Looking forward to it :winkwink:

This thread motivated me to voice my opinion on the Playboy website.

Can you please come to the realization the pink tour that is place killed your sales? I had hoped after the first month someone would have realized the site sucked... We are a year later (??). I am sure there are some people there saying, "It is tube sites", "It is the economy", "It is something". Trust me, throw that tour away and try something new.

I'm sure there is a key but since the photographer failed to adjust it when the model moved into that position, there is no light in the eyes. This is a beginner mistake and considering who shot it, I'm very surprised. Then of course the editor decided it was beautiful enough to include it in the gallery that they posted - I'm blown away. The company who wrote the book on high-end glamour photography is now showcasing shit photography on their website. They have other sites for amateur photography...why would they post amateur photography on the flagship site? That's not why I joined Playboy.com :Oh crap

Get over yourself....I don't care how you try to twist it, I know how a horny man wants to look at an ass....I don't care if it's an ass on a crackwhore or on a centerfold...It's ASS...

Please don't get high and mighty with this thinking that you're the fucking cats meow...I'm more of a pornographer than you are...

:1orglaugh

There are lots of things wrong with the picture and the shooter is copying others work without truly understanding what he's doing. The cropping is bad, bot in the picture and shooting. The model is not coming on to the camera. The clothing hits me as Wal-Mart and Playboy should scream Gucci. The tits hanging down is a shot for mega boobs girls and even if this girl is one the shot does not show it. The lighting on the eyes is wrong, it should show her eyes. And as for the cheap plastic ring on her thumb!!!!!!!!

That's for starters the post production work is just as awful. The picture is terrible and smacks of someone being employed on a price.

Dean is spot on and for Playboy it's not good enough.

Photography is not the problem on this shot, the lighting is not good. But there are far worse things happening. To shoot for Playboy you need to be a good photographer, you have to be a great pornographer at the top end. Something that few understand.

There are many good shooters who would fit the bill at Playboy, the problem is PB won't or can't afford them.

And when can we expect Dirty F on this board again? :pimp

No your not if you think an ass is an ass to all porn buyers. Your content would make a Playboy consumer turn off, Playboy would do the same to a buyer of your content. The day this business becomes a meat market is the day we are all out of a job.

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

Nothing Dean said was untrue last time he got banned.

People get banned here all the time for telling the truth - nothing new here :thumbsup

Here's my 2cents..... not that anyone cares, but what would GFY be without pointless banter, right?

Without seeing the entire set, it's tough to judge one picture. I wouldn't have included that shot and I certainly wouldn't use it as a consideration for a cover or anything along those lines, but it's not the worst shot in the world by far. Odd pose, yes there is no catchlight (but you can't always get one), the lighting could have been adjusted but who knows if he was working with assistants or not. Lots of what-ifs included when looking at the picture.

We all take stinkers (including Dean and Paul and everyone). This picture isn't a total stinker, but its definitely a middle of the road shot. Who was the photo editor that included it in the set? Did he/she need an extra shot or two to reach 60 total pics? 80? 100?

I have my Playboy membership for the same reason as you Dean. Research. It also has included their "loyalty" sites which means I get more content to review for the $20/month. Cheaper by far than buying books and easier than looking at TGPs. Some of what goes up at Playboy isn't the greatest, absolutely, but I could say that of many sites, including a few that you shoot for, but that doesn't mean it's all shit. On the other hand, Playboy and the sites you work for, do include quality shots from premium shooters, such as yourself, that enhance the site and help to separate and brand their name.

Besides. How would we know the mediocre work from the good work if all we had to judge was the work of one photographer or one continual style?

Playboy the magazine could get away with producing A+ content all the time (although it wasn't always A+ even at 12 issues a year). Websites require much more material. Often you publish C grade and better because you need it. Simple as that. Members would overlook this picture and move on to the next in my opinion. Nothing to cancel a membership over I don't think. They have plenty of B and A material to stay around.

Does this only make sense to photographers ?

Bullcrap. The point of my reply was to all the other people saying "awww horrible bla bla, you are right", and those same people say "fucking awesome" to the pictures that are clearly 10 levels bellow the one posted here. All depends how the original posted started. If he had started with "great picture at playboy", all those bandwagon whores would go on and say "yep yep, excelent picture".

Picture is good. Not the best, but certainly not the worst i've seen. Dean is trying too hard to score a gig at playboy for years, and thinks this is the way to do it.
So far only sensible answer i saw in here was from Kevin-SFbucks.

Nice... Very well said. I and do see your point.:thumbsup

Allow me to clarify... you are correct that Penthouse mag sales declined when they went to shots of pissing, hardcore penetration, etc. but that had more to do with getting banned at a lot of their previous sales locations than customer dissatisfaction from what I read and the people involved at the time that I knew working there. However, the point I was making is that Penthouse, in its heydey, did always go much "harder" than Playboy in terms of the types of what we would today call "softcore" with shots of albeit simulated masturbation, un-airbrushed labia and clit shots (looking at Playboy from the same period and you see women with airbrushed pussies that render them about as sexy as a barbie doll) and this did not hurt sales. On the contrary, those high end but also more highly eroticized layouts did make Penthouse a reasonable rival to Playboy. But, let's throw Hustler in the mix... Hustler delivered high end photography, went even more hard, and grew fast and strong as another contender.

Of course, that had to do as much with Flynt Publishing's agressive distribution consolidation but guess what? And this is where my point comes full circle, what was the most popular feature of Hustler? The amateur photos of Beaver Hunt. That is what I am saying specifically, while Dean can criticize the poor photography, with its bad lighting, cropping, model, etc., the point I am making is that even Playboy, contrary to all popular opinion, even to their own bewilderment, does have success with some of it more "amateur" content. The only place really where the standards are preserved at their highest level is in the celeb shoots and the centerfolds, so complaining about all the other stuff that Playboy publishes as looking like crap may not be taking into account where, why, and how Playboy profits from it. Does that make more sense?

No, not all photographers!

You have no idea how wrong you are. I've been offered gigs at Playboy...I turned them down. Talking about how shitty their content is...on a board that they own...is not the way to court Playboy. To say that I'm trying to score a gig at Playboy after posting what I posted is retarded on your part.

Ok cool. So I wasn't supposed to 'get it'.