Originally Posted by Peter Romero (Post 17182403)

Porn is a fantasy. So sometimes I shoot with a wide angle lens to distort certain assets of a girl to bring attention to them: I.E. Ass, tits, story, etc. I've actually been shooting with a wide angle lens (16mm Fisheye) since I was 15 years old. I shot skateboarding, snowboarding and skiing and it allowed me to get into tight spots and still get the whole shot. I didn't have a video camera back then because they were not invented yet but I did have a 8mm movie camera that I used till it died in a mogul skiing helicopter aerial @ 40MPH.

So, if I was telling a story with just one picture, it had to hold everything and everyone and emphasise certain things to bring the beginning, middle and end to the story. And in porn, we give away pictures - to sell the video. So your 1 shot better carry the story well - because that may be your only chance to convince the surfer to buy what you are slingin and it should include as many details as posible without cluttering the shot.

But, I am shooting this same girl with my 50-200mm tomorrow and I'll post them here.

On another note, blue is the oposite color of skin and the sky is my favorite background because it keeps the integrity of the model's skin tone. So, if I'm low enough - the wide angle lens allows me to get the shoes and the model's head in the shot with as much blue behind them as posible. James Baes from Swank Digital who shot for Hustler for 25 years taught me this. He told me that the high sales of one of my movies American Teens XXX - shot on location in Hawaii was directly related to all the blue sky backgrounds of my pictures on the cover and back of the box. Blue is the favorite color of most men, and since men are my target market for naked chicks I'm slangin - it seems the obvious choice.

But what do I know.

Originally Posted by justinsain (Post 17183530)

Thanks for the explanation and that satisfies my curiosity. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Peter Romero (Post 17182539)

Yo yo... you must be kidding. Seriously, stop being so hyper-critical. Get out much? Walk into the bathroom and kiss yourself in the mirror.

Originally Posted by JD (Post 17184860)

hyper-critical? That would be bringing up a minor make up issue. Asking about a set of crooked eyes imo is FAR from hyper-critical.

Originally Posted by Peter Romero (Post 17185087)

Her head was tilted. And if she walked by you on the beach... your head would be tilted too. It always amazed me when men would put women down for the smallest things yet they are total slobs, are out of shape, don't take care of themselves, and are far from perfect. And obviously are not getting laid on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by JD (Post 17185186)

god damn you fucking psycho relax a little it was a simple observation and I wasn't bashing/putting her down/etc.

I get more than enough poon to keep me happy thanks. You're obviously one of those types that can't take even a little criticism. See I can make assumptions too :321GFY but in this case... I'm right.

Originally Posted by Peter Romero (Post 17185357)

Post pix of this perfect girl(s) that you're fucking or shut the fuck up. Put your money where your mouth is. No excuses. You're being hyper-critical (too critical) and I know I'm right when Dean Capture, Catalyst, Sinclair, MarcoP, and others definetely in the know love her and you are making stupid comments. Go suck.

Originally Posted by pamon (Post 17185619)

very nice. would do her in a heartbeat

Originally Posted by iseeyou (Post 17186609)

Here's my opinion on the pics.

Low angle is nice (especially on the legs). The blue (and sometimes white) sky background is not so nice. It "washes out" the images a little. And is not so easy on the eye (when viewing on a monitor). A white background means our monitors display a bright image which can tire the eye. Blue is better than white but still, pointing the lens at the sky allows so much sky light into the lens. I see you are compensating with a strong flash.

If you stood further away from the model, with a longer lens, then maybe there would be less sky. A nice varied, colorful, darker background would be easier on my eyes, even if it is simply a concrete background. Your images seem more like art or nature shots than erotic. If I were the photographer, I would use that beautiful natural light (reflect it onto the model) but try to frame the shots so that the model fills up almost all of the frame (frame out nature).

The model is big boobs and her legs look like nothing special. I would do almost no full body shots with her, unless you have a good reason to shoot full body.

The final (inside the pool) shots are more to my liking (less sky).

Are you difusing the flash? Try taping a piece of toilet paper over the flash bulb. It helped my photos a lot (tip I read on gfy) ... diffuses the flash light a little. For my outdoor shoots, I put tape over the flash and set flash strength to minimum. It helped a lot. The default flash exposure is often too strong outside (on all of my Canons). The reason you need such a strong flash is because of that bright sky background (another reason to reduce the sky).

You can see here that flash compensation makes a huge difference.

http://support.nikontech.com/app/ans...rking-distance

Maybe you knew this already.

Originally Posted by Peter Romero (Post 17187487)

You go tell all my members, Sports Illustrated, Met Art, FTV Girls, Hegre Art, Sapphic Erotica, Hustler, Penthouse and every swimsuit calendar and magazine and advertising agency on the planet not to put the blue sky in the background ok?

I'll call God and tell him "No fuckin clouds in the sky when I shoot big guy"

OK? :321GFY