Who knew just one butt could have so much shine!
← Previous post
Next post →
That is one shiny badonkadonk.
Oil that azz up and shake it. I am a FAUXtographer!
The poster is right.. That is some major s**t.
This is tacky. absolutely no class and definitely not appropriate for FB, how can they approve this, but remove beautiful maternity images for “nudity” .and if they can do all that editing to make her so shiny, why couldn’t it fix her rolls? seriously?!
My only complaint is that you think her rolls need fixing. Yes, this is an awful picture but as a person with rolls here and there, not cool. If I had confidence to do a shoot with a real photographer, I would not want the pictures edited to make me look “acceptable”.
God help us if they ever release the front view.
You should REALLY put a NSFW cover image on the mainpage. I officially can’t view this site at work anymore without risking getting fired.
It’s not that I’m a prude or anything but this is the second image in the last 30 days that isn;t really appropriate for all audiences.
Now, on to the image … WOW. The unfortunate model doesn;t really have the body for this kind of work but a GOOD photographer would have known how to best present her phenotype. I’d probably have focused more on her face, chest area and completely ignored the legs … a nice low key shot with a gridded light on the subject’s face and “hopefully” ample busson could have worked … at least it would have been better than this!
Next it the HORRIBLE harsh direct light … a sexy shot needs some nice soft defused light … just look at all that glare!
Looks like the guy has a large arse fetish based on his totally inappropriate facebook avatar.
Then view it at home you numpty and do some work instead rather than trawling the internet
Ever heard of a lunch break? The site doesn’t take more than 5 minutes to browse and up until recently was perfectly work safe.
You know – your boss is paying you to WORK, not to surf the internet. Why don’t you wait until you’re home? If my staff was online when they’re supposed to be worked, I’d be pissed. And yes, fire them. If they fire you for clicking on an “inappropriate image”, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Not this site, not FB, not anybody. Yourself only.
“Supposed to be working” was what that was supposed to read.
You’re kidding me, right? Fire them? So You’re trying to say that you do not EVER surf the I Internet at work? Comical. I am well aware all of my bosses do. And as long as we don’t have work to do, it’s not a prob for staff either. Sounds Ike someone needs to remove the stick….
So then you’d also fire someone for making a personal phone call?
Obviously, you’d make (or are) a horrible boss.
It’s not an issue of not working or slacking off at work. It’s an issue of appropriateness, and from your response, you obviously don’t understand that.
look at it on your phone… not the work computer.
While I think the editing of this photo could have been done much better, tastefully done nudity is perfectly fine for certain facebook pages so I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Also I certainly hope that you Jenna are not a photographer. I believe all photographers should have respect for any subjects they may come across, particularly those photogs that work with human subjects. Your comment about her “rolls” and the fact that three others chose to like it should be highlighted as the worst thing to look at on this whole page. I think you need to do some hard research on what it means to be a photographer and have class.
in the words of the immortal Psy….HEEEEEEEEEY SEXY LAADY!
Or not. This is…horrific.
I’m with Justine on this one. The human body, no matter what size, shape, or color, if photographed by a good photographer, can be beautiful. Rolls, flab, dimples, bones poking out…It’s all about composition and confidence.
I agree. Unfortunately, oiling the woman’s skin up like a leather saddle and using a high-contrast filter does not count as composition or confidence.
where the hell’s my eye bleach? *sigh*
Eric- why are you surfing it work anyway? Shouldn’t you be working?
As far as the photo= I have no issue with nude photographs but this is just a bad photo with bad editing.
Ever heard of a lunch break?
yes- but ever heard of boss watching your browsing history– it is always advised to simply not use company computers to browse- use your phone – then you never have anything to worry about = plus– some places keep record of what you are viewing- including bank accounts and so forth– so for your own protection- just saying! Besides what is so pressing on this site you need to browse at lunch?
People really shouldn’t look metallic. Also the fact that her shoes and her shadow have blended into a large black lump is really bizarre.
And props to Justine, total agreement. If people want to be stupid and shallow and bash the models there are hundreds on website no doubt devoted to that. Go there.
The first thing I noticed was the environment. The setting doesn’t embrace her or enhance her. It’s just a floor and a sterile wall. This might be the photo used to document a cavity search. One can get the lighting wrong and editing wrong. This one also started out wrong even before the model arrived.
I actually don’t mind her body, offensive rolls and all (really, Jenna?) I’m more aghast at the crappy setup and post-processing.
The wall has been brushed out, you can see where the siding was where it’s still intact in her shadow. The floor looks like it’s gone through some crazy filter or blurring, they airbrushed her to hell (that aforementioned metallic look) and to top it all off they threw in a classy vertical faux bokeh effect on each side, a la Instagram. She’s just kinda standing there, like PGB says. Yeesh.
I’m no pro, but I think I could have a great time taking some photos of her assets in a more tasteful manner (especially her ink).
Why in the hell do I keep coming here?
Properly done, nudity can be done tastefully no matter what the body shape; I know photographers who specialize in “pin-up” style, they do amazing work no matter what the girl looks like (I’ve seen shots taken of very overweight women, and because of proper lighting, framing, and angles, they look amazing). This is just tacky, clearly the fauxtographer just told his subject to pose like they’d seen another professional do and they hoped that by mimicking the shot, they would produce something great.
Everything is wrong. All these fake photographers give photography a bad name. Poor girl…
One thing that is really killing me about this photo is that you cant even really see her boots. They look like they could be cute boots with a heel; but the post processing has pretty much killed the entire shape of them and any highlights that could have kept them in the photograph. So not only does the rest of the photo have some of the worst editing imaginable, but her legs disappear into a black blob.
Why protect these low class nudie-trash fauxtographers…they do not belong on facebook. Anytime I see junk like this I report it as being offensive. If I could make out the name of this fauxtog I would report him too. YUK. There are ways to make nude (even big sized nudes) beautiful and tasteful and facebook friendly…this guy doesn’t get it.
my senses hurt
+ the fauxtogs profile pic says it all.
they made the poor woman look like the Tinman’s wife!!!! really? a floor, and oh – wait – A WALL!!! best. studio. evOr…. and some poeple actually buy sets… pffft.
This is almost a good shot. Obviously, the model has no issue with her “plus-sized” body, and it comes through in the image. There are not a lot of angles that can make this pose look much better. I’d probably try shooting from the floor to lengthen her legs a bit, and light it better. With the oil, I would’ve shot her more like a bodybuilder, and posed her better. This looks more like a warm-up shot to test the light.
I don’t understand why there’s a bunch of blurriness on her back and the floor, either… it’s like they were blown out, and the fauxtog tried to recover it…poorly.
i can’t believe this is even real…… :S
Lost your password?
Username or E-mail: