There is this thing that happens in photography, (particularly in porn) where the magic veil of the medium is pierced and I realize that what I'm actually looking at is; a man paid a sex workers to take photos of her in a cheap hotel.Why though? Why does the illusion hold sometimes but not others? I have the vague sense that it has something to do with the depth of field, but that's not all of it. I can't quite put my finger on what exactly causes it, but I've definitely experienced it quite a few times looking at photos. Any thoughts?I really want to know because it is currently the major fear holding me back from doing shoots with women. I don't want this weird uncanny effect showing up(censored because /p/ is a christian photography board)
>>4393988- cheap hotel- no talent- crude light- clearly a whore- photography says nothing besides "there's a naked whore on a cheap hotel bed", which is not quite as elegant as "there's a smoking bombshell eating a grapefruit topless on a greek beach", though the principle remains the same, she was probably taken here for free by a photographer willing to fuck her- there's no need for more photos of naked woman, people just do it to be in the same room as a hot naked woman, it's just one level below whoremongering
>>4393988In my opinion in this case it has to do with framing, light and compositionThis has more of a cheat snap shit porn look, but in the right hands it can become a tasteful nude photo
>>4393990I agree that there is clearly a lack of experience on both sides on the camera here. I also agree that the harsh, flat lighting is a problem. But I think your most insightful point is the bit about how the photos don't mean anything, it's just porn. I think it's the uncanny effect of having a real camera taking amateur porn. If this were taken on a phone it would look fine. But the gear combined with the bad lighting and lack of meaning force the viewer out of all their 'hiding places' and leave them no choice except to understand what they are seeing.
>>4393992He actually does get some decent ones in this set. But I also can't help but notice the better ones are at a tighter focal length. There seems to be a connection to wide focal lengths contributing to the effect.
>>4393988Have you ever tried taking photos with just the downlights on in a room, no flash, windows open? It doesn't look good. It looks like that picture you posted. I'm guessing since she's a sex worker this was taken in the middle of the night so the photographer felt that natural light through the windows wouldn't be an option. Typically I find this kind of shot to have the most pleasing lighting, so yeah, already not off to a great start. If I were in this situation I think it would be helpful to try and create some more angled, light. She's quite fit so something that could illuminate one side of her tummy and a cast a shadow on the other would be nice, bounce flash could do that, though you'd have to experiment with staging as you still nice a white-ish wall or ceiling to bounce it off of. You could also try something like having her stand in front of the bathroom mirror with the bathroom lights on, and all other lights off and then take the photo of her through the doorway from outside the bathroom, hopefully casting a shadow on her back and lighter areas around her sides and breasts. Maybe you could take her outside the cheap motel and try and get her under some fluorescent lights. I'm not a portrait photographer I'm just spit-balling here. Couldn't find any images that really capture what I'm talking about so maybe it's a shit idea.
>>4393988>dead pixel>right in the centerit's a snoy sensor, isn't it?
>>4393988This setting begs for flash photography.
Don't worry about your fear of shooting nude women, OF and COVID killed it off.If you're fat, old or unattractive they won't work with you these days.
>>4393988I want to suck her toes
That's a man
>>4394039Worse. It's a woman with no redeeming qualities.At least a man is going to act like a man.
>>4393988That's not a precise thing, not something you'll "learn" by watching some tutorials on youtube or talking to some anon on an imageboard.It has to do with the commitment yo'll put on your photography, independently of how you're gonna get your photos.If in your mind you're gonna go to a cheap hotel to take pictures of some hookers, that's what you'll have from your pictures.If in your mind you're going to have a creative project involving the female body and more importantly the right mindset to creativity you're going to have something that's not porn.Nothing bad about wanting to take porn pics of hookers anyway, just be honest with yourself.
>>4394054>a creative project involving the female bodyholy cope
Maybe thats why I like models looking either smugly confident or happy. Anyway did loads of models got scrubbed from the interwebs or something? I remember I liked a metart one from portugal that always had this bitchy and a bit jewy face but cant find her sets anywhere,
>>4393988Seriously if there are fucking lamps in the room and he chose to do that there is no helping him. Can this thread just die now?
>>4394020i laffed
>>4393988This set is from a long time ago, I swear I remember seeing it on /s/ like a decade ago.
>>4394396It is, it's from like 2004. I subbed to the website to see what 'artistic' porn looked like and was maybe hoping to glean some ideas about posing and composition. Turns out the dude is just bad at photography. He got better in the sense that they no longer posses this uncanny quality of being able to see the reality, but my conclusion from looking through the files is the frankly obvious conclusion: That porn is artistically bankrupt and once you look beyond the titillation and at the photos themselves you find there is nothing there, they are bad photos carried by the fact your horny rather than them being interesting or compelling to look at as photos.The posing isn't even interesting. 99% of it is just 'I have a pussy' and the 1% that is interesting is because the model accidentally moved in an interesting way.To me it's clear that he is the final form of 'doing photography to be near naked women he otherwise wouldn't have access to.' He went shooting on whatever this set was taken with, probably a Canon 5dii, to a Phase one, and models now seeking him out. But it's all empty and worthless as photos and to be fair to him, he never cared about saying anything, he has nothing to say. He was just horny (and probably Jewish)
>>4394397True enough for this lot. I think the model herself looks interesting, but the posing and photos themselves are pretty shitty. I've always felt the set is an example of a wasted opportunity.
>>4394525The set is interesting I think. It gives off a sense of awkwardness but I can't tell if it was deliberate or not.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width4500Image Height5992Image Created2024:12:26 08:02:26
>>4393994Link to the rest of the set? I like how impersonal and generic everything looks
>>4394860>Link to the rest of the set?Literally first result on yandex[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.A136BXXSADXK1Image-Specific Properties:Image Width720Image Height990
>>4394850I'm thinking it was not deliberate, it's obviously pretty amateur kek.
>>4393988>>4393994>>4394850its a great set and OP is a low IQ drone who got filtered
>>4395081What's so great about it?
>>4395111It's porn. That's literally it.
>>4395081It’s mainly great because of the model. If you’re into slim girls with short hair, she is a literal 10/10. Compellingly beautiful.
The model is beautiful, but the flat lighting makes the images look amateurish and cheap. There's literally nothing aesthetically pleasing about them apart from the girl herself.
>>4395138>If you like men
>>4395157>flat lighting makes the images look amateurish and cheapOh look another tripfag with a retarded take
>>4395111not amateur at all, for starters. its autistically calculated, german-like, delivering some uncanny "naturalness".>>4395138shes amazing, truly.
>>4395163Shouldn't have posted them if you can't take the critique. The composition isn't good. The poses are dull. The lighting is terrible. Pic related is what a good nude photo looks like, now ho make yourself a mood board and put in some honest to got effort instead of getting assmad over what some "tripfag" told you on the Internet.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1 dpiVertical Resolution1 dpi
>>4395170>Shouldn't have posted them if you can't take the critique.Not me dumbfuck tripfag
>>4395171
>>4395170Beautiful
>>4395170>reddit text>tripfag>any excuse to post his weird amateur fetish
>>4395179
>>4395161Amazing how we're at the point of liking a woman makes you gay.
I looked at OP's set, and a few shots were more "artful" than just a hired hooker in a cheap motel room.Framing, position of the subject, and lighting. Some of the more up and personal shots where she was in most of the frame, in a position where she isn't just spreading her legs for the camera, could've passed for something a bit higher than just a hired hooker in a cheap motel room.Then there's the lighting. Not much dynamic shit going on, just reminds you of porn set lighting where you see everything, or just room lighting of amateur porn vids.
Shit lighting where everything is evenly bathed in yellow tinting. My eye isn't drawn to any particular point and some amateurs can't figure out that cell phone chargers, wires, the tv, and temperature control panels are distractions.I know I'm not good, but I'd never send any of the escorts I've been with a photo where the fucking fire escape directions are clearly visible.There's also this weird pose I've seen a bunch where the escort/model puts her leg up on the ac unit or window sill. It looks so unnatural and like she's going to jump. A key to erotic/boudoir photos is that the subject looks like she's doing something natural and the viewer should almost feel like they're walking in on something intimate. No one looks natural when they're practically falling off the bed.
>>4396533>everything is evenly bathed in yellow tintingPretty typical of lighting schemes in the early 00s, especially in cheap hotel rooms.
>>4395163He is absolutely correct
>>4394850>>4393994>>4393988>- clearly a whoreshe looks too skinny, good looking and young to be a prostitute
>>4397861You are either too young or too old to be here
>>4394020Sony isn't even pro according to Cambodian bar whores.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
Everything looks classier in mono. A shallower dof would help too.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2025:01:09 10:46:40Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4398061For what inane reason are the nipples blurred? Gives me shitty instagram vibes.
>>4398020This is the meaning of gearfag>seeking out and screenshitting forum posts you think "btfo sony"Aw did sony steal your favorite brands ff market share and press contracts? Did sony bros make fun of all your favorite brands stuff being bigger?He got turned down because he was a creep in an asian country who said "but wait, i have a good camera"
>>4398155I can tell you are a white incel from how you write. Go back to /pol/ you chud loser.
>>4398163asking whores to take photos isn't incel?
>>4398020lmao
>>4398153This is a Christian thread.
>>4395170just Sieff derivative, not much too look at apart from the idea of the central square of light on the bed. The image I posted is the OG shit. The true master.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4398301But I'm Ashkenazim.
>>>4393988>bad flat lighting>uninteresting pose>generic coloursThere is nothing unique nor interesting about this photo and that's largely the problem. I think you'll be fine if you put some effort in OP.>>4400359This is so much better as the photographer here is playing with how light interacts with the look of a body, and also gives some sense of style with the colours, or lack of them.
