I must be getting old but I find myself to be more discriminating and critical in praising photo sets. There was a set this week that shocked me that it was even published. More generally, I don't suffer fools gladly, and those are the people who comment on a set by saying "awesome," "amazing photography."
As a photographer since 1968 (yeah, I know, that was before you were born and totally irrelevant) there are so many things I take for granted when a photographer and a model show a portfolio. Everything should be perfect or nearly so, tho today's technology (PhotoShop) makes any photograph a candidate for amelioration.
What technology can't do is supply ideas, themes, talent and skill. But what do I know, I'm becoming old and irrelevant.
As a photographer since 1968 (yeah, I know, that was before you were born and totally irrelevant) there are so many things I take for granted when a photographer and a model show a portfolio. Everything should be perfect or nearly so, tho today's technology (PhotoShop) makes any photograph a candidate for amelioration.
What technology can't do is supply ideas, themes, talent and skill. But what do I know, I'm becoming old and irrelevant.
merlowe:
Although I am probably one of the biggest pervs on here I rarely comment on a set ..which I am sure does not do much for making friends around these here parts And being a woman that has sets posted here..I know for a fact they are not "perfect" simply because there was very little if any photoshop done AND I am old and irrevelant also..But that being said I was under the impression that SG had strict photo quality requirments ..which makes me suprised every time I come across a set in MR..that looks like I shot it and I gotta say that is not a good thing