7-18-2007 body mod photography
-
while there are some great shots in this contest it would seem some folks missed this part: “Difficulty – not just a simple close-up of the work.”
but we aren’t too surprised now are we?
Sorry Dad 🙁
For some reason I had the difficulty as trying to make it look artistic (I think that was what was discussed in the original theme thread so I didn’t think to see if it had changed – bad Swampa! *whacks nose with rolled up newspaper*)
hey my post was intentionally written as “some folks” because i didn’t want to call you or anyone else out by name. and your number one (to me FWIW – and it ain’t much) is artsy and fits. two and three – not so much.
and you are a regular who tries hard to play by the rules. which means this is going to be tough to call on what is art and what is simply a close up.
and i’m guessing that “dad” thing is due to my low 5 digit fark account number 🙂
I can read between the lines (well that and I know two of mine were close-ups :P)
but but but … I used a fisheye lens for the other two so that should have an artsy modifer of at least +2 and the third one is black and white so another +3 there 😛
Judging by what is posted so far I think it is going to become a close-up tatt photo comp when it goes live, but hopefully the voting will reflect the more on topic entries (not holding my breath though!)
The dad comment was just from the tone, that is just showing off with the low ID (It not the size, its how you use it *runs off sobbing* :P)
If it makes you feel better swampa, I went way too far the other way and posted a picture of a chick on a horse who just happens to be wearing earrings. You can’t even see the damn things! It’s so subtle it probably shouldn’t even count!
But yeah, this is definitely going to turn into a “who has the wicked-awesomest ink” competition. Argh.
Yes you can! It reminds me of those diamond commercials with everything shadows except the diamond.
/*snickers* unfortunately Family Guy has ruined that ad for me 😛
actually i liked your girl on horseback millera9. and it turns out i was right in thinking it was the earrings. the “very subtle” helped define it.
yeah swampa the id number was unfair. there were a lot of us just reading fark pre 9/11 and in the month or two following that a lot of us joined so we could comment also. i don’t have the actual numbers but best i remember the membership doubled from late august to late october.
the peanut gallery is out in full force tonight too…..”of all the crappy gross pictures” by someone who doesn’t have anything posted. nice.
is anyone else bothered by my dog pic? i swear he was in no way harmed, but if it’s really that upsetting i’ll ask to have it removed.
the peanut gallery is out in full force tonight too…..”of all the crappy gross pictures” by someone who doesn’t have anything posted. nice.
They’ll get over it.
Monkeybort – I thought that photo was both funny and cute (and more importantly one of the few photos that are on topic)! Just tell them to go hug a tree or something (troll the troll!)
but but but … I used a fisheye lens for the other two so that should have an artsy modifer of at least +2 and the third one is black and white so another +3 there 😛
See now, I thought your second was particularly nice. I like the fisheye effect on it.
Just tell them to go hug a tree or something (troll the troll!)
no, *don’t* troll the troll 😉 In any case, the post in question is gone.
Thanks 😀
I was happy with how it looks except for the top of the photo being a bit blown out from the flash (still trying to get the hang of the flash! Tricky little bugger that it is)
no, *don’t* troll the troll 😉 In any case, the post in question is gone.
Awww you won’t let me have any fun 🙁
The mods were all over that quickly though!
- The topic ‘7-18-2007 body mod photography’ is closed to new replies.
