We have two new sets of Virginia added to the Fame-Girls website.
I’m definitely looking forward to that first set. A change of pace from her standing around doing circles. Second set looks like a lot of see-through.
Please note: The first image in each set listed above is the first image in the actual set.
“Second set looks like a lot of see-through”
Yea, but her crotch is already shopped out. As usual we will probably get one, maybe two shots of her “Virgina”.
2nd set it’s not shopped out just dark,the pic on the right shows her slit when i used gamma correction.
It looks like the owners of the site have been reading your blog recently. I hope these improvements will persist.
one thing i like about the first set ..NO SHOES, I’ve always hated high heels
Nice camera (it’s deifinitely a Canon, either a 1DSmkIII or a 5DMk II or MkIII, but which of those is uncertain because the EXIF data is understandably stripped) — maybe one day the photographer will learn how to use it. The focus is consistently in the wrong spot (AF has been left in the default mode, and focus is on the closest thing that falls on any of the AF sensors). Left to right, top to bottom: the largest leaf on the flower; her forehead hairline, her right hand, and the ribbon on the bow closing her top. And yes, Virginia has skin issues (redness, mostly), but whoever is doing the makeup ought to have noticed that troweling on a shiny foundation that doesn’t match any of her skin tones isn’t doing her any favors. I know there’s an anti-Photoshop slant here, but correcting skin tones is post is far preferable to what’s happened here, and if it’s done competently it takes seconds per image and not a single one of you would notice. There has always been a lot of potential here, and I’ve been waiting for it to become reality, but c’mon… it’s been long enough already.
+1
A-
WMI is still shamefully standing in the corner with his dunces hat on,
whilst you now get promoted to Head Boy.
Then why the A- rather than A or A+, I hear you shout.
Well, firstly you’re not female (no photographers are) which immediately counts against you, and secondly, some of us rather like blotchy skin and freckles and split-ends and skid-marks (ok, maybe not so much the last one, I got a bit carried away), it shows they’re human and vulnerable.
Nice dissertation though, and showing all your workings too.
Actually, most of the glamour (the genre which includes nudity but wouldn’t normally be labelled porn) photographers I know are women. And the kind of retouching that honest-to-goodness pros do doesn’t eliminate character, it just minimizes the flaws that the subject would rather weren’t there. It’s far more subtle than makeup if it’s done right (doing makeup for the camera is an art in itself), and as I said, nobody would notice it had been done. Virginia’s main problem is a bit of redness around the nose, and she’s been trying to hide it for years with varying degrees of success. If she doesn’t want it in the pictures, it shouldn’t be there — it’s her choice, not yours — but there are better ways to do it than with a heavy foundation and concealer.
Yeah, a light touch is fine of course, trouble at Lame Girls is, we’re talking about monkeys with boxing gloves on.
It’s tricky, the charm about the girls has to be that they’re amateurs right ? and so the occasional dodgy camera work adds to this.. I’ll bet anything that their boyfriends are the ones behind the cameras, and no doubt they think they’re red hot- sadly what we tend to get are largely unimaginative, low res, hurried, repetitive shoots.
But then I’d be the first to start throwing my toys out of the pram if they started looking and acting too professional – the irony I guess is that it’s what they are aiming for in a way, but just by dint of being a bit useless they thankfully always miss the mark
I just hope they don’t get to look like the dull, over-manicured , unerotic , factory shoots that your female colleagues uniformly chunk out in ‘glamour’ – of course models feel safer and more comfortable when women or gays are behind the camera, and naturally many of these women will delude themselves into thinking that they know how males are hard-wired, but what we almost always get are what you would expect when a vegan chooses dinner for a carnivore, it’s cats believing that they can bark.
nb. I should have written ‘gay guys’ there instead of ‘gays’ ..it looks a bit derogatory like that, and I have no issue with homosexuality… especially carpet munchers
)
Wôt, Virginia has skin issues ??? Wow… you’d better not see my own face ! How can someone say that Virginia has skin problems and should be photoshoped !? Unbelievable ! Next thing, you’ll say that her boobs are too small and that she needs implants ?
And again about the camera work: these sets are shot in 5 minutes, and they probably shoot 200+ pictures each time… do you think they have time to manually focus on each picture ? They are not shooting for the perfect picture to put on the first page of Playboy, they are shooting to keep one hundred and twenty pictures that will also be flipped through by their subscribers in 5 minutes.
LOL Way too complimentary to that photographer. More like a Canon S95 triggering a couple of flashes on the side. There is no way he is using any of the awesome Canon Marks. I own all of the Marks including the 5DM3 and it’s nearly impossible to be out of focus, even if you don’t know a damn thing about cameras. These photographers have been taking way too many pics to be that stupid on area focusing. So they’re looking at the curtains instead of the subject? It’s an insult to say they are using Canon cameras. Maybe Nikon! LOL
I do appreciate your input though.