Why Playboy Centerfold Photography Are So Ugly?

, ,

What Makes Good Photography of People?

Playboy cover shoot of Rachelle Leah (b1984).

In photography of chicks, one of the most important thing is to make the subject comfortable, so that her smiles, body language, etc, come out natural and attractive.

Look at the video, and see how unnatural and uncomfortable the setting is. See how she's kinda sitting there like a statue. This is why i don't usually enjoy glamour porn (porn with glazed baroque luxury settings), because they are done in a unnatural setting, catered to certain usually snobby “taste”, professionally done (as opposed to spontaneous), hard to make the model feel comfortable, and the models are typically stale. All the professional makeup, dressing, postures, technicians running around, elaborate luxurious background setup, etc.

Amaturish porn with hot chicks that take place spontaneously without commercial setting are often much more attractive.

Why Playboy Centerfold Photography Are So Ugly?

I have the complete digital collection of playboy centerfolds. Recently, am starting to delete them en masse.

My porn image collection is over 30k images, started in ≈1993. I have to say, for each image i keep, i've deleted 100 more (not counting those since ≈2005 where most of which i didn't bother to save because there are too many.)

Anyway, looking at the playboy models, usually they are ugly, and the centerfold photos come with feigned winks.

You know? One of the most priced quality in photography of human animals is capturing their emotion. “Capturing the moment”, as they say. You can see it in their faces. Just picture all the greatest photos you've seen, in portraits, in sports, in war photos, in riots, in weddings, or even the best of your family photos. You see the joy, the sheer happiness, the contentedness, or, faces of surprise, shocking, surprise with joy, surprise with doubt, or, the sorrow, anger, the pain, anguish. The face speaks, and in nuances.

In Playboy centerfold pics, half of them comes with lukewarm fake smiles — big turn off. (it is a amazing human quality, that emotions are connected in biological ways with facial muscles. A fake smile is simply different than a genuine one, and anybody can tell.)

Also, older ones like those before 1980, are so old-fashioned and stupid looking. (Playboy started in 1953, with Marilyn Monroe in first issue.)

You know, porn images today are a dime a million. Thousands of porn sites, many of them are ranked within 100 in the world's websites by traffic. (e.g. RedTube, YouPorn.) Even normally not porn sites have turned into porn sites, i presume partly to make money. See: Reddit = Porn Fodder. And 4chan.org. 〔➤ 4chan /b/ random — Internet Culture

So, why is Playboy centerfold so ugly? First of all, i ask myself: are they really ugly? or is it prejudice of modern fashion vs fashion 30 years ago? I think fashion and style certainly has to do with it. But even if you suppose the models are styled with today's makeup and hairdo, there still leaves the question that many of the photography are just bad. I think the issue have to do with competition and numbers. When a thing is done just by a handful of people, it doesn't grow, doesn't progress.

You see, decades ago, there really is just a handful of publications of nude photos. They are fret with legality, and usually with connotation of moral depravity, low-life, dirty, it's taboo. But now, with internet, the world has opened up. Giga billions of nude photos, in the past decade, each with wide open legs, pussy closeups, to-the-point and clear as drinking water, mega-pixels. Hundreds of thousands of young girls, around the world, participated, vast majority more than willingly and happily.

Due to this massive number of competitors, the quality surged up. You really see, thousands, really beautiful young girls, that they are not some highbrow “supermodels” or soon-to-be-a-star photographic as “ART” as Playboy is trying to frame it, nor are they street-walking drug-dealing low-life tramps as Hustler and Penthouse would paint.

A pussy to men is just a pussy. Not some art-form shit. I absolutely hate Playboy photos, with the expensive luxury fuck and fake postures; and i despise Penthouse photography too, which always are touched-up with a fuzzy glow. When a beautiful, young, girl, shows her curvaceous body, in a natural way, one naughty smile, one innocent wink, it's HOT. It needs not be in some backdrop of expensive penthouse with a piano, nor elaborate makeups and photo touch-up as these magazines do.

So, natural and sexual nude photos of young girls abound today. However, explicit photos of copulation of people enjoying themselves, is not yet ubiquitous. Instead, most of them you still find to be done by a handful of porn actresses, heavy-to-death makeup, and many armatures with extremely hateful old guys making money using Podunk town girls that makes you think of abuse and feel sad. (like those playing on the theme of forced sex, rape, sex with jail-baits, chocking fuck, etc. In these, often you can see that the girl really doesn't enjoy it, but wanted the bucks.)

So, i wait for the day when we get to see massive numbers of photos or video recording, when average, good-looking young girls and guys are fucking their brains out.

blog comments powered by Disqus