A frolic in Cambodia

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Why do you say this? I've always thought this was a good look.

ETA: And I have been filmed and I thought it was pretty neato to watch.

Well, it's mostly just a close-up of ass. And at that angle, body parts that are closer to the camera look MUCH bigger relative to the rest of the person's body.

ETA: Of course, my sample size is very small, so YMMV. Bad assumption on my part I guess.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Floor pie?

mmmmmm.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
So you've seen my video? Was it worth the $19.95? Girls gone wild - pffft.

Don't forget that I put on all my fabulous jewelry and seasonal cologne first.

Well done on editing my insult.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The new digital cameras aren't that bad. Pretty lifelike.

I think you miss the point. Lifelike enough to capture unwanted jiggles?

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Well done on editing my insult.

I was hoping you'd catch that. We must maintain accuracy even in the midst of a diatribe.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I think you miss the point. Lifelike enough to capture unwanted jiggles?

Depends on ass-slap velocity.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I think you miss the point. Lifelike enough to capture unwanted jiggles?

No, lifelike is better. The video I made years ago was on actual videotape. Trust me... you look a hell of a lot better in higher res than grainy videotape, which tends to make body parts look blurry and bigger.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Well, it's mostly just a close-up of ass. And at that angle, body parts that are closer to the camera look MUCH bigger relative to the rest of the person's body.

ETA: Of course, my sample size is very small, so YMMV. Bad assumption on my part I guess.

Okay, I'm trying to picture this. Really. Oh, okay, that's good.

But back to my question. When doing your GF from behind, you can hold the camera far enough away to get a full shot of her ass?

Assuming that you are gifted enough to so multitask, wouldn't the part of her ass of which she might be critical be, well, obscured from view?

I am just trying to get the logistics clear.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, lifelike is better. The video I made years ago was on actual videotape. Trust me... you look a hell of a lot better in higher res than grainy videotape, which tends to make body parts look blurry and bigger.

Where can I get some of this grainy videotape?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, lifelike is better. The video I made years ago was on actual videotape. Trust me... you look a hell of a lot better in higher res than grainy videotape, which tends to make body parts look blurry and bigger.

It seems to me that some of the population would want their body parts to be blurry and/or bigger. Others, not so much.

The high-resolution shot of Tara Ried's breast that's over on the adult board is unfortunate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Depends on ass-slap velocity.

Even the tightest one has a slight wave when slapped. Now, if the wave rolls out and then returns with enough force to knock you backwards, you probably ought to rethink how much you drink.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, lifelike is better. The video I made years ago was on actual videotape. Trust me... you look a hell of a lot better in higher res than grainy videotape, which tends to make body parts look blurry and bigger.

That's what I keep saying about the movies in HD. You can read the cock tats. Clarity is better (for the most part) it's not like you're seeing faces or whatever. It's just the unfortunate stretch marks that these people have where a little blurriness would come in handy.

But wouldn't you want "some" body parts to look bigger?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Okay, I'm trying to picture this. Really. Oh, okay, that's good.

But back to my question. When doing your GF from behind, you can hold the camera far enough away to get a full shot of her ass?

Assuming that you are gifted enough to so multitask, wouldn't the part of her ass of which she might be critical be, well, obscured from view?

I am just trying to get the logistics clear.

I don't get it either. Thanks for asking the question. Whatever happened to tripods? Why do you need to use your hands?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Okay, I'm trying to picture this. Really. Oh, okay, that's good.

But back to my question. When doing your GF from behind, you can hold the camera far enough away to get a full shot of her ass?

Assuming that you are gifted enough to so multitask, wouldn't the part of her ass of which she might be critical be, well, obscured from view?

I am just trying to get the logistics clear.

Are we going to have to define "ass"? B/c don't understand what you're asking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It seems to me that some of the population would want their body parts to be blurry and/or bigger. Others, not so much.

The high-resolution shot of Tara Ried's breast that's over on the adult board is unfortunate.

You'd think it would work that way, but it doesn't. It just looks like you're brandishing one of those souvenir miniature baseball bats (doesn't even look anatomically correct). And no matter how buff you think you are, it gives you a gut.

As to Tara, she's going to look very worn by 35. The bad implant scar is the least of her issues.