What makes a "Professional Photo"??

[UpskirtPantiesLover]

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 ...

[Fango]

Originally Posted by UpskirtPantiesLover

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

[schnytzal]

Originally Posted by Fango

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).

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.

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.

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?

[Fango]

Originally Posted by schnytzal

[b]Sorry for the lengthI'm trying to understand the guidelines, I find them very subjective.

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).

Originally Posted by schnytzal

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?

Sounds about right.

Fango

[Leaves55]

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.

[jbellen]

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.

[CP]

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

regards
CP.

.

[schnytzal]

Originally Posted by celeb_peeper

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.

[CP]

Originally Posted by schnytzal

no offense intended .

none taken.

.

[Fango]

Originally Posted by sirseph

Okay, I've been wondering about something for a while, and this seems like the place to ask:

I've posted images and screencaps from my work in the past, and the mods have been nice enough to allow them. However I've only ever posted in my own threads, and then only in the ENF and Sexy Videos sections.

I do other work, and have at times wanted to contribute to some of the other threads with on-topic images. I've been hesitant because I haven't been sure if my work would be considered "pro" because I make money at it, and do my editing in PS.

It gets even more confusing when I see things like a thread that was called "underwear ads" which contained catalog and magazine ads shot by pros and showing professional models, which was posted in the "Sexy Amateurs" section of all places???

I'd love to contribute to threads like "Caged Women," "Collar and Lead," "See through or sheer clothing," and others, but as I have great fondness for OCC (Dear lords, I've been here for seven years! LOL!) I've followed the "when in doubt" rule mentioned above.

I'd like to think that pretty much everything I post is my own original work, and so cannot cause any copyright issues, would make the difference, but before I contribute to other people's threads I'd like to ask.

LOL! I do kind of feel like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, since if my work is considered "pro" then I can't contribute, but if it's not then I guess I'm not very good...

Seph

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