Hi to everyone, wanted me to tell y'all that she misses you and the 18+ POTD lunacy ...
Since MM is blocked where she has access, if anyone needs/wants to contact her she has her regular e-mail on her profile here ...
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
So, a couple of things about my image today (7-10-08) https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7482535 (18+) First, Jessie's a bold girl. It was out first shoot, she showed up, and I said "Cool, do you mind wandering naked around an empty old warehouse full of broken glass and sharp metal and rolling around in the weird mud on the floor?" And her reply was "Let's get to it!" For this shot she climbed up on a 4' high rickety old sawhorse to balance on a window sill full of broken glass. We got (IMO anyway) some great stuff, so you guys'll be seeing more from the set. Feel free to stop by Jessie's port & show her some love, she's still new & I think should hear how well she's doing. Second... I hear CONSTANTLY about my images "Oh MAN, they're so DARK." I have an LCD, a CRT, and a laptop. None of them are calibrated oddly or at any extremes of brightness but still I hear this. I have shown images where I can CLEARLY make out details on all 3 of my screens to other photographers who say they have calibrated monitors but can't see the details I see. If I bring the levels up to where other people say they're OK, the images generally look screwy & washed out on MY end. Today's entry is a touch DARKER than yesterday's (side note, there's pretty much NO photoshop on either one except for retouching a few bug bites & a bit of brightness/contrast adjustment) but still looks good to me. Sooooo, here's the same image except with the brightness tweaked up 10 points or so. Does it look noticeably clearer or better to you guys??? http://www.slephoto.com/Models/JessieRa … LargeA.jpg (18+)
Photographer
Wet Ltd
Posts: 1936
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Ok a short review of Wed images for voting that I can talk about. If I don't review your image here for one reason or another you can PM me and I'll be happy to let you know what I think. Not covering all that many this evening as I still have one more formal complaint I need to file with the Federal Trade Commission yet today (2nd of the day..guess which ISP I complained about). Just like yesterday many interesting ideas and images so voting took a while. Those that voted early were really jumping the gun but I'm not starting that fight again. Sexy Cee Cee https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=7469710 18+ Small island, beautifully posed model and water...my kind of shot. Liked the pose for the limited dry space you had to work with as it accented your best parts. Nice use of the natural lighting. Showing this image in BW adds greatly to the effectiveness of the image. Brian Williams https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=7379313 18+ Wow, just a few tattoos on your model today, but you have used them to good effect to add to the image. Love those gloves, when I first opened the image and saw the gloves was a little unsure how they fit in, but now I get it. The only thing I am sorry about was the face mask, would have loved to see her face totally clear. EMB Images https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=1746241 18+ My favorite subject showing that pretzels have nothing on her. And an interesting affect by EMB today. The image was from a shoot that marked my first introduction to the Hide House and the outstanding band of shooters that inspired me. Your effects to the image add an almost unreal feel to the image. Look forward to being able to learn much more from you in the future. SLE Photography https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7470482 18+ Who was out last night playing with a wonderful looking model in a icky looking warehouse at night?? It was well worth closing the contest last night so you could get out and shoot, then share with all of us your image. Interesting dirt pattern on your model as well as another interesting pose. Love the triangle tat on her back. Tommy Dee https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7470482 18+ WOW, we should have had a pose-off today instead of an 18+ contest. Great lay-back pose that really highlights her amazingly firm breasts. I liked your light control on her face, that while keeping the one side a little dark for some folks taste really made you take a look at her lips and the expression she has. With everyones great images of her I really need to schedule a shoot with her. dgold https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=2009867 18+ Now that looks like a pair of trouble. Nice looking models in a very safe pose in one of those really really hard to light locations. I like the lighting on the models, but would have liked better is the background was a little darker to better highlight your model. Hope you have more of this pair that you will be sharing. Cherrystone https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=2009867 18+ And in the red room we have...a great looking image. Sabrina is looking wonderful in this image that looks like it was from the MN shootout (a great time for all) You lighting and processing have really captured the red without it becoming so over done that it is too much. Her pose is sexy without being overly exposing and almost Victorian. Like this image a lot. Well I have to run...hope to be back at it tomorrow. Be sure to check out the last few days of Lilred week in my entries...if you ask nice I might even reveal the location of the farm we were shooting on. Jeff
Photographer
curtis wood
Posts: 1307
Logan, Utah, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Sooooo, here's the same image except with the brightness tweaked up 10 points or so. Does it look noticeably clearer or better to you guys???
http://www.slephoto.com/Models/JessieRa … LargeA.jpg (18+) James, if I open the 2 images on my monitors and lay them side by side the 2nd image is a little brighter. I seem to see a little more of the left side of the model, but it may still be a little to dark.
- a little more noise appears on the skin in the brighter one, also though
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
SLE Photography wrote:
So, a couple of things about my image today (7-10-08)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7482535 (18+)
Sooooo, here's the same image except with the brightness tweaked up 10 points or so. Does it look noticeably clearer or better to you guys???
http://www.slephoto.com/Models/JessieRa … LargeA.jpg (18+) James......Id go with the tweaked one IMHO. Of course therein lies some personal preference....what I see on my two screen here....the first edition if I squint real close I can barely discern her facial profile. On the second one its apparent. I liked the softer tones....but I would also say instead of a 10pt tweak, perhaps a 7 might also be worth looking at....kinda splitting the diff. But past my opinion on images, which is not really what you want to know.....on my monitors I would go for door number two anyday of the week.
On another note.....I had some model distracting me all day, and I got to my puter two minutes late....my apologies for missing the vote. I despise doing that on days I have entries...and its never intended. Ill post an image of her, perhaps Ill get something sympathy for the distraction. :p Sorry folks....
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Wet Ltd wrote:
Who was out last night playing with a wonderful looking model in a icky looking warehouse at night?? It was well worth closing the contest last night so you could get out and shoot, then share with all of us your image. Interesting dirt pattern on your model as well as another interesting pose. Love the triangle tat on her back. There're more of us running around in the woods & a creepy overpass & a few other places, too LOL.
The patterns will become more apparent (origin wise) as you see some of the other places I had her.
Photographer
MC 2
Posts: 2531
New York, New York, US
SLE Photography wrote:
So, a couple of things about my image today (7-10-08)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7482535 (18+)
First, Jessie's a bold girl. It was out first shoot, she showed up, and I said "Cool, do you mind wandering naked around an empty old warehouse full of broken glass and sharp metal and rolling around in the weird mud on the floor?"
And her reply was "Let's get to it!"
For this shot she climbed up on a 4' high rickety old sawhorse to balance on a window sill full of broken glass.
We got (IMO anyway) some great stuff, so you guys'll be seeing more from the set.
Feel free to stop by Jessie's port & show her some love, she's still new & I think should hear how well she's doing.
Second... I hear CONSTANTLY about my images "Oh MAN, they're so DARK."
I have an LCD, a CRT, and a laptop. None of them are calibrated oddly or at any extremes of brightness but still I hear this.
I have shown images where I can CLEARLY make out details on all 3 of my screens to other photographers who say they have calibrated monitors but can't see the details I see. If I bring the levels up to where other people say they're OK, the images generally look screwy & washed out on MY end.
Today's entry is a touch DARKER than yesterday's (side note, there's pretty much NO photoshop on either one except for retouching a few bug bites & a bit of brightness/contrast adjustment) but still looks good to me.
Sooooo, here's the same image except with the brightness tweaked up 10 points or so. Does it look noticeably clearer or better to you guys???
http://www.slephoto.com/Models/JessieRa … LargeA.jpg (18+) Not on my monitor.
I generally like dark images. Some of the nudes in my color port are underexposed.
In this case, I don't really get why it's so dark. I think you could push it a good bit further and reach a wider audience. It's a bit of work to look at.
Have you tried printing it? Because if it's this dark on a backlit monitor, it's got to be much darker in print.
Photographer
MC 2
Posts: 2531
New York, New York, US
Wait! I might take that back.
When I change my monitor to a different viewing angle - titled down, I see an entirely different image. All sorts of detail in the dark area on the left. It looses some of its drama. I think I might prefer more contrast or a curve with the shadows really low and just the lights brought up a little.
I can say that I don't think the post-processing has yet optimized the composition.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
MC 2 wrote:
Have you tried printing it? Because if it's this dark on a backlit monitor, it's got to be much darker in print. That's just it, some of the images people are telling me are "way too dark" online come out GREAT in print.
That's one of the reasons I'm bewildered.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
MC 2 wrote:
Wait! I might take that back.
When I change my monitor to a different viewing angle - titled down, I see an entirely different image. All sorts of detail in the dark area on the left. It looses some of its drama. I think I might prefer more contrast or a curve with the shadows really low and just the lights brought up a little.
I can say that I don't think the post-processing has yet optimized the composition. LCD monitor? I know a slight tilt on mine can produce a big change.
Photographer
Wet Ltd
Posts: 1936
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
SLE Photography wrote:
That's just it, some of the images people are telling me are "way too dark" online come out GREAT in print.
That's one of the reasons I'm bewildered. Bewildered is my normal state!
I agree that when I changed the viewing angle on the monitor I get a totally different view of things. Would love to get a calibration tool of the monitors and laptop but with recent pay cuts and possibility that job might be gone soon need to sell stuff, not buy right now.
Photographer
DJLPhoto
Posts: 585
San Francisco, California, US
Hey folks...I'm alittle late finding and getting to this thread since I started posting submissions that last couple of weeks to the 18+ POD...duhhhh, I felt like I was missing out on some insights I've gotten alot of tags and pic comments from many of you during this time and I really appreciate it, I've tried to return every favor but if I missed anyone, so sorry...life has been very crazy lately I hope to be more involved now but may be periodically sporadic due to some challenges but let me know if I can assist in any way...I have thoroughly enjoyed viewing everyone pics and each of you continue to inspire me to take better photos always willing to chat... 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Wet Ltd wrote:
Bewildered is my normal state!
I agree that when I changed the viewing angle on the monitor I get a totally different view of things. Would love to get a calibration tool of the monitors and laptop but with recent pay cuts and possibility that job might be gone soon need to sell stuff, not buy right now. Yup. Same here. *sigh*
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
SLE Photography wrote:
That's just it, some of the images people are telling me are "way too dark" online come out GREAT in print.
That's one of the reasons I'm bewildered. thias happens to me all the time. I've concluded that my monitor is off. My daughter will be out in a few weeks. I 'll her at it.
Howvwer, the second one looks rather ok to me. So maybe it was a tad light.
Is there some sort of standard setting? What is invloved in calbrating a monitor?
DJ
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
jandj studios wrote:
thias happens to me all the time. I've concluded that my monitor is off. My daughter will be out in a few weeks. I 'll her at it.
Howvwer, the second one looks rather ok to me. So maybe it was a tad light.
Is there some sort of standard setting? What is invloved in calbrating a monitor?
DJ Money. SOmething I'm a BIT short on ATM.
Photographer
Nancy Wishard
Posts: 4098
Fallbrook, California, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Sooooo, here's the same image except with the brightness tweaked up 10 points or so. Does it look noticeably clearer or better to you guys???
http://www.slephoto.com/Models/JessieRa … LargeA.jpg (18+) curtis wood wrote:
James, if I open the 2 images on my monitors and lay them side by side the 2nd image is a little brighter. I seem to see a little more of the left side of the model, but it may still be a little to dark.
- a little more noise appears on the skin in the brighter one, also though ditto for me....my monitor is uncalibrated, fyi.
Photographer
Mountain Image
Posts: 1184
Morgantown, West Virginia, US
SLE Photography wrote:
So, a couple of things about my image today (7-10-08)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7482535 (18+)
First, Jessie's a bold girl. It was out first shoot, she showed up, and I said "Cool, do you mind wandering naked around an empty old warehouse full of broken glass and sharp metal and rolling around in the weird mud on the floor?"
And her reply was "Let's get to it!"
For this shot she climbed up on a 4' high rickety old sawhorse to balance on a window sill full of broken glass.
We got (IMO anyway) some great stuff, so you guys'll be seeing more from the set.
Feel free to stop by Jessie's port & show her some love, she's still new & I think should hear how well she's doing.
Second... I hear CONSTANTLY about my images "Oh MAN, they're so DARK."
I have an LCD, a CRT, and a laptop. None of them are calibrated oddly or at any extremes of brightness but still I hear this.
I have shown images where I can CLEARLY make out details on all 3 of my screens to other photographers who say they have calibrated monitors but can't see the details I see. If I bring the levels up to where other people say they're OK, the images generally look screwy & washed out on MY end.
Today's entry is a touch DARKER than yesterday's (side note, there's pretty much NO photoshop on either one except for retouching a few bug bites & a bit of brightness/contrast adjustment) but still looks good to me.
Sooooo, here's the same image except with the brightness tweaked up 10 points or so. Does it look noticeably clearer or better to you guys???
http://www.slephoto.com/Models/JessieRa … LargeA.jpg (18+) It looks lighter, but it is still too dark for my tastes. I can at least make out some detail on the second that is gone in the first.
Edit-
I just copied it into PS to look and in levels it was barely 1/4 of the way across the histogram. After I boosted it I realized that there was a window there that I never noticed on yours. All I could see in either of the others was a nice set of buns.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
bump
don't forget to vote.
love to hear from more people on today's entries.
Photographer
Amedeus
Posts: 1873
Stockton, California, US
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Mountain Image wrote:
Edit-
I just copied it into PS to look and in levels it was barely 1/4 of the way across the histogram. After I boosted it I realized that there was a window there that I never noticed on yours. All I could see in either of the others was a nice set of buns. You couldn't see the window at ALL? SERIOUSLY? Could anyone else not see the window???
Photographer
Wet Ltd
Posts: 1936
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
SLE Photography wrote:
You couldn't see the window at ALL? SERIOUSLY? Could anyone else not see the window??? I see the window fine....as a matter of fact I like the window better in the base-line image more than the adjusted one.
Photographer
dgold 2
Posts: 1322
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US
SLE Photography wrote:
You couldn't see the window at ALL? SERIOUSLY? Could anyone else not see the window??? ...even i n my color-blindness, I saw/see the window.
And, the nice set of buns.
Of the two images, the 2nd one has a special glow.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
SLE Photography wrote:
You couldn't see the window at ALL? SERIOUSLY? Could anyone else not see the window??? i only could see it in the second one.
Photographer
dgold 2
Posts: 1322
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US
...wow, a 1st place vote tonite - humbling. https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=7446506 18+ Funny, I did this shoot with my muse, Helena, and often we "fight" like cats and dogs over positions and content. I asked her to sit in the spring-fed cold water stream and if a dragonfly happened by not to flinch. Helena did good. ...when she saw the photo, she said I shouldn't show the image beacause of her positioning and that I should remove the photo from my MM portfolio. I asked her to give me just a few dayz so I could gather a little feedback as, again, we disagree from photo-to-photo choices. So, Helena, whever you are: Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah.... And thank you for the votes of and for pleasure. On another note, I see we had two premature votejaculators again tonight... I guess it feels good.
|
