What makes pic related so uncanny and unpleasant to look at? Is it the lack of shadows? Why would a photographer go for such effect?
>>4488991because its photoshopped
>>4488991good from far but far from good?
I dislike how much it brings out the skin and hair texture on top of being excessively bright.
>>4488991it's the overdone old lady tanning bed back that clashes with the peach not as tanned cheeks
>>4488991> What makes pic related so uncanny and unpleasant to look at?Too many local adjustments imo
I'm actually a little serious when I wanna find out what gear inthecrack used for their high res pics of women's assholes, they always had the crazy 10mb pictures where I could see any little shitstain they left behind
>>4488991I feel like it should be cropped to just the ass and a bit of thigh.
>>4488991The colours are wrong. Probably taken with a sony. Skin should not be magenta.
>>4489061I thought they made skin green?
>>4489083The issue is the green/magenta colour balance, they're always either green or magenta. Can't be fixed in post.
>>4489087>>4489061Its shot on a canon
>>4488991I find this image very pleasant to look at if you know what I mean
>>4489092Nope. Sony. Nice lie, kid.
>>4489095>s-sony has to be bad, in every threadOlympus is still out of business and released the em5iii 3 times because sony apsc and ff destroyed any reason micro four thirds had to existSony won. They did more than just win. They drove pentax, olympus, and panasonic into the dirt. Shilling on 4chan wont change the broader market. Your favorite brands are dead. Sony killed them.
>>4489126Retarded, or replying to own bait?
>>4489132Both.
