Comment on Brian Rawson by CatRoPo
Here's a shocker: GIRLS HAVE BREASTS.
Keep your horniness to yourselves and just look at other things in the photo besides the fact that she has bloody bosoms.
Keep your horniness to yourselves and just look at other things in the photo besides the fact that she has bloody bosoms.
May be people won't look at em if the artist didn't make them the center of attention or as you may call it, "the SUBJECT"
They are not. There are other aspects of the photograph such as the face of the girl, the detail caught by the camera on her glasses, the fine lines in her hair, but nope. Folks seem more interested in criticizing the work for the little bit of space at the bottom of the photograph that are the girl's breasts.
Might as well not shoot the picture at all nor ever because no matter what folks are just going to focus on the breasts and nothing else.
Might as well not shoot the picture at all nor ever because no matter what folks are just going to focus on the breasts and nothing else.
"They" are the subject of the photo.
50% of the image (bottom half) IS in fact boobs. And it is the main focus, and it is the main focus on purpose. People will look at boobs
first because the whole bottom of the image is a big blank white space, with a boob crease only viisible. The photographer new what he/
she was doing. That is why the model is naked. She didn't go there like that and said "take my picture now".
And I think your giving the photographer a little more credit then necessary~
"the detail caught by the camera on her glasses"
I really don't see anything striking or well thought out displayed in those glass's reflection...
Anyway, there is nothing really to focus on on top because the whole image is blurry and saturated, sooooo, where else is there to look? The boobs.
50% of the image (bottom half) IS in fact boobs. And it is the main focus, and it is the main focus on purpose. People will look at boobs
first because the whole bottom of the image is a big blank white space, with a boob crease only viisible. The photographer new what he/
she was doing. That is why the model is naked. She didn't go there like that and said "take my picture now".
And I think your giving the photographer a little more credit then necessary~
"the detail caught by the camera on her glasses"
I really don't see anything striking or well thought out displayed in those glass's reflection...
Anyway, there is nothing really to focus on on top because the whole image is blurry and saturated, sooooo, where else is there to look? The boobs.
She's not naked, she has a lacy top on 
I'm sorry, I didn't see the shirt at first :/ "half naked" I guess
And sorry for the unnecassary commotion on this piece...
If I may ask real quick...why did you pick this photo rather than another?
Why is this picked over the other photos in her gallery?
And sorry for the unnecassary commotion on this piece...
If I may ask real quick...why did you pick this photo rather than another?
Why is this picked over the other photos in her gallery?
No problem. I choose this one as it looked completely different to the rest of her gallery.
It's an unassuming, understated shot. And I thought it brought her features out in such a beautifully simplistic way.
I understand it's not everyone's fave, but it wouldn't do if we all liked the same
It's an unassuming, understated shot. And I thought it brought her features out in such a beautifully simplistic way.
I understand it's not everyone's fave, but it wouldn't do if we all liked the same
Comment hidden
Oh alright, thank you very much for answering my questions.
I thought even if a deviation had a mature warning and/or was an artisitic nude it could still be featured : /
I thought even if a deviation had a mature warning and/or was an artisitic nude it could still be featured : /
View all replies
I was simply saying that folks nowadays tend to focus on the boobs in pictures and nothing else; it comes off as rather strange, though I meant not only in this photo. There are photographs of females out there that are gorgeous but only the boobs are focused on. There are drawings of women that explode in detail but if the breasts are a size D then that is all the commentary is about. You know what I mean?
Yes, that is definitely the truth. That is how society is though, they put emphasis on a women's chest always.
I will be honest, I did notice her face and the upper part of the work first. Then I wanted to see why it's in DD, what's so special about it? I scrolled down and went "aahhh! There they are"
And stop making it sound like there is something wrong with looking at boobs!
And stop making it sound like there is something wrong with looking at boobs!
There is nothing wrong with looking at boobs. It is simply rather crude to only focus on the boobs.
I think it's definitely stretching when you try to think of things to look at besides the boobs when the boobs are clearly the whole point of the piece. I won't argue against it being crude, but I'm just saying. This is a fairly unremarkable photograph with a fairly unremarkable filter applied, and a fairly unremarkable 'message'. The only remarkable thing is the gorgeous woman who is the subject, and the fantastic chest she has.
What makes it clear that her boobs are supposed to be the center of attention when it is just a shot of her?
Nothing in particular. I apologize, that was poorly phrased. I meant that the boobs are the only noteworthy thing about the photograph.
View all replies