Johnny I shoot specifically for 1 client, have spent years learning to do that style... doesn't mean I personally like it, it means I shoot what I'm paid to... I got the idea from a client that asked me if I wanted to be popular on an internet forum or make money... guess what I chose?

I do like Jay Allen's work and Dean's.... in fact Dean and I have had extensive conversation about work, shooting styles and client needs and expectations.... for instance the image you posted I find it to have blown skin tones, to be OOF with bad skin tone.... while the 'emotion' is possibly there I could NOT sell that image... so what do you want from me?

... this is what I'm paid to shoot...

http://www.456.bz/butt.jpg

:winkwink::thumbsup

https://i.imgflip.com/3w698.gif

http://johnnyolsen.com/wp-content/ga...-von-teese.jpg

here's one that was published in Perfection magazine. the editor's didn't think it was too blown out, they loved it actually. post your tear sheets. :)

you should try blurring the background a bit, being able to read your teenage posters on the wall is a bit distracting. dean will vouch for that one.

brian, if i apply your logic, and judgement, someone with your skill level of photography shouldn't post here because you clearly have some improving to do.

if you don't know the difference between old money and nouveau riche, then i can't help you. p.s. it's significant. i'm not looking to argue either, just pointing out that why not take a few simple precautions now rather than it being "too late". :) cheers.

here's a pic for ya to show you i'm not hostile :)

http://johnnyolsen.com/upload/abbey-brooks-black082.jpg

No Robbie.. You have brought up no new data.. You claimed that the ocean was sucking up all the excess co2. That was your big proof..


I however showed you how scientists had already debunked your NEW data.. And that the ocean was only sucking up 20 to 30% at best. Leaving the bulk of the co2 in the air.

The second thing that was brought up by another gfy member to further debunk your big break through. Was the fact the the co2 the ocean is absorbing is already causing problems as it's increasing the ocean acidification and also creating unwanted plankton that eats up the food resources of the more desirable plankton.. Meaning even if the ocean was sucking up 80% it would mean we are fucked.

You ignore these findings and keep harping on and on about how nothing is wrong because the ocean is sucking up all the co2 in Robbie's magical world of unicorns, rainbows and robbisms..

It's just the same shit on a different day with you as you just say the same debunked shit over and over like a broken record trying to pretend it's new and exciting and anyone that doesn't drink the Robbism koolaide is always wrong..

It's just like when I showed you that Obamacare has expanded insurance coverage and is benefiting people rather than your theories that everyone hates it and less people are insured. I gave you black and white proof and I get you anything you will repeat the same lies in the next topic next week.

Its Not Global WARMING, Its over doing everything!!
 

I live in the West coast & we have zero water left!! People call whites racist when we don't want 10 million other people using our resources, but then you have Dems yelling about global warming & saying we need to change. Funny world we live in

see what I mean about your thought process being suspect? did you NOT understand or chose not to understand so you try and belittle me?

Johnny I shoot at f16 because that's what I'm asked to do... you might want to try doing what your told sometime.. ? just sayin you know?

BTW I do what I'm told to do BECAUSE IT'S MY JOB, in fact it's my job that I use to support my child and grandson... how the fuck about that..... unh?

so once you can figure out how to make your way in the world like a grown man.. I'll be wiling to listen to your theories that you have based on your experience... :2 cents:

okay Johnny I give up... you are a total bass ass mother fucking shooter... ... whoa!

..............oh yeah.. I forgot why you aren't shooting for babes.com again??? slipped my mind ... help me out will ya?

you had better jump the fuck up and sell that guy a bunch more... that's what I would do if I was in your position :2 cents:

please post all your PUBLISHED work brian. you're a bitter guy face it. you attacked me personally first, remeber?

I'm glad you brought this up.

I too believe that the Earth has had many climate changes throughout it's history.

But guess what?

It is climatologists who discovered this through study. And you believe them.

It is these same climatologists who are telling you now that this present warming is caused by man and now you don't believe them. Why?

Why would they all be in bed with those creating the money making scam? I mean ALL of them?

you're kidding right? shot for websites since that day I learned to shoot .. you should hook up with Paul Markem if you want to talk about the gory days shooting for magazines, because that ain't me.... :thumbsup

not so sure it is the 'same climatologists'... on all the shows and articles I watched and read with climatologist not one has ever said a darn thing about global warming :2 cents:

http://johnnyolsen.com/upload/victoria_couch017.jpg

playboy playmate and penthouse pet victoria zdrok from ULTRA magazine.

anyone digging this PHOTO contest? i'll post more if you want.

I only listen to climatologists on global warming. Not governments, talk show hosts, think tanks, blogs, etc...

http://candydreams.com/upload/victor...ra_bath031.jpg

brian, since you're a cunt hair away from being the next helmut newton, please critique away here.

http://candydreams.com/upload/tricia_blue021.jpg

tricia wilds from Perfection magazine.

oh, and i will tell you ALL, repeat ALL of my models come out without getting paid. they come shoot with me because they like my work (including Dita). the published models all got paid once anything gets into a hard copy mag or client website.

i'm still waiting for you to post a 2nd shot. i thought we were doing a "shot for shot" deal?

http://johnnyolsen.com/upload/linda_denim025.jpg

linda tran from ULTRA magazine.

so ATK hairy trumps hard copy magazines?

The problem we have today is climatologists trying to predict the future based on faulty data and faulty models. We should listen to paleoclimatologists who specialize in the climate of the past. For example:

Prepare for new Ice Age now says Top Paleoclimatologist


During the last interglacial, the Eemian, it was warmer than it is today and sea level was far higher than now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

So everything that alarmists are crying about now has happened before, to greater extremes than now, without human influence yet we are are supposed to kneecap civilization and spend trillions of dollars trying to stop something that is going to occur naturally anyways?

It just doesn't make any sense.


.

http://candydreams.com/upload/valentina_hotpants2.jpg

brian, you can't take the heat? busy shooting? at a SAMY's camera workshop?

Why are you so sure the models they use are faulty?

And why are you so sure that the paleoclimatologists are right?

As I understand it (I first heard this from a scientist who was a guest on Bill Maher's show on HBO)...the Earth is adapting in several ways (as it always has). The way I've been talking about is the fact that the ocean is now absorbing CO2 at a higher rate.

That...all by itself makes the data that global warming scientists created their computer models and projections on...WRONG.

Another tidbit from the ocean...plankton are apparently taking care of a big amount of CO2 as well.

There's several other smaller things happening too.

But obviously if you thought that there was going to be "X" amount of CO2...and nature has changed that by a pretty measurable percentage...then all of the computer models will be thrown off.

It's pretty interesting and of course makes perfect sense.

As they say: G.I.G.O. "Garbage In, Garbage Out"

And no, I don't mean that the original data was really "garbage". But it is wrong.

I believe this is the same thing that has made all the climate projections over the last 50 years keep coming out wrong.

The Earth is fluid. And it changes. The data they use is static and can't compensate for the Earth adapting.

I think that's also the point of the emails. The scientists who are funded by companies with major interest in there BEING global warming can't risk losing their money.
The emails suggest that they might not be shouting to the world about the changes that the new data makes to the OLD computer models from over a decade ago.

Sooner the end of the world the sooner the Earth can repair itself.

The models are faulty because they all failed to predict the current 17+ years of no warming despite increasing CO2 levels. All of the models were created with the assumption that the atmosphere was very sensitive to increased CO2, that man is responsible for all of that increased CO2 and that CO2 is the main driver of warming. There are many variables that the models fail to account for like solar influences, cloud cover, water vapour and negative feedbacks. In the end the atmosphere is just way too complex to model. It's a classic case of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

The paleoclimatologists are right because they get to make actual observations of things like the fossil record, sedimentary deposits, geologic formations and ice cores to infer what the past climate was like. Paleoclimatology is a far more established science than current climate forecasting is.

Current climatology can't even get the local weather right 10 days from now but they are 100% right, don't ask any questions, about the entire global climate 10 years from now.



Right.

Carl Sagan said it`s real, his wife, Seth MacFarlane and Neil deGrasse Tyson made Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey witch even talks about Global warming. These are all brilliant people, if you know how to recognize the potential in people.

Carl Sagan was a brilliant guy. Just like the scientists of today are as well.

Mr. Sagan passed away in 1996 looking at static data that doesn't apply to today. It was the same thing I've been saying: the data didn't take into account the Earth's ability to adapt. So scientists created computer models that extrapolated into the future with data that isn't correct.

Sagan theorized in the 1970's that CO2 could possibly cause global warming. Keep in mind that Carl Sagan was a professor of astronomy. Doesn't mean he wasn't plenty smart and able to look at something like CO2 and the atmosphere and make credible statements.

But he did have a habit of kind of over-dramatizing things. For instance, he famously predicted during the first gulf war that if Sadaam Hussein set the oil on fire it would put so much soot into the air that the earth would enter a "Nuclear Winter".

Obviously...that did not happen.

Just like when scientists predicted both an Ice Age AND global warming that would have the coastal cities underwater by the year 2000.
Didn't happen.

Carl Sagan was obviously a smart guy. Even smart people can be wrong sometimes.

Seth MacFarlane? Seriously? So what if he put up the money to produce Cosmos. He is an entertainer. Just because his name is attached to a science show doesn't make him brilliant.

evolution.about. com/od/Cosmos/fl/Cosmos-A-Spacetime-Odyssey-Recap-Episode-112.htm

So you`re saying that the Global Warming process is just a money scheme? Just think at all those floods across the world, not just in the U.S, Europe to. What if it`s really to late to change something, and they began the denial process so that people don`t panic?

If plankton and the algae in the oceans are absorbing more CO2 without consequence then that would be great! Like I said I would love to have my belief be wrong.

It would also mean that we need to take better care of our forests since they too absorb CO2.

I like Bill Maher since he criticizes everyone and pulls no punches and 'usually' has good guests on.

That is one piece of data I will have to take into consideration but it's not enough to completely make me do an abrupt face just yet.

But even if it is proven to be true, that the models are wrong and global warming is not caused by our use of oil, then I still believe we need to use other energy sources anyway, and move away from oil for the following reasons.

1- Non reliance on foreign countries for energy (especially the gulf states)
2- To reduce pollution from burning fossil fuels (not CO2 but the other byproducts)
3- To keep up with demand.
4- To be free from the big oil monopoly.

...

I have heard over and over that scientists have declared that the earth has warmed by a degree or two.

No, I'm saying that the actions of our govt. lead me to believe it's just a money scam.

As for "the denial process"...nope. You've got an entire political party going full steam ahead as far as promoting "global warming" (because they are funneling money that comes back to them through "green energy" companies and "carbon credits").
You have countries holding big summits on global warming.

And then...they do NOTHING.

If you look back at U.S. history, when we finally entered WW2, the govt. mobilized the entire country. Car companies made tanks, tire companies only made tires for the military, etc, etc.

That's what happens when a govt. sees a REAL threat.

I don't see anything like that happening with our federal govt.

As I said earlier...why did the Feds just GIVE the company Solyndra a half billion dollars? Why didn't they HIRE them to put up solar panels with all that money instead of "research"?
That would have been a win/win. Solar panels would have been installed & people would have gotten jobs doing the installation.

It's shit like that that makes me question things.

The govt. jumps quickly to bail out banks with a couple of trillion dollar bailouts...but doesn't seem to think that putting that trillion dollars into putting solar panels on every home and business in the U.S. wouldn't have been a better investment.

You see why I am cynical about this?

That's the thing with nature. There are ALWAYS consequences. Some good, some bad.

And that's why all the predictions over the last 50 years have been WRONG. Things change constantly. And then those changes cause other changes.

In the end...the Earth moves on. Human beings might not make it...but the Earth most assuredly will.

So is it one degree or is it two? And warmed from what temperature and what year? And which of these scientists decided what the "normal" temperature of the earth is supposed to be?

So suppose that the earth has warmed by two degrees like they say - what of it? Are we all dead yet? Have the ice caps melted yet? Has the world turned to desert yet? Are all the coastal cities under water yet? What exactly are the consequences of this warming that has supposedly happened?

We've spent trillions of dollars combating a problem that may or may not exist and if it does exist it may or not be harmful to us. Brilliant.

If you want to see what real problems would be look up the consequences of the earth cooling by two degrees.

Warmer is better than colder.

EonBlue, the alarmists will say this to you:
"But what if you are wrong? Don't you want to take action now?"

They just don't realize that taking action now means we have no viable energy source. Solar and wind will never, ever be enough to run our society. And they've taken nuclear off the table.

There is no solar or wind that can power a plane. Or a rocket into space. Or run a factory.

Until we have a quantum leap in technology that discovers some new source of energy as yet unknown...fossil fuel is the immediate future.

Ok. I will try to explain.. I think the problem is you don't see is the time scale in which these events took place. No one disputes that the earth has cooled / warmed or that the oceans have risen / lowered or that the ice sheets have melted or refrozen in the past. There is no argument about these things, just as there is no argument that CO2 levels have been very high in the past (due to volcanic eruptions).

What you seem to not see in your argument, is in the past those changes in tempeture, rising and lowering of the oceans and melting and refreshing of the ice caps, took thousands of years to happen. Meanwhile what we see today caused by the co2 created by man has happened in roughly 100 years.

This is why it's called man made global warming. Yes the same thing might happen over the course of a few thousand years, but the difference is we have drastically increased the process by the co2 gasses humans have put into the air due to the burning of fossil fuels. Also there is no scientific proof to support your theory that the sun or earth has shifted to cause this effect.

The only thing major that is changing at this moment is the magnetic poles and there is no evidence which shows that could be the cause.. All evidence points to the excess co2 gas that humans are producing.