What makes a "Professional Photo"??
 

I have a burning question...all of my pics I place here are amateur...at least I thought so. No watermarks...no "site names"...ect. but for some reason my threads are having "Professional Photos Removed"... So.. what makes you think it's pro??...or is this a common thing... :confused:

A couple things are key tipoffs:

- Lighting. If the picture looks like there is light coming from artificial "studio" sources, then it is most likely professional. In other words, if the model's body looks glossy, or if it seems that the light source is behind the camera, rather than above it or somewhere else in the photo, or that extra lights have been set up for the photo, it is probably professional.

- Picture quality. Professional pictures typically have a much higher quality than amateur pics. That is to say, amateur pics are typically grainy and look like they've been taken with a digital camera, by an "amateur", while pro pics look like they've been taken by a "professional" photographer. Also, professional pics will typically be set up and framed precisely to look a certain way.

- The girl. The girls in professional pics are models, and as such, look like models. They are probably wearing make-up, and just look "model-ish". Amateur girls look like the types of girls you would see in everyday life. However, some sites like Abby Winters have everyday-type girls in very natural settings with no make-up. You can still tell that these pics are pro, however, because their quality level is typically very high. While this is a very subjective qualification, it's still a good guideline to tell whether the pic is pro or not.

- Posing. If the girl in the pic or pics is doing various poses (especially pouty, "sexy" poses), and it doesn't fit any of the amateur pic qualities mentioned above, then it is probably pro.

These are just some general guidelines of how to tell a pro pic from an amateur pic. In the end, you have to make a judgement call with each pic you post. To adapt an old saying, if it looks professional, it probably is.

Fango

Thanks for the detailed explaination Fango.

In short, any photos or videos that were produced for a paysite (no matter how "amateur" they look) are considered "professional" and should not be reposted here.

Thanks,

ok...thanks 4 the info.. :)

Pro pics
 

Thanks for the explanation, I should have read this first.

Tama

tnks
 

for that one :cool:

To add to what Fango has said- a professional image may also have been subject to some serious post-production editting, photoshopping etc.

To show just what a difference this can make to an image, check out this- its only about a minute long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcFlxSlOKNI

A sign of this is that the model looks just a little unnatural- skin unnaturally smooth and belmish free etc.

Here is a "before and after" example- same person, taken at the same time- but notable differences.

amatuer intimacy
 

the beauty about this site is that it retains a quality of innocence as amatuer photographers presenting some of their unique and (spur of the moment)captured imagery of the female form in intimate situations. Not withstanding it is important to consider that the OCC as a forum reflects the visual needs of those who are captivated by the female beauty in all its bountiful modes and fascinated by the intimacy of the amatuer/inexperienced foto-the best are those which are rare and unposed. It is my opinion that mankind and humanity can learn alot from these attempts at holding a lost love or intimate moment thru this unique medium called Photography. Photo therapy was an interesting movement (originated in Canada)which attempted to bridge the distance between human and retained photographic memories-with an insight into the potency of the capture intimate/lost moment. I commend those who started and maintain this site for their professionalism-(moderators are probably professional photographers), and the unique ability to provide an international overview of current amatuer photographic activity concerning not only the female form but also its changing interpretations, insights and influences.
Way out West

Well, let's be clear:

Any photos that were produced for a paysite, OR any photos that "look professional," no matter if some schmoe shot them in his garage and no money changed hands, should not be posted here. Setting a light is not rocket surgery, nor is operating a DSLR. More and more, non-pros are shooting "pro-looking" pics. That's why I think it's important to make it clear that you guys are looking for a particular aesthetic, and that "pro-looking" pics are unwelcome regardless of pedigree.

The site are looking to maintain a particular aesthetic, it's not just about whether they were produced for a paysite. That much is apparent from the pattern of which photos are rejected and which pass muster. While I have no problem with that policy, I think it needs to be made clear, as I think people who shoot their own photos and happen to be good at it would be a bit discouraged if they didn't understand the rules and their photos are rejected as "professional."

Perhaps it would be more clear if you said "professional-looking OR stolen photos are not welcome" since they ain't the same thing...

Wrong. The aesthetic is just the tip-off. We do allow pro-looking pics, in threads such as this one and this one. Original pics taken with high quality cameras and lighting set-ups are also allowed. Not all pro-looking pics are pro pics, but 99% of pro pics are obviously pro pics based on the stated aesthetics (such as the set you posted and which was removed).

edit: You also conveniently ignored the second two parts of my checklist: the girl, and posing. Pay site models and poses have a very specific look to them that immediately tip them off as being pro, in a way that not just the lighting and picture quality alone do.

Fango

I too have struggled with this issue, i have many pictures that i have taken of my now ex wife over our 25 year old relationship going to back to college in 1979 ... most of the pictures with poloroid, 110mm, and not long after, 35mm color and black and white, and most of them with a pentax manual 35mm camera without a flash ...

I met her when she was 18 and model she was not and model she never was, but beautiful she was and she knew for the most part the poses i looked for and most of the pics were spontaneous snapshots taken with a lamp or two placed strategically maybe with the lampshade tilted or removed or a hat or see through piece of clothing dulling the light ...

i finally scanned them all, and to me many of the images were extremely awesome ... but since I never cared properly for the negs or the original prints, many of the images had extreme dust, scratches, hair, dirt, fading and other defects ...

as time was available, i have since used what little i knew with programs like paint, paint.net and the photo editing software package that came with my hewlitt packard scanner (i had never used this stuff before) to slowly start to "fix" some of the images that i thought were more awesome than others ... for a first timer, i thought i did pretty well with a few of my favs, many of them i spent several hours even fixing them pixel by pixel using paint ...

i posted some of these pics on a famous website that hosts such pics and while they published some of the rough ones (which i thought in retrospect that were awful and still do), and they rejected the ones that i thought were awesome that i fixed as being "pro" yet all the qualities, the model, the setting, the exposures, were the same ... and i ve been discouraged in posting them ever since ... the message to me was you want to see the raunchy awful ugly ones of my wife, that was good, the good pics (i.e. the lighting the model the exposure, the "fixing") were pro and as a result, were NOT good. Just cause someone gets a lot of it right doesnt make it pro, and it was discouraging ...

As a case in point, if you, or someone like you, with a picture set like that were to post it with an explanation like that*, it would be allowed to stay here. (Unless it was obvious that someone just ripped something off from a pay site and made up some bullshit, of course.)

*I have to stress this part, because I have deleted posts in the past that were original pro-looking pics with no explanation that I had to assume were actual pay site pro pics. Once the origin was explained, they were fine to stay.

Fango

Sorry for the lengthI'm trying to understand the guidelines, I find them very subjective. The important part of my reply, my attempt at summarizing the guidelines so I can see if I've understood, is at the bottom in bold.

To be clear about one thing: I have no problem with the set being taken down, even based on aesthetics alone and no concrete evidence, I just want clearer guidelines. I do think, however, that the set in question is worth discussing because while it may be as clear cut as you say it is from a moderator's point of view, I think it's very confusing to someone trying do decide whether to post a particular set of pictures.

The second link makes sense, since the photos were professionally shot but not intended as porn.

The first link, though, confuses me more rather than less. I'd bet the bulk of the professional-looking photos in the thread were shot professionally or semi-professionally but were either vanity projects or intended as model portfolio pics for model wannabes (some I'm certain are the latter). These fit in with my understanding of the rules based on what you've said.. but there are a few pics I'd bet can be found on pro sites (one in particular I"m pretty sure came from either SG or Richard Kern, but I haven't tried to look it up). That said, I think their posting can be justified (and legally would fall under 'fair use') since the nature of that thread is discussing and illustrating something that's happening frequently rather than just "here's some hot girls" (which is clearly what my thread's about). If some of those pictures were posted in series, with zips etc, in a thread like mine and this was thought to be OK I'd be really baffled right now though.

While I'd agree that it is quite likely that the set I posted was shot professionally, and probably was on some sort of paysite at some point in order to find its way to Usenet, your made-up number of 99 percent is too high (I can make up statistics too, and I'd say 62.0723% of series with similar qualities turn out to be pro). It isn't poorly lit but not really pro-level either (diffuse lighting, not enough diffuse fill lighting to kill shadows, etc. compare to DDG). The location looks like a hotel suite or an office and these are the type of places low-end pros frequently use, but amateurs do too.

As for the girl, makeup is minimal, and girl is fashion-model-type not adult-model-type, and has natural, small boobs (although there are sites like MET Art and Hegre that specialize in that type, and she'd likely make the cut at these sites).

Poses can easily be copied, if I shoot my own in the near future I've already planned the poses I want to copy. Mine won't look as good as this series but the girls will likely be in the same range looks-wise and I expect they're already good at posing as they work in titty bars.

The images might be enhanced slightly in photoshop but they're pretty natural and if anything's been done at all it's limited to color correction and maybe a little exposure correction. File names and the length and consistency of the series suggest a pro site, but lots of people rename files so that too is inconclusive as far as I can tell.

'Pedigree'-wise, the pics were downloaded originally from Usenet (alt.binaries.nospam.amateur.female). Every Usenet pr0n leecher knows that "amateur" groups are littered with pro photos and spam, and these were posted by "Tin Man" and also by "Kinda Shy" (sure about the 1st, not the 2nd) both of whom seem to post the same stuff everywhere repeatedly regardless of whether it's amateur or pro, and when I lost my hard drive I replaced the pics by downloading them from Imagefap (I have the same username on there, it's linked to my account, the series is the first "favorite" I added there and shows up on my profile page). I've Googled and Tineyed repeatedly and obsessively and can't find anything on this girl.

Try looking at it from a new poster's point of view: most of us who are interested in posting don't actually know the pedigree of the images we've collected (aside from what we've shot ourselves) and we've downloaded stuff that's been kicking around the Web or Usenet for years (or in some cases decades). On sites like Imagefap there's a lot of ambiguity as to what a picture's origins are.

No I didn't, as I didn't think it needed explaining that every pretty girl isn't a model, every person who has an idea of how to pose a model isn't a photographer, and every girl who poses well isn't a professional model (quite a few aren't, unless you count titty bar dancers, ballet dancers, etc. as 'pros').

I find the notion that you can tell by the girl and the pose too ambiguous and subjective to help me at all in deciding which images to avoid posting. The fact of the matter is, without identifying the site, we don't actually KNOW if our example here is pro (and there's a lot of stuff out there like this). Your guess may be a good one, but it's just a guess.

All of that said, let me see how I understand the guidelines:

Anything that is known to have come from a pay site will be deleted, regardless of whether the poster is aware of its origin.

Anything watermarked will be deleted, regardless of whether the website that watermarked them actually owns the rights to the pictures.

Anything that looks too much like a pro series, even if it can't be proven to be, will be assumed to be and be deleted, unless an adequate explanation of the pics' origins are given, or they are illustrative of something being discussed.

Is that it? Do I understand yet? Or is there something else I need to know?

You should find them subjective, because they are subjective. There's no equation for pro pics, unless they are absolutely known to be from a specific pay site. To paraphrase Potter Stewart's famous quote, "I know them when I see them". That said, 99% of them (and I stand by that number) have a specific look that I've tried my best to identify and describe in this thread, thereby laying out the guidelines I personally use to decide when to delete pics for being "pro" when I don't know for certain that they came from a pay site (but can reasonably assume that they did).

Sounds about right.

Fango

Thanks for the Explanation!
 

To All,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I get it. I had some pics pulled. Now, I have a clearer understanding of why they were pulled and would even go as far as to say the Moderator was correct in pulling them.

The OCC could run into legal troubles and could even be shut down, which is what could happen if the Moderators don't use their best judgement and pull questionable pics. It is a judgement call, but someone has to make it and it's always best to err on the side of caution.

I've taken amateur nude, softcore and hardcore pics. They never do look like the professionals... Not from lack of trying.

Thanks for maintaining the site and making it an enjoyable place to hang out.

Leaves55

ps - Not trying to start anything - just hoping the post helps to explain some of the reasoning.

TY For the clarification. I have followed this clarification, butt in the hunt for BBW, the wife, and pix on the net, I must say to 'decide and what not to decide, just isn't that clear . So delete what ya don't want here, and maybe leave the 'chubbys"d as posted.
When one of the wife is deleted, I'll just jump for joy. (Just a chub in her eyes, not mine>) Need a large grin here.

One basic rule we go by, is, if in doubt, then dont post it.

regards
CP.

.

no offense intended, but that particular rule of thumb is so vague as to be no use whatsoever. it sounds like one of those meaningless sports cliches "one game at a time," "game of two halves" etc that athletes and coaching staff use to avoid having to actually say something or stick their neck out.

that said i think explanations already given in this thread helped clarify a lot.

none taken.

.

In general, if they're original pics that you've taken, they're fine.

The "underwear ads" thread is a nebulous one, to be sure, but since all of the models are unknown and they're not pay site or adult magazine pics, we allow it.

Fango

Ouch.
This is going to be a problem for me, as I'm an amateur photographer, but I use a lot of high level equipment, light boxes, remote flashes, high level cameras, and I also post process my images afterwards (only levels adjustment, contrast, etc, I don't actually "improve" the person). So if I try posting any of my own stuff it will be rejected?

Though I'm unlikely to have a problem with posting my pics, as I don't so far take pictures of this nature.

No. If you make clear in your post that what you're posting is your original material, it won't be removed.

Fango

Sorry. My mistake. I started typing at the bottom of the FIRST page in this thread, thinking I was at the end of the thread, but hadn't yet read the rest of them. I found the rest when my computer glitched, and my message disappeared. I only found it had posted my message half written, when I found and read the rest of the posts on this thread, and got the clarification from that. I would definitely post a story to go with any pictures I put up, so it wouldn't be an issue.

Film Production Graduate
 

I am not boasting but as part of my studies for my film production degree I had to study photography. This encompassed lighting, lens, film stocks, posed photos, studio photos, action photos.

It seems that since I have training if I had photos that I could post here(I don't because if I'm near a naked woman my hands are not on a camera)it might be considered too professional to post.

I mean even a good non professional posed photo tends not to belong in ENF, because it is hard to fake embrassesment- although dfp productions actresses do a very good job of mock embrassesment, but even photos that people get by luck or by having a willing partner, again DFP had a truly great find in the woman in the video in which she ends up naked on her balcony and has to sneak around to her front door naked as well as the video in which she is getting ready for a date and sneezes her towel off(I apologize to her for forgetting her name). She faked embarassment perfectly, can take a crappy photo or a near perfect photo.

I cringe when someone posts a photo of a naked woman when the sun is behind her and doesn't compensate for the back lighting so you can't see her, instead she ends up a shiloutte.

Is the difference the fact I know to over expose the photo so you can see the woman's body?

Or people who use the flash at the wrong time. Digital photograph is at the point where all you have to do is turn on the camera and 99 times out of 100 you will get a good photo.

However does understanding composition, even when catching a non posed photo or being able to take a good action photo like a woman flashing at night disqualifies you? Does knowing how to take that last 1 out of 100 photo and have it come out good disqualify you.

I see some crappy photos that with a mild adjustment would be great. Other photos that have the camera on autofocus so the potted plant is in focus and not the girl. Photos that are too low res but that might be a problem with the upload, the info might still be in the original file.

My point is it seems like some people have criteria that would keep an advanced amature's photos off the board.

How about just adding one thing to post.

Found photo.

or personal photo

Just someway that allows all members regardless of ability to post any photos they have been lucky enough to take themselves.

Or do we need a new forum

Personal amatuer photos

or

Posed amature photos.

I respect the moderators to do whats best. However I am pointing the quality of the photos and photographer vary widely. Are photos that are very low res deleted? Then why should a high quality photo of some guy's girlfriends skinny dipping or dancing topless at a party be deleted?


PS to Susan Susan

I started before there was digital photography and photoshop and other computer programs. I started before the 286 computers. So one does not need to do any altering of a photo to have it be magazine quality. prior to 1990 if you didn't get it on the film it wasn't there. professionals still use 4x4 cameras. Except for some cropping and some minor things like burning in what you shot was what ended up in the magazine with only the basics changes.

people rely to much on computers today to fix their mistakes or to turn crap into gold.

Why does schnatzl have to be so derogatory. Some schmoe in his garage or some model wannabe. There really is no need to insult other members of the board.

Assuming you mean schnytzal but not sure at all what you mean by "so derogatory." Please explain.

Incidentally, if you're going to chide people about not needing to insult other members, it might be more effective if restrain whatever urge prompts you to call 'em "some schmoe in his garage" or "model wannabe."

schnytzal, he wasn't calling you that, he was referring to what you had said earlier:

(my bolds)

proffesional photo dilema
 

I had a photo removed as a pro pic. I think it was two girls on a porch. One was completely dressed one completely naked. Although it was a high quality photo I felt it was not pro. The element of staging may indicate a level of professionalism but the composition doesn't.

The girls should have been standing closer to the steps showing more of the path leading to the house making a better composition with the square shape pf the porch. Instead the girls are in between the stairs and the actual porch. However what made me really think it was not pro was the fact the girl's faces are in shadow. A pro would have used bounce cards or a diffuse flash, or an umbrella to place more light on their faces to keep them from being in shadow.

If this is from a pay sight there is no watermark, and if it is from a series, unless I have seen other items in the series all I can know is that it was a one off of some people on vacation and not pro. Maybe the naked girl just got back from the lake and maybe someone got lucky with the camera or is a natural talent. I mean most people have rented a seculded cabin and gone skinny dipping, just in the pre digital age there were very few photos.

So I see many reasons why this is not a pro photo and why others see reasons why it is pro.

In the beginning it was east NO WATERMARKED MATERIAL. Nut no pro pics is very hard because defining what is a pro pic will be very hard. Is there a list of rules yet? However even if there are rules they are almost impossible to work in every instance.

Hence no pro pictures become a dilema.

to eviltwin
 

Thanks for understanding the point I was making. In cyberland it's rare when someone comes to your defense so thanks for pulling those quotes and pinpointing what I meant.

To Mr S. I am sorry that your user name was too hard for me to spell correctly. Again sorry.

And Again thanks to Eviltwin

Ah. My bad. That said, my example was clearly hypothetical. I don't see any point whatsoever to getting upset over the imagined hurt feelings of imaginary people...

If you see a post that you know contains 'obviously "professional photos"' or other material that breaks the forum rules, please report it to the moderators:
https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/announcement.php?a=8

No, the moderators here are impartial, they get nothing by favoring one member over the other! If you see a member breaking a rule or a thread that doesn't meet the site requirements, report it using the red triangle icon on the top right of the thread, there's not enough MODS to keep an eye on everything.

and a message to all the newbs who are making the majority of complaints:

READ THE FREAKING RULES BEFORE POSTING, then you won't be breaking any rules!:)

This is becoming a problem for all
 

Photos deleted because pro. Actually this seems to becoming a problem across the board. They are not watermarked, but it starting to seem if a photo is well done it is a defacto Pro photo.

Also since the photos have been deleted I don't even know what the photos were so I can't even view them to try to figure out why they are considered Pro pictures. I am starting to think Pro is in the mind of the beholder.

I understand watermarks and copyrights. I even understand watermarks when someone has watermarked a photo that was not theirs and then published as their own. This board is not here to fight legal battles.

I understand movies. It is very easy to tell a professional movie, yet the board has exceptions for them

But pro. There is no standardized criteria.

AS I said I have no idea why my thread and photos were deleted other then Pro pictures, I can't even argue why I think they are not pro and I kinda of think some of them were definitely not pro but just well done but i don't remember exactlywhich photos they were.

I use to think Pro pictures were copyrighted and watermarked had a web site listed. That made sense.

This pro picture deleted just because they were well done is problematic. We will end up with only really bad photos because everyone will not post good photos for fear of being deleted. No one wants to make the moderators do more work then needed.

However if i don't see the photos that were deleted and told why they were deleted I will not understand why they were considered Pro. Plus I might repost them under someone else's thread that they would fit in with the theme.

it also seems moderators have different standards for what is a Pro picture.

If my girls in snow pictures included the girl wearing the waist legnth fluffy white and black fur coat-they are not pro because although she has a great body, her face is not model quality and her teeth need braces before she could be a model.

I have taken better quality nudes but no they will not be posted here because they are art projects. I have taken better quality semi nude photos of girlfriends then photos i have found and posted that were pulled. No i don't have them, I have always given them back after a break up. That what I agree to when I ask a girl to pose and i live up to my agreements, unless they are in the aforementioned art projects.

I dated a MAC make up artist. I took non nudes of her but if they were nudes would her make up ability make the pro?

I can light and compose having studied film and photography. Most photos taken outside in seculded areas were there are no other people will look much more professional for that reason alone. I am not a pro because it is not my livelihood, so my photos would not be Pro

A Professional photo is one produced for profit. Includes model waivers and copyrights.

These Pro photos are an arbitary category that has no well defined criteria.

If the board want it that way that fine. I just think this is a problem that needs attention. At the least it needs a very well defined list of atributes and criteria, and not just a general guide.

The if you have any doubt don't post is a perfect general rule for making sure all photos are of women over 18, for Pro pictures it needs to be more defined.

I hope this helps to lessen the amount of Pro pics deleted comments we are seeing more and more often in the threads.



AS for me just to be safe,any well done photo, no matter how strongly I feel it is only a well done amatuer photo, will no longer be posted.

Issues
 

TRUST THE MODS :) There is a reason They Are The Mods .... Thanks To Them For the GREAT JOB THEY DO !!! :)

Also, the moderators have repeatedly stated that if you have taken the photos yourself, and as such is the copyright-holder (regardless of you being amateur or professional), then just say so in the thread and the pics won't be pulled, no matter how professional they look.

Edited to add:
And you can't base it on the looks of the model, there are plenty of models who don't have classic model looks, especially in the nude-/pornography industry.

Software
 

I amateur photographer and I can do some amazing things with my software. My concern is that post our being deleted without proper research. Theirs got to be away that we can find the original source of the photo in question, so that we do to not have rely on guess work. Any ideals ?? This will make life a little easier on moderators as well and they can spend time enjoying our post and adding their on material.

photoshop is great.....if u take pics in raw..gives great flexibilty with sharpness and colour

Mea Culpa! I am guilty of posting Pro pictures but I did it unintentionally as I did not understand rule 7.
But wait - I am not alone - otherwise this thread wouldn't be necessary and there would not be so many 'Pro Picture removed' messages.
This tells me that as a stand alone rule then rule 7 is not adequate. Perhaps a definition of Pro or a link to this thread would help, especially with newbies. Why not trial it mods? Define or link and see if your workload is cut down from newbies?

I have two other concerns though. Now I am aware, tks to this thread, it will be much easier for me not post indoor shots that might be Pro. But outdoor shots are a totally different matter.
I have had photo shoots with many amateur females and am amazed at the number that turned up with hair and make up like a Pro and immediately adopted poses like a Pro but they included teachers, office workers, a PhD scientist and even a lawyer who lectured me about copyright for over an hour!
With the standard of todays cameras it would be hard to tell my good shots from a Pro's average shots!

However my greatest concern is that in some threads Pro shots are accepted. Apart from examples already given, Charity calendars is one, Nude mixed Groups frequently features copied naturist magazine pages and Fuskered has 'stolen' shots where the Pro site locations are identified. So to me it's a guessing game!

Okay having had my 'rant' let me say that I am not attacking mods as individuals. Being a mod is a tough and, usually, thankless job. To me they are like the government of the day. You might like them - you might not like them but without them it would be chaos.

Let me apologise in advance to the mods for comparing them to politicians - they do a far better job than the pollies!!!!

Cheers and Thanks to all the members of OCC

Sorry - I meant to add that the pose/makeup criteria doesn't apply to outdoor shots. and it doesn't apply to indoor or outdoor LBD shots where, usually, the femme is 'dressed up' for a reason!

Hey shoot me down in flames - I used to being told I'm wrong - I'm married!!!!!

Let me just address this specifically: "Pro pics", as the rule states is "material taken from adult magazines, professional porn movies, or pay sites". So scans from charity calendars are fine, as are scans from naturist magazines. "Adult magazines" refers to magazines like Playboy/Hustler/Penthouse/etc. "Professionally shot" does not always equal "pro pic" here. "Pro pic" refers to those three specific things mentioned in the rule. If you notice anything that does violate the rule, please help us out and report the post.

Thanks

Fango

If anyone has any more suggestions on how to identify pro pics, please send me a Private Message and I will add them to the thread. Otherwise,

***** THREAD CLOSED *****

Fango