Nude Glamour Hall-of-Fame Election Series: Photo #2 (ok)

[wmonbear]

http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Candy_Loving

 

[wmonbear]

Disclaimer: this photo was posted solely on behalf of a fellow Freeones member.

 

[Ace Bandage]

There is no HOF for nude photographs. It doesn't exist except inside of your little fucking head. You haven't listed any induction criteria. There isn't any basis for comparison to measure the merits of this photo against ones already considered worthy. How the fuck can you determine if this photo is HOF material if you haven't established what constitutes a HOF photo? This is a worthless and stupid enterprise.

I hope a meteor lands on your house or you get super AIDS... or whatever else it takes to make you stop incessantly posting this irrelevant fucking bullshit.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Disclaimer: voting in these retarded-ass threads may cause ze super AIDS.

 

[John_8581]

Allright. I'm going to finally comment on these threads of wmonbear.

You want to discuss "artistic" poses of ladies and expect us to have a say of who is "award winning?" Nonsense I say. How can we even make a rational choice?

Wmonbear, you need to take this one step up -- to a more objective perspective.

Instead I say..

Have a thread and poll about the photographers themselves not any of the models.

Here's a few of them (only a few) -- Artistic from their perspective ...

Mario Casilli
Richard Fegley
Arny Fretag
Pompeo Posar
J. Stephen Hicks
Mark Lit
[nobabe]Suze Randall[/nobabe]
[nobabe]Holly Randall[/nobabe]
Rich Cutrone
Andy McFarland
Johnny Crosslin
Todd Plink
Ken Marcus
Michael Scott
Buzz Aziani
Filippo Sano
Denys DeFrancesco

and lastly,

Larry Flynt
Bob Guccione

We vote. We're done. Therefore, give everyone a break here --- No more threads of yours with polls concerning the "artistic merits" of "award winning" models you are putting up!

Do we have a deal?


_____________________ ___________
sign and date by wmonbear

 

[John_8581]

- - - Update - - -

I left out Anton Fury.

 

[wmonbear]

There is no HOF for nude photographs. It doesn't exist except inside of your little fucking head. You haven't listed any induction criteria. There isn't any basis for comparison to measure the merits of this photo against ones already considered worthy. How the fuck can you determine if this photo is HOF material if you haven't established what constitutes a HOF photo? This is a worthless and stupid enterprise.

"There is no HOF for nude photographs" - This , in a nutshell, is the basis of my motivation. Movies (mainstream and adult), the theatre, music, sports, etc. - they all make it part of their mission to acknowledge excellence within their ranks. So why isn't there a Hall of Fame, devoted museum, awards, honors, or recognition for the best in sexy-erotic nude photography? Best answer: No respected binding organization.
Whatever the reason, my objective is to rectify this travesty by conducting tournaments such as these, thereby bringing awareness to this issue.

"How the fuck can you determine if this photo is HOF material?" - This is an easy one. First of all, except for sports (which has statistics), the merits of any area of entertainment will be largely subjective. Nude photography is no different. Your criteria for determining if a photo is HoF-worthy is simple. You need only to ask yourself one question: Is this pic among the best nude photographs I have ever seen? If the answer is "Yes", then it should be at the very least, worthy of HoF consideration. For me, a 1st-ballot HoF photo, will often stun your senses, causing you to utter one or more of the following: "Holy shit!", "Whoa!", "Good heavens!", "Fuck!".

If your initial reaction isn't able to distinguish between say a "good" pic and a "very good" pic, then a more analytical approach to one's decision-making might be in order, which could involve the use of the following template:

Posted earlier...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case (Hall-of-Fame voting), judgments will ideally have nothing whatsoever to do with the featured model's celebrity or popularity, but instead will be based on the overall photograph , including such aspects as....

- Attractiveness of model
- Originality or creativity of shot
- Image quality (resolution, etc.), and
- Sexual appeal (pose, figure/physique, facial expression)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been at this intensely for 5 years now. So, naturally it comes easy to me. For some (analytical, critic, and reviewer types), this will be a fun little side activity. For other, not so much.

 

[wmonbear]

Allright. I'm going to finally comment on these threads of wmonbear.

You want to discuss "artistic" poses of ladies and expect us to have a say of who is "award winning?" Nonsense I say. How can we even make a rational choice?

Wmonbear, you need to take this one step up -- to a more objective perspective.

Instead I say..

Have a thread and poll about the photographers themselves not any of the models.

Here's a few of them (only a few) -- Artistic from their perspective ...

Mario Casilli
Richard Fegley
Arny Fretag
Pompeo Posar
J. Stephen Hicks
Mark Lit
[nobabe]Suze Randall[/nobabe]
[nobabe]Holly Randall[/nobabe]
Rich Cutrone
Andy McFarland
Johnny Crosslin
Todd Plink
Ken Marcus
Michael Scott
Buzz Aziani
Filippo Sano
Denys DeFrancesco

and lastly,

Larry Flynt
Bob Guccione

We vote. We're done. Therefore, give everyone a break here --- No more threads of yours with polls concerning the "artistic merits" of "award winning" models you are putting up!

Do we have a deal?


_____________________ ___________
sign and date by wmonbear

Sorry, but No Deal, I would much rather prefer to be wowed by great photos of gorgeous women than to pontificate over the technical or artistic merits of photographers, most of whom I have never heard of.

 

[wmonbear]

For those of you who may have missed this post:

Can no longer let this fester... I mean, who do I think I am anyway!

Well, as it turns out, I happen to be the founder, chief administrator, and commissioner (5 seasons running) for the #1 [and largest] nude photo tournament in the world (over 500+ photos submitted and reviewed on an annual basis).

Here's how the system works: photos are submitted, then rated by a diverse panel of 5 to 10 seasoned (experienced) judges. Based on the average score attained, and a predetermined minimum threshold, a pic will either be qualified for playoff contention or will be eliminated. Following the end of a 12-month long regular season, the playoffs, comprising the highest-rated photos of the year, kicks into gear with elimination-style matches, often pitting 3 pics against one another at a time. Four divisional winners are crowned champions, including Photo of Year award winners for both Solo and Multi-model divisions, with runner-ups elected as well . Upon claiming their respective titles, these 8 battle-tested photographs are systematically inducted into the tourney's Hall of Fame. This has been and continues to be an extremely successful time-tested format.

As good as this methodology has been, there's remains a single problem, albeit a minor one. With such a large volume of quality nude images competing against one another, many excellent pics find themselves eliminated from contention, often by a single vote, even though they may virtually be of the same stature of the pic which eliminated them.

So, why this thread? Freeones community of voters could conceivably play a viable role in "certifying" deserving NPI’s (nude photographic images) for Hall-of-Fame induction.

Some of you spoke about lacking a "frame of reference" for rendering a proper judgment - which is a valid point. To address this issue, the plan going forward is to 'roll out' some of the more successful NPI’s of past seasons along with a few that were not so successful. This exercise would serve as a training period to build and identify the parameters needed to render a more educated and informed photo assessment.

Following this orientation period, Freeones voters will have begun to develop the skill set necessary to become seasoned reviewers of nude images. At such time, Freeones members will be encouraged to submit photographs they believe posses Hall-of-Fame potential. Overall, we’re looking at about a 6 to 8 week process to arrive at this juncture.

 

[RASQ]

 

[John_8581]

Sorry, but No Deal, I would much rather prefer to be wowed by great photos of gorgeous women than to pontificate over the technical or artistic merits of photographers, most of whom I have never heard of.

Well then. Enough of this. All of the pictures you have ever posted on this board are from them. Sorry but I will not comment any further in any of your threads.

 

[Rezen]

Great tits but not HOF worthy

 

[wmonbear]

Great tits but not HOF worthy

That's exactly how I see it as well.