# [nsfw] My new project - reviews higly appreciated ;)



## Mackos (Feb 5, 2014)

Hi!
I would like to introduce my new project.


Project of photo-blog, that was made just for fun and to entertain our visitors with exclusive glamour photoshoots of our models. 
It is inspired by esquire magazine and/or meinmyplace.com .
Our photos are very hot, but they are never too hot (no strict nudity), we take care of good appearance of our models and blog.
In future, we want to make daily updates 1day = 1post, but as for start we have 1post/2days which is still quite nice.
So enjoy! Artsomeness.com and tell me what do you think ?
*All reviews are welcome* so let's talk! 


_As you can see it's non-profit/donations project so it will be highly appreciated if you can pass this link to your audience. _


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

The purpose of this site is to be a community for discussing and showing photography.
It is difficult to distinguish you from a spammer who is just trying to lure people to offsite to get clicks and most members will hesitate to click on the link of a stranger.


----------



## Mackos (Feb 5, 2014)

Hi The_traveller,


> The purpose of this site is to be a community for discussing and showing photography.


You are right that's why I decided to share part of my work with you, so let me hear your opinion about images - content of my project more than accusing me of spam  
NSFW section in this board is unavailable for me  - so I choose this section to share my work.
Also It is important for me to know what do you think about whole idea of website - and send me your ideas how to improve it 

So The_traveller, I'm waiting for your first review  as a member with 63(_wow_)! galleries here .


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

post your pictures here for discussion.
pictures viewed off the site do not contribute to the discussion and growth of the community.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> post your pictures here for discussion.
> pictures viewed off the site do not contribute to the discussion and growth of the community.



Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the "*Personal and Professional Photography Websites*" sub-forum. Personal. And Professional. Websites.

The professional website linked to in the first post has lots of photos of attractive, covered topless shots of 20-something age women wearing panties, and not much else.

This is the sub-forum where people link us to personal, or professional, websites. This forum is not about posting pictures. This is a sub-forum dedicated to WEB SITES. SITES, located on the WEB. Personal, or professional, web sites. Or websites, if one prefers the newest spelling of the formerly two-part noun web site.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

And how do we distinguish this thread from everyone who is just trying to get clicks?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> And how do we distinguish this thread from everyone who is just trying to get clicks?



like everyone else, you make the decision whether or not you are going to click on the link.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> And how do we distinguish this thread from everyone who is just trying to get clicks?



Is a click so valuable that one cannot "give one away"?

Is a 10-second to 10-minute diversion so valuable that one cannot spare the time except after having seen photographic proof and or representation of the expected subject matter?

What is the big deal, exactly?

I do not get it? THIS forum sub-section is about personal and professional WEBSITES. THis is NOT a C&C or a help-wanted or a for-sale sub-section.

I do not get the idea that you must be the Guardian of The Mouse-clicks.  

I. Simply.Do. Not. Understand. Your. Constant. Repeated. Adominitions. To. Post. Pictures. Here.

Like I said, maybe I am wrong, but I thought that what this OP, and the other 10 before him, have done was what this subsection is designed to do: to alert TPF readers to web SITES that are photographically-related. For those who are afraid to click a link because of security issues, that's their own personal worry. For those who want a reason to click a link, I specifically described the OP's website content in a fair and accurate manner. It's a basic T&A site. Through and through. ALL pics, no articles. Panty shots galore. Decently done.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The professional website linked to in the first post has lots of photos of attractive, covered topless shots of 20-something age women wearing panties, and not much else.



albeit blurry.


----------



## bryguy_ASU (Feb 5, 2014)

I like the site... well, pictures that is. Beautiful girls. Love the body art, too.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 5, 2014)

Only 4 posts? I didn't click on it... And the way the post is phrased made me wonder what's intended or wanted by posting on here. Usually site users post their website and ask for opinions on it (appearance, ease of use, etc.).


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> And how do we distinguish this thread from everyone who is just trying to get clicks?



Since you asked for assistance, I will detail for you my general procedure/routine to sniff out click-whoring-posters.

I look at the poster's join date, and post count.. I take into account stated descriptors, like "pictures of cars", or "my new project, NSFW", or whatever. I often correlate a relatively recent join date combined with a very low,low post count as being a likely click-whoring, no-good,dirty,lowdown varmint, as Yosemite Sam said in the NSFW Bugs Bunny cartoon, *The Wiley Wabbit and the Mouse.
*
After evaluating the join date, post count, and the OP's post's wording, I then decide if I shall make the grand sacrifice, and click with my mouse, or if I shall save my click for a rainy day or a time of click-famine in say, sub-Saharan Africa.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 5, 2014)

It is amazing how difficult it is for us to simply ignore things.  Read - Click or Read - Don't Click.  Or maybe even Read - Don't Click - Report to mod/admin?

Who's the boss?


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Who's the boss?



That'd be my clicking finger.


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2014)

Mackos said:


> tell me what do you think ?
> *All reviews are welcome*



Looks "clinical" to me.  Therefore I shall presume that all of the models have been properly vaccinated.

Not a fan of the posses, the lighting is quite flat, your watermark is obtrusive, and I don't like the fade-away when the cursor arrives on a picture.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 5, 2014)

Does nothing for me...


----------



## cmhbob (Feb 6, 2014)

Very pretty models, but not very exciting poses or lighting. The girl with the rose tattoo had a lot of potential, but it seemed like every shot of her was against a white background. 

I think the shots from 5 and 6 December have huge potential, but need better lighting. Ditto 24 November.

Daria is pretty, but 3 of 4 poses are boring. The only one I liked was where she's looking over her shoulder. 

The layout of the site isn't too bad.


----------



## acparsons (Feb 6, 2014)

You need to touch up the skin, lots of spots showing, especially on the blonde. The skin color is off and so is the sharpness in some of the photos. You use a flash in some shots, I think you need some diffusers or different lights because the shadows show too much and some look flat. So, my opinion, better lighting and touch them up with the healing brush in PS. It looks like you didn't touch up anything. I must also say that the composition is pretty good.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 6, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> It is amazing how difficult it is for us to simply ignore things.  Read - Click or Read - Don't Click.  Or maybe even Read - Don't Click - Report to mod/admin?
> 
> Who's the boss?



Let's stop trying to make sense around here. That doesn't fly here.


----------



## Mackos (Feb 6, 2014)

*@cmhbob* thanks for your constructive opinion, well in fact you are right this model was just amazing - you know "ADHD in front of camera" type  but we had small studio for shoots - in future we will get something bigger for sure.
We have couple more photos of Daria and they will be posted in 2 days/each  (best one -in my opinion- will be on 24th February 2014)

*@acparsons* Thank you! We wanted to make it a bit natural that's why there was not much healing brush. And you are right, next time we have to play a little more with light.

@*bryguy_ASU* I'ts great to hear that someone like my work 

@*Designer *Thanks 


> Looks "clinical" to me. Therefore I shall presume that all of the models *have been properly vaccinated*.


Lol, that went quite far...

@*vintagesnaps* sorry I'm not native, so sometimes my phrases can look strange. But I do my best. Don't worry site is on a tumblr so it is safe 

@*Derrel* thanks for your help! And your rational thinking, about my thread.


> I then decide if I shall make the grand sacrifice, and click with my mouse, or if I shall save my click for a rainy day or a time of click-famine in say, sub-Saharan Africa.


 ~made my day 

Thanks to all that I didn't mention, and I'm waiting for more!
More ideas how would you like to improve not only images but website and whole concept


----------

