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

Thanks for the clarity Fango! I guess I can add a few images over the weekend. LOL!

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