>>4393988
- cheap hotel
- no talent
- crude light
- clearly a whore
- photography says nothing besides "there's a naked whore on a cheap hotel bed", which is not quite as elegant as "there's a smoking bombshell eating a grapefruit topless on a greek beach", though the principle remains the same, she was probably taken here for free by a photographer willing to fuck her
- there's no need for more photos of naked woman, people just do it to be in the same room as a hot naked woman, it's just one level below whoremongering

>>4393988
In my opinion in this case it has to do with framing, light and composition
This has more of a cheat snap shit porn look, but in the right hands it can become a tasteful nude photo

>>4393990
I agree that there is clearly a lack of experience on both sides on the camera here. I also agree that the harsh, flat lighting is a problem. But I think your most insightful point is the bit about how the photos don't mean anything, it's just porn.

I think it's the uncanny effect of having a real camera taking amateur porn. If this were taken on a phone it would look fine. But the gear combined with the bad lighting and lack of meaning force the viewer out of all their 'hiding places' and leave them no choice except to understand what they are seeing.

>>4393992
He actually does get some decent ones in this set. But I also can't help but notice the better ones are at a tighter focal length. There seems to be a connection to wide focal lengths contributing to the effect.

>>4393988
Have you ever tried taking photos with just the downlights on in a room, no flash, windows open? It doesn't look good. It looks like that picture you posted.

I'm guessing since she's a sex worker this was taken in the middle of the night so the photographer felt that natural light through the windows wouldn't be an option. Typically I find this kind of shot to have the most pleasing lighting, so yeah, already not off to a great start. If I were in this situation I think it would be helpful to try and create some more angled, light. She's quite fit so something that could illuminate one side of her tummy and a cast a shadow on the other would be nice, bounce flash could do that, though you'd have to experiment with staging as you still nice a white-ish wall or ceiling to bounce it off of. You could also try something like having her stand in front of the bathroom mirror with the bathroom lights on, and all other lights off and then take the photo of her through the doorway from outside the bathroom, hopefully casting a shadow on her back and lighter areas around her sides and breasts. Maybe you could take her outside the cheap motel and try and get her under some fluorescent lights. I'm not a portrait photographer I'm just spit-balling here. Couldn't find any images that really capture what I'm talking about so maybe it's a shit idea.

>>4393988
>dead pixel
>right in the center
it's a snoy sensor, isn't it?

>>4393988
This setting begs for flash photography.

Don't worry about your fear of shooting nude women, OF and COVID killed it off.

If you're fat, old or unattractive they won't work with you these days.

>>4393988
I want to suck her toes

That's a man

>>4394039
Worse. It's a woman with no redeeming qualities.
At least a man is going to act like a man.

>>4393988
That's not a precise thing, not something you'll "learn" by watching some tutorials on youtube or talking to some anon on an imageboard.
It has to do with the commitment yo'll put on your photography, independently of how you're gonna get your photos.
If in your mind you're gonna go to a cheap hotel to take pictures of some hookers, that's what you'll have from your pictures.
If in your mind you're going to have a creative project involving the female body and more importantly the right mindset to creativity you're going to have something that's not porn.
Nothing bad about wanting to take porn pics of hookers anyway, just be honest with yourself.

>>4394054
>a creative project involving the female body
holy cope

Maybe thats why I like models looking either smugly confident or happy.
Anyway did loads of models got scrubbed from the interwebs or something? I remember I liked a metart one from portugal that always had this bitchy and a bit jewy face but cant find her sets anywhere,

>>4393988
Seriously if there are fucking lamps in the room and he chose to do that there is no helping him. Can this thread just die now?

>>4394020
i laffed

>>4393988
This set is from a long time ago, I swear I remember seeing it on /s/ like a decade ago.

>>4394396
It is, it's from like 2004. I subbed to the website to see what 'artistic' porn looked like and was maybe hoping to glean some ideas about posing and composition. Turns out the dude is just bad at photography. He got better in the sense that they no longer posses this uncanny quality of being able to see the reality, but my conclusion from looking through the files is the frankly obvious conclusion: That porn is artistically bankrupt and once you look beyond the titillation and at the photos themselves you find there is nothing there, they are bad photos carried by the fact your horny rather than them being interesting or compelling to look at as photos.

The posing isn't even interesting. 99% of it is just 'I have a pussy' and the 1% that is interesting is because the model accidentally moved in an interesting way.

To me it's clear that he is the final form of 'doing photography to be near naked women he otherwise wouldn't have access to.' He went shooting on whatever this set was taken with, probably a Canon 5dii, to a Phase one, and models now seeking him out. But it's all empty and worthless as photos and to be fair to him, he never cared about saying anything, he has nothing to say. He was just horny (and probably Jewish)

>>4394397
True enough for this lot. I think the model herself looks interesting, but the posing and photos themselves are pretty shitty. I've always felt the set is an example of a wasted opportunity.

>>4394525
The set is interesting I think. It gives off a sense of awkwardness but I can't tell if it was deliberate or not.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4500
Image Height	5992
Image Created	2024:12:26 08:02:26

>>4393994
Link to the rest of the set? I like how impersonal and generic everything looks

>>4394860
>Link to the rest of the set?
Literally first result on yandex

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.A136BXXSADXK1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	990

>>4394850
I'm thinking it was not deliberate, it's obviously pretty amateur kek.

>>4393988
>>4393994
>>4394850
its a great set and OP is a low IQ drone who got filtered

>>4395081
What's so great about it?

>>4395111
It's porn. That's literally it.

>>4395081
It’s mainly great because of the model. If you’re into slim girls with short hair, she is a literal 10/10. Compellingly beautiful.

The model is beautiful, but the flat lighting makes the images look amateurish and cheap. There's literally nothing aesthetically pleasing about them apart from the girl herself.

>>4395157
>flat lighting makes the images look amateurish and cheap
Oh look another tripfag with a retarded take

>>4395111
not amateur at all, for starters. its autistically calculated, german-like, delivering some uncanny "naturalness".
>>4395138
shes amazing, truly.

>>4395163
Shouldn't have posted them if you can't take the critique.

The composition isn't good. The poses are dull. The lighting is terrible.

Pic related is what a good nude photo looks like, now ho make yourself a mood board and put in some honest to got effort instead of getting assmad over what some "tripfag" told you on the Internet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi

>>4395170
>Shouldn't have posted them if you can't take the critique.
Not me dumbfuck tripfag

>>4395170
Beautiful

>>4395161
Amazing how we're at the point of liking a woman makes you gay.

I looked at OP's set, and a few shots were more "artful" than just a hired hooker in a cheap motel room.
Framing, position of the subject, and lighting. Some of the more up and personal shots where she was in most of the frame, in a position where she isn't just spreading her legs for the camera, could've passed for something a bit higher than just a hired hooker in a cheap motel room.
Then there's the lighting. Not much dynamic shit going on, just reminds you of porn set lighting where you see everything, or just room lighting of amateur porn vids.

Shit lighting where everything is evenly bathed in yellow tinting. My eye isn't drawn to any particular point and some amateurs can't figure out that cell phone chargers, wires, the tv, and temperature control panels are distractions.

I know I'm not good, but I'd never send any of the escorts I've been with a photo where the fucking fire escape directions are clearly visible.

There's also this weird pose I've seen a bunch where the escort/model puts her leg up on the ac unit or window sill. It looks so unnatural and like she's going to jump.

A key to erotic/boudoir photos is that the subject looks like she's doing something natural and the viewer should almost feel like they're walking in on something intimate. No one looks natural when they're practically falling off the bed.

>>4396533
>everything is evenly bathed in yellow tinting
Pretty typical of lighting schemes in the early 00s, especially in cheap hotel rooms.

>>4395163
He is absolutely correct

>>4394850
>>4393994
>>4393988
>- clearly a whore
she looks too skinny, good looking and young to be a prostitute

>>4397861
You are either too young or too old to be here

>>4394020
Sony isn't even pro according to Cambodian bar whores.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Everything looks classier in mono. A shallower dof would help too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Express (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:09 10:46:40
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4398061
For what inane reason are the nipples blurred? Gives me shitty instagram vibes.

>>4398020
This is the meaning of gearfag
>seeking out and screenshitting forum posts you think "btfo sony"
Aw did sony steal your favorite brands ff market share and press contracts? Did sony bros make fun of all your favorite brands stuff being bigger?

He got turned down because he was a creep in an asian country who said "but wait, i have a good camera"

>>4398155
I can tell you are a white incel from how you write. Go back to /pol/ you chud loser.

>>4398163
asking whores to take photos isn't incel?

>>4398020
lmao

>>4398153
This is a Christian thread.

>>4395170
just Sieff derivative, not much too look at apart from the idea of the central square of light on the bed.
The image I posted is the OG shit. The true master.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4398301
But I'm Ashkenazim.

>>>4393988
>bad flat lighting
>uninteresting pose
>generic colours
There is nothing unique nor interesting about this photo and that's largely the problem.
I think you'll be fine if you put some effort in OP.
>>4400359
This is so much better as the photographer here is playing with how light interacts with the look of a body, and also gives some sense of style with the colours, or lack of them.