Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by PEnGUiN188, Mar 12, 2008.
Dave Hill Look. NWS "art" so its ok.
thats some real terrible stuff. I bet the ppl on POTN are loving it
Have you ever looked at this thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=366615
some are a lot are
damn i have to register to see
Oh good christ why would you even
Is this for real??!! Man the Harpoons!
lawl I should post the one of me and my gf..taht would rock
I made it thru two pages of that thread hoping for OT style posts. I was disappointed.
i'm gonna register just so i can see this
Ban threadstarter lol. Fucking barf man!
The set this in could double for the hell yeah mother fucker
what the mother fuck.
Just need one more poz
pete finally took down the shot of his ex and edited the post
HAM BEASTS EVERYWHERE>>!!!!!!!!!!! KILLLLL ITTT!!!!!!!
wow that was fun
This thread makes me uncomfortable.
I really felt like I wasn't supposed to be looking at that shit
Interesting question. Can a good photographer make a, as eloquently as could have been put, "Hambeast", look good? And if not, is then a photograph first limited by the attractiveness of the subject no matter the skill of the photographer?
Personally I believe a pretty person shot by the same photographer will always create, based solely on photographic merit, a better image than an ugly person. As is when a photograph is taken; attractiveness of the subject transcends into art, or more aptly into art based solely on itself. Therefore as humans we find slim lines and symmetry more visually pleasing, and as such an attractive person by default will not limit the skill of a photographer, instead it will compliment it and thus create a better image, as a whole.
you don't know how hard it is for me to hold back on that board
is that a dude?
I think that solely depends on the person viewing the image. just like art.. beauty is subjective.