Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.earlmiller
Subject: Re: Names?
From: Frank <bogus@fake.com>
References: <XnsA6221BD4312EFbogusfakecom@69.16.179.42> <hudrlbtjqav31rb3uav3lvb1qfgn4he4h7@4ax.com>
Organization: Your Company
Message-ID: <XnsA626176C1BB6bogusfakecom@69.16.179.42>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 49
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 06:18:08 GMT
X-Received-Body-CRC: 501784994
X-Received-Bytes: 3495
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.earlmiller:2269
> Make a folder with the person name and drop those files in that
> folder. Rinse and repeat.
Thanks for the suggestion. I've been doing this for twenty years, so you'd
think I'd might have come up with a better solution now, but I just
recently became annoyed by this onslaught of unknown women ending up on my
computer. You have to wonder whose brain-dead idea it was to assign these
women some arbitrary number. Someone rude, crass and indiffferent to the
fact that they are indeed human beings. They're sitting around for hours
while people get the cameras, the makeup and the lights just right. A lot
of hard work went into the best of these shoots.
Anyway, I set up everything I've chosen to download and it all goes into
one new folder. Later I come back and maybe keep 5% or 10%. Then you
realize that the best images are some woman you don't know and you'd like
to find more of her. But she just has a number, so good luck with that.
So I've reached a point where I have to be more discriminating. I can't
waste time downloading sample sets of 15 or 25 pictures. What's the point
of that? Who is it whose wasting everyone's time with that? Most of these
shoots had 75 or more shots taken.
Anyway, I have so much more to say, but what's the point? I've enjoyed the
uploads all these years and realize now that maybe I could have contributed
something. I see so many compositional errors. So many exposure mistakes.
So many beautiful women reduced to the whims of some flashy new
photographer who thought they were doing some radical new thing by tilting
the camera at a 45 degree angle. So many clowns not realizing that all you
have to do is study the "Playboy" photos from the late Sixties to realize
how to do it right.
So many so-called "pros" who had no right to take pictures of these women
because they were standing less than ten feet away and had the wrong lens.
Too much wide-angle distortion that makes models look like Holocaust
victims. Too many tattoos. Too much shaving. Too many dopes who think that
dowsing a room in excruciating, bright white will make everything look
better. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Too many models on white linens or wearing
white clothes that end up getting completely blown out. Too many dark
headboards contrasting with white sheets. Wrong again. Study "Playboy" and
you'll see. Use any color, but white. Unless you're a real professional.
You'll know these pros when you see their work. An entire set will be
devoid of white. Everything will have its own color.
Anyway, if this is all very controversial that's ok. Things need to be
shaken up every now and again.
-Frank
|
|