# Another CL gem. NSFW



## texkam (Apr 5, 2013)

Here's your chance to get some free "boudoir" pics taken.
Free Boudoir Photos.






and in case the link doesn't work, here's the grab.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 6, 2013)

Oh, it's okay, he has references!


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

another Instant Pro with instantly BAD images... lol!


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> another Instant Pro with instantly BAD images... lol!



Well, we don't really know that.

First, he's only posted one image. It doesn't make much sense to judge the proficiency of a photographer based on a single photograph. I'm sure every single one of us here has taken a photo that is, well, pretty horrible. Would we want to be judged on that? Of course not. Second, we don't know what the quality of his boudoir shots are, simply because we haven't seen any. The shot posted isn't nearly what I think of when I think of "boudoir".

My experience has taught me that assumptions are often wrong when there's absolutely no evidence to support those assumptions.

Is the OP worried about this CL photographer movin' in on his gig?


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > another Instant Pro with instantly BAD images... lol!
> ...



Lets see, Artist / Sculptor *EXPANDING into the world of Digital Photography*, and *NEEDING* to build a *NEW* portfolio!!!  

What do you get out of that?   lol


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 6, 2013)

"I prefer to shoot in my secluded basemen. . .er, Um studio. Even have chains and handcuffs for those into more "kinky" stuff. ..just breath into this rag please"


----------



## Tamgerine (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > another Instant Pro with instantly BAD images... lol!
> ...



I've taken some terrible photographs in my time.

I also don't put them on the internet when directly marketing my work to others.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > another Instant Pro with instantly BAD images... lol!
> ...



Well, if they know proper photography and are capable of taking a good photo, why post a mediocre one as a business advertisement? Seems like a poor business move. We can only judge by what they show.  If they choose to show poor images, they risk getting judged as a poor photographer. 

If you are overly concerned about this poor photographers reputation here on the forum, you are more than welcome to contact them and ask for more of their work to give us a better idea of their true abilities. Im sure the naysayers will rush to make their apologies.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Well, seeing as I don't wet myself every time someone says they want to be a "pro", what I get from it is that it's an ad from someone who already possesses an artist's eye, which can be quite beneficial in photography...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

Tamgerine said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I would really love for someone to point out the boudoir photograph in that ad.

Seriously, anyone?


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Well, if they know proper photography and are capable of taking a good photo, why post a mediocre one as a business advertisement? Seems like a poor business move.



Okay, so the guy is guilty of making poor business decisions. 

That doesn't make him an inefficient boudoir photographer...



> We can only judge by what they show. If they choose to show poor images, they risk getting judged as a poor photographer.



If I say I want to learn to shoot baseball, but show motorsports as an example of my work, do you judge my ability to shoot baseball on that one photo? No, because that would be silly.

Also, you mention "images". I don't see "images", I see an image, and it's not even an image of the type he says he wishes to shoot. Ergo, judging his ability to shoot boudoir, based on the photo show, is silly...



> If you are overly concerned about this poor photographers reputation here on the forum, you are more than welcome to contact them and ask for more of their work to give us a better idea of their true abilities. Im sure the naysayers will rush to make their apologies.



Well, _golly_, that was pretty stupid.

Sorry, but I don't tend to jump on the "I can't get any work because I suck so let me make fun of other photographers so I can feel better about myself" bandwagon.

The person who should be ocntacting the guy is the OP, since he's the one whose panties are in a twist over a CL ad...


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if they know proper photography and are capable of taking a good photo, why post a mediocre one as a business advertisement? Seems like a poor business move.
> ...



Almost as much as you assuming that pick IS NOT what they consider a boudoir shot.  Thought you were against assuming things.  Guess not. Maybe thats what they shoot and choose to call boudoir. You just assumed it was not. 
For the record, i never said it WAS boudoir, i just said they choose a poor image to advertise themselves with if they were capable of doing better. 
The CL photog certainly wasnt limited to only posting one picture, nor did they elaborate on their level of expertise in photography other than being new to digital.  Maybe they are a great film photog.  They still picked a poor picture to represent them in a business sense.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 6, 2013)

Hell, and here I was just thinking it was funny to off free boudiour shots, like a free excuse to look at scantly clad women:er:


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Really? So you call that and ARTIST's eye? Interesting! Or are you just taking their word that they are an Artist / sculptor? (which obviously they were probably not TOO successful at, since they are trying yet another medium!) I see nothing "Artsy" about that shot!  lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Tamgerine said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Exactly.. which makes it TWICE as stupid!  lol! (artist eye here, right? Just visualizing the BOUDOIR!  )


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> Hell, and here I was just thinking it was funny to off free boudiour shots, like a free excuse to look at scantly clad women:er:



Yes, there is that! Lets see... Resume: Artist, sculptor, Photographer, PERV? (or how about just a GWAC!)


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 6, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> "I prefer to shoot in my secluded basemen. . .er, Um studio. Even have chains and handcuffs for those into more "kinky" stuff. ..just breath into this rag please"



Smooth, but I find I have better success with "Hey does this rag smell like chloroform to you?


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 6, 2013)




----------



## CCericola (Apr 6, 2013)

Best pick up line: "Does this smell like chloroform to you?"


----------



## Superfitz (Apr 6, 2013)

Just nasty, ignorant bullies


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

Who's being bullied?


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Really? So you call that and ARTIST's eye? Interesting! Or are you just taking their word that they are an Artist / sculptor? (which obviously they were probably not TOO successful at, since they are trying yet another medium!) I see nothing "Artsy" about that shot!  lol!



You make a lot of broad, and ignorant, assumptions.

Plenty of people "expand", but it doesn't mean they're a failure at the first.

Suggesting otherwise is a pretty silly, and ignorant, thing to do...


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Really? So you call that and ARTIST's eye? Interesting! Or are you just taking their word that they are an Artist / sculptor? (which obviously they were probably not TOO successful at, since they are trying yet another medium!) I see nothing "Artsy" about that shot!  lol!
> ...



Just put me on ignore.. if I make you so unhappy! That is where I normally keep you.. an omission I will immediately rectify!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

Are you just playing Devil's Advocate because you're bored or are you suggesting that you would have no problem if someone you knew went to this guy based on the little we know about him?

Edit:  This is directed at steve.  Charlie slipped in on me.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Tamgerine said:
> ...



His ability to post a more appropriate photograph does not speak to his proficiency as a photographer, but rather to his proficiency as a businessman.

In this instance, he posted a picture of a naked chick by a pool. That's not boudoir photography. For you folks who think it's just about being able to see nekked wimmins, here ya' go: Boudoir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, all we have is a bad choice of picture, because it's _not _boudoir. It's the equivalent of someone posting a candid picture of someone on the street, and trying to say he does portrait photography. He _might_, but he might not. In either case, it's stupid to gauge that ability on a single photograph...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Oh, no, you amuse the Hell out of me....


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

If there were no photograph I would come to the same conclusion.  The guy is an *******.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 6, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> If there were no photograph I would come to the same conclusion.  The guy is an *******.



I have to agree.. it is rather obvious what he is. And I can see why some people are defending him.... :er:


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Are you just playing Devil's Advocate because you're bored or are you suggesting that you would have no problem if someone you knew went to this guy based on the little we know about him?
> 
> Edit:  This is directed at steve.  Charlie slipped in on me.



Neither.

I'm saying that it's stupid to reach a conclusion regarding proficiency based on a single photograph, _regardless of what that conclusion is_...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > If there were no photograph I would come to the same conclusion.  The guy is an *******.
> ...



What's stupid is to believe that not slamming him, like you're doing, is "defending him". 

If you can show me a single post where I've said "This guy is a good boudoir photographer", I'll buy you a house. Unfortunately, without such a statement from me, you're absolutely unable to show that I'm "defending" anyone.

I don't know that he's a good boudoir photographer. I also don't know that he isn't...


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > bentcountershaft said:
> ...



all right all right....
based on the evidence at hand I will concede that I know absolutely nothing about the CL guys photography, boudoir or otherwise, and therefor cannot make an informed decision as to his level of skill. 

however...on a personal level, i find the ad a bit creepy, and the picture he DID choose to share a poor representation of what could maybe possibly be a decent artist/photographer.

and that is all i have to say on this subject.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

I understand your point.  I just think you and your point would have been better served had you used it on a more deserving subject/situation.

I don't care about this guy's photographic skills.  Boudoir photography, as I'm certain you know, is a specialized thing.  To do it well requires so much more than camera or editing skills.  It requires incredible communication skills.  My wife went to one a few years ago.  One of those places that does the full make over with hair and make up and all that.  She loved it.  The pics were decent quality but that wasn't the thing that mattered most to her.  While she was doing it and after they were done, she felt beautiful and confident.  That's what it's about.  

There is absolutely nothing in that ad that suggests to me he can do any of those things.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> ...based on the evidence at hand I will concede that I know absolutely nothing about the CL guys photography, boudoir or otherwise, and therefor cannot make an informed decision as to his level of skill.



And that's a common sense approach.

Clearly, though, others here enjoy a life unburdened by common sense...


----------



## CowgirlMama (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > What's stupid is to believe that not slamming him, like you're doing, is "defending him".
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

Here's a thread in which people were asked to  post their best horizontal portraits: Horizontal Portraits

A great many photos posted there aren't what's commonly referred to as portraits, but rather portraits. There's even a photo of a guy break dancing; can't even see his face.

Should we conclude that the people posting these candids simply suck at shooting portraits, based on the fact that, when asked for a portrait, they posted something else?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 6, 2013)

Gee, you guys have rally turned me off to this idea.

I had already packed my bag and made my plane reservation for DFW.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

Well, the OP seems to have done a drive by, as he hasn't posted since the first post.

It makes one wonder, though, if he's searching Craig's List because that's what he sees as his competition...


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

Who's making assumptions now?


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Who's making assumptions now?



I've made no assumptions at all...


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

Twice you mentioned that the OP may feel threatened by the photographer.  You may not be assuming anything, but you're trying like hell to bait them.

I may as well ask why you have such concern for the OP's confidence?  Is it because making them feel inadequate makes you feel better?  Not making an assumption, just wondering.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Twice you mentioned that the OP may feel threatened by the photographer.  You may not be assuming anything, but you're trying like hell to bait them.



He may be, but he may not be.

My point is that we don't know, because he posted a Craig's List ad and then, apparently, left...



> I may as well ask why you have such concern for the OP's confidence?  Is it because making them feel inadequate makes you feel better?  Not making an assumption, just wondering.



Um, I'm hardly the one trying to make anyone feel inadequate, nor would I need that to feel better about myself. I'm quite confident in my abilities and, unlike some others here, don't need to tear anyone else down in order to feel good about myself.

I would suggest rereading the posts of those who, based on a single photograph, have concluded that this guy is, at best, a horrible photographer and, at worst, a pervert. It's stupid to say such conclusions can be reached by viewing a single image.

Did you look at the link I posted, about horizontal portraits? I'm wondering if you'd be kind enough to answer the question I asked: Should we conclude, based on some of the images in that thread, that some people simply suck at shooting portraits?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2013)

My god, seriously?  Three pages of this?

Let's summarize, shall we?

OP posts a link to something which has some amusement factor on Craig's list.
Steve strongly defends the honor of a random internet person based upon the logical construct of "Just because he posted a bad picture doesn't really mean he sucks."
Everyone finds that logic flawed.
Steve stands firm.

So pretty much the usual.

Since we've all been down this road before, can I suggest we go do something more useful instead?


----------



## IByte (Apr 6, 2013)

She's kind of looking like she's about to plop a squat.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 6, 2013)

Superfitz said:


> Just nasty, ignorant bullies




Sorry, CL poster ​


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

Why would I want to answer the question you asked when you ignored my post before it?  If it matters to you that much I will.  Anyone is free to conclude anything they want based on whatever information they have at hand.  If you want to assume I'm a bad portrait photographer because I posted a candid shot in that thread you are quite free to do so, and I'd be inclined to agree with you.  However to answer the core of your question, I think there are so many candids in there because most of the people submitting them are not portrait photographers.  

Now back to this thread.  Your point regarding judging someone based on one photograph has been made and it is not without merit.  However, as I pointed out, he isn't being judged purely on the photograph alone.  The entire ad is being judged.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Steve strongly defends the honor of a random internet person based upon the logical construct of "Just because he posted a bad picture doesn't really mean he sucks."



Actually, that's not what I'm doing.

What I'm doing is pointing out that it's profoundly stupid to conclude that someone sucks on the basis of a single image.

I don't give a rat's ass about the photographer, but I also recognize the enormous stupidity in saying he's a bad photographer based on what we've seen...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Why would I want to answer the question you asked when you ignored my post before it?  If it matters to you that much I will.  Anyone is free to conclude anything they want based on whatever information they have at hand.  If you want to assume I'm a bad portrait photographer because I posted a candid shot in that thread you are quite free to do so, and I'd be inclined to agree with you.  However to answer the core of your question, I think there are so many candids in there because most of the people submitting them are not portrait photographers.
> 
> Now back to this thread.  Your point regarding judging someone based on one photograph has been made and it is not without merit.  However, as I pointed out, he isn't being judged purely on the photograph alone.  The entire ad is being judged.



What's written in the ad that you find so horrendously objectionable?

Here's the text:

_Would you like some exciting photos , now's your chance. Artist,  sculpture, expanding into the world of  digital photography and needing  to build a new portfolio. Will be happy to do your boudoir/lingerie  photos for free in exchange for use in my portfolio. You will receive a  disk with all session photos. Available days, evenings and weekends.  References available._

Is it the fact that he'll do it for free?


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 6, 2013)

Be easy, guys. He's just a sculpture!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Steve strongly defends the honor of a random internet person based upon the logical construct of "Just because he posted a bad picture doesn't really mean he sucks."
> ...



I understand that, but you've made your point.  Those in attendance are either going to go "ah yeah, good point" or not, and you're not going to change that by continuing the argument.

To be frank, I also don't see the point of even making the argument.  While, yes, your point is logically sound, we ARE talking about a craigslist ad that has pretty much EVERY hallmark of "scary and/or exceptionally bad craigslist photographer".  It really just seems like you're looking for an argument, and I think we get plenty of that as it is around here lately, so my suggestion would be to drop it.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



If you're unable to articulate exactly what is in the ad that's objectionable, it's okay to say so.

What part of the indicates that he's an "exceptionally bad Craig's List photographer"?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I want to answer the question you asked when you ignored my post before it?  If it matters to you that much I will.  Anyone is free to conclude anything they want based on whatever information they have at hand.  If you want to assume I'm a bad portrait photographer because I posted a candid shot in that thread you are quite free to do so, and I'd be inclined to agree with you.  However to answer the core of your question, I think there are so many candids in there because most of the people submitting them are not portrait photographers.
> ...



1.  It's on craigslist.
2.  He is an artist that for some reason does not have access to models.  How does that happen?
3.  It's on craigslist.
4.  He, as you pointed out, doesn't have a boudoir shot to advertise for boudoir photography.
5.  It's on craigslist.
6.  He wants to use the photos for his portfolio, meaning he wants to be able to show them to anyone.
7.  It's on craigslist.
8.  He has poor judgement using a photo that bad to show his skills.  Not saying he can't or hasn't done better.  Just that he doesn't impress me with his judgement.
9.  It's on craigslist.
10.  He makes no mention of where the photos are to be shot or what kind of props he has available.  He could have studio, or he could be shooting in his studio apartment.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I want to answer the question you asked when you ignored my post before it?  If it matters to you that much I will.  Anyone is free to conclude anything they want based on whatever information they have at hand.  If you want to assume I'm a bad portrait photographer because I posted a candid shot in that thread you are quite free to do so, and I'd be inclined to agree with you.  However to answer the core of your question, I think there are so many candids in there because most of the people submitting them are not portrait photographers.
> ...



weeeeeeeell...
I do actually find one little thing in his CL ad just a tad unnerving. personally speaking. 
hes an artist. hes a sculptor, he wants to beak into photography. ok fine. 
he chooses to start his brand new photography career shooting scantily clad women. 
im sure that's gotta raise some red flags to more than just a few people.

now, maybe hes made his art career painting and sculpting artistic nudes. so, lingerie and boudoir shoots might be a natural progression for him.
if so, he would have made a MUCH better case for his ad by stating that. maybe even posting some pictures of his artwork and saying, "this is what i want to create, but with a camera". but no, he makes no mention of any art, no link to any other work he has done. he simply says, "hey, im an artist, let me take some pictures of you half naked for my portfolio".

seriously though, the only people this affects in the slightest are the people that contact him for work. and go down to his studio (wherever that is) and pose for him. (this isnt a statment of any judgement of his ability, just the fact that i don't personally find his ad very compelling)


----------



## IByte (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> If you're unable to articulate exactly what is in the ad that's objectionable, it's okay to say so.
> 
> What part of the indicates that he's an "exceptionally bad Craig's List photographer"?



He may be a true artist, but something about this ad is just flashing STRANGER DANGER an I'm a guy.  Maybe I shouldn't have watch human centipede last night  >.<


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 6, 2013)

And I'm done with this one.  Feel free to give him a try Steve.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Thanks, but I'm not going to get dragged into your little fun fest.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 6, 2013)

IByte said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > If you're unable to articulate exactly what is in the ad that's objectionable, it's okay to say so.
> ...



I think we're all done with this train-wreck!


----------



## terri (Apr 6, 2013)

Actually, I have one comment, so you all can take it under advisement: I found it in very poor taste that the OP even thought to open a thread jeering at some poor slob who posted an ad on CL.    The whole point seems to have been to raise a collective glass of "cheer and jeer"; and anyone who didn't fall in line, for whatever reason, was only slightly less obnoxious than the slob who posted the ad.  

Four pages of this crap.  :thumbdown:  You so-called "pros" who frequent the General Shop Talk forum of TPF find this stimulating?   Did anyone expect anything _other_ than a train-wreck?   Is this what our pro members bring to the table these days?


----------

