New DDD Hottie from Petergirls - Abriella - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

bbobby86 · 05-28-2010, 06:34 AM

ou, ou... fantastic...

CaptainHowdy · 05-28-2010, 06:46 AM

Love 'em natural...

justinsain · 05-28-2010, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Romero

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.

Thanks for the explanation and that satisfies my curiosity.

Raf1 · 05-28-2010, 07:44 AM

fuckable for sure

Peter Romero · 05-28-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinsain

Thanks for the explanation and that satisfies my curiosity.

No problem. I had some time after the shoot yesterday to write that so I did. Hit me up on ICQ sometime to talk about photography or whatever. I think you and I had some disagreements in the past, but I don't remember nor do I care to fight about anything really. I'm not the best shooter in porn but I like to take risks to put 100% into whatever I do and try to make it look more interesting if I can with a little creativity. Some like it, some don't. Some like me, some don't. Oh well... can't please everyone. I do fine with my clients and my sites and alot of surfers and porn review sites seem to like them so that's good enough for me. Toodles!

JD · 05-28-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Romero

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.

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.

Peter Romero · 05-28-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD

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.

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.

JD · 05-28-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Romero

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.

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

but in this case... I'm right.

Peter Romero · 05-28-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD

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

but in this case... I'm right.

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.

JD · 05-28-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Romero

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.

lol......

pamon · 05-28-2010, 04:06 PM

very nice. would do her in a heartbeat

Peter Romero · 05-28-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamon

very nice. would do her in a heartbeat

No. You're wrong. She tilted her head in a few pictures. She's done. lol.

Newworld · 05-28-2010, 06:56 PM

Very nice....

iseeyou · 05-28-2010, 11:39 PM

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.

Peter Romero · 05-29-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iseeyou

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.

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?

iseeyou · 06-01-2010, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Romero

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?

I was just trying to help. The bright flash on her face looks "unnatural" (bad). I explained to you how to avoid it. And at least one example pic looks out of focus (unless you are focusing on something other than the model).

From what I have seen, most photographers from those companies are much better than you. You are delusional if you believe that other *great* photographers shoot same way as you. Of course, some sky may end up in many outside shots but you seem focused on including sky in your images. I am telling you to emphasize the model and reduce the background sky (because it has a negative effect on the model --> leads to strong flash). If you want to make nice sky shots, you dont need a model for that. If you want to make art, then try moving the model out of the center and turn off the flash (at least turn down the flash). My guess is that your customers want to see the model, and care less about the sky. Sorry if I am mistaken about what your customers want to see.

<insert stupid comment>
But what do I know? I'm only the greatest photographer alive! 15 major companies and even god say so!
</end stupid comment>

We can always improve our photography skills. You ought to thank me for critiqueing your shots instead of showing me the middle finger.

05-28-2010, 06:34 AM	#51
bbobby86 partners.sexier.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 11,926	ou, ou... fantastic... __________________

05-28-2010, 06:46 AM	#52
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 91,997	Love 'em natural... __________________ Enroll in the SWAG Affiliate Asian Live Cam Program and get free quality link-backs! Email Tjeezers to Get those links up ASAP! --> TJEEZERS.Cam

05-28-2010, 07:44 AM	#54
Raf1 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Writer for hire :) Gallery descriptions, articles, blog posts etc. ICQ: 209 356 106 Posts: 12,117	fuckable for sure __________________ 80% Revshare or 30$ PPS on $1 trials: 200 Niches = Vidz.com Galleries / FLVs / Embeds 3 & 5mins FLVs \| RSS & Tube Feeds \| Matching Thumbs \| FLV Browser & Exporter \| No Prechecked Xsales >> Mobile Redirection Script: mobile.vidz.com also paying 80% net Lifetime << ICQ: 198-394-557

05-28-2010, 04:06 PM	#61
pamon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,079	very nice. would do her in a heartbeat __________________ Email: [email protected] Skype: davidamodt. / TG: Davidamodt US Adult Content & Porn Writer Project/Sites/Tubes

05-28-2010, 06:56 PM	#63
Newworld Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 42	Very nice.... __________________

05-28-2010, 11:39 PM	#64
iseeyou So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 306	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.