A Photo?

[BiBottomBoy]

Reply with a photo that reminds you of this forum.

[MsAnn]

[BiBottomBoy]

Nice.

[RockHardNYC]

Bel Ami's Jack Harrer. One of my all-time favorite boy toys. Here he is with slight RH enhancement. A gift to all my size queen fans. Happy Holidays!

[BiBottomBoy]

God that's a nice dick

[MsAnn]

 

 

 

[BiBottomBoy]

I'm gonna need an explanation for those...

[RockHardNYC]

17 hours ago, BiBottomBoy said:

God that's a nice dick

It is Photoshopped, just to be clear.

Jack's dick is pretty to look at, fun to photograph and Photoshop, tasty to lick, but a beast to suck. Maybe if you had the mouth architecture of a Carly Simon, but I don't like the look of over-sized mouths. I'm not a size queen probably because I don't enjoy sticking large things in my body's orifices. I don't follow the bigger-is-better ethos.

I love the look of his small butt. His beautiful butt hole is so tempting and inviting. Watching another guy lick his ass does it for me. I also like his face; intense eyes, lush mouth, and a strong nose. Love his hair color.

[BiBottomBoy]

yeah. he's quite the package

[RockHardNYC]

Now that my three pies are done, I had a chance to upload one more photo before I depart for Thanksgiving festivities. Sometimes, I like to play with some favorite internet guys, so here's one more boytoy from my private collection:

[BiBottomBoy]

Damn

[AdamSmith]

On 11/22/2017 at 4:32 PM, MsAnn said:

 

 

[BiBottomBoy]

Airplane is pretty awesome

[BigK]

On 11/23/2017 at 8:51 AM, RockHardNYC said:

It is Photoshopped, just to be clear.

Jack's dick is pretty to look at, fun to photograph and Photoshop, tasty to lick, but a beast to suck. Maybe if you had the mouth architecture of a Carly Simon, but I don't like the look of over-sized mouths. I'm not a size queen probably because I don't enjoy sticking large things in my body's orifices. I don't follow the bigger-is-better ethos.

I love the look of his small butt. His beautiful butt hole is so tempting and inviting. Watching another guy lick his ass does it for me. I also like his face; intense eyes, lush mouth, and a strong nose. Love his hair color.

I love that butt hole too.  Thanks for the pic's.

[RockHardNYC]

A new boytoy to share from my private collection. It's funny how we change in life. For about a decade in my 20's, I absolutely hated guys with facial hair. I couldn't go near them. Now, in my 50's, I can find a beard sexy, especially it it's a lighter color on a very lean White guy.

I love the way this guy trimmed his body hair. When it's done like this, I don't mind the stubble. The roughness with the definition can be a turn-on.

As I've said before, big cocks are not my thing, but some are so beautiful to play with, they deserve to be appreciated. This one has a magnificent vein and a very sexy curve. It was a fun cock to work on.

[RockHardNYC]

A nice way to end a Thanksgiving weekend. Here's my final boytoy gift to this thread: my personal collage of Nick Snyder of Sylvania, Ohio.

Nick is a superstar, and I find the guy fascinating. The camera loves him, and he loves the camera back. I've never seen a hot guy make love to his cock (and the camera) quite the way that Nick does. And his cock is one heavy mother fucker. I think this guy is mega talented. And wait until you hear his voice (if you haven't already).

In certain photos he looks like he's 16-years-old. I don't know when he celebrated his "coming out," but prior to that he managed to produce a beautiful baby boy. He's got family photos all over the internet.

We sure live in a different world these days. I could never imagine being this exposed, and all that's good and bad about it. One thing I know for sure, guys like Nick make searching on the internet more fun.

https://hungitalianstallion10.tumblr.com/

 

[BiBottomBoy]

Damn that's a nice dick

[Lucky]

I think photoshopping dicks may be entertaining, but I see little point to it. Why not just accept the dick that the guy has?

[RockHardNYC]

37 minutes ago, Lucky said:

I think photoshopping dicks may be entertaining, but I see little point to it. Why not just accept the dick that the guy has?

If you bothered to take the time to learn the science behind camera lenses, you might find out that lens glass is spherical, therefore, it distorts the subject by default. Depending on the length of the lens, rarely, and I do mean rarely, does any photo tell the precise truth about the cock in a photo.

The only way to "accept the dick that the guy has," you have to hire the guy and see the cock in person.

In most cases, a photo of a cock is pure fantasy because of the science of photography. This might explain why Al Parker was famous for telling his fans "blame my cock size on the cameraman." And that's before Photoshop. Lighting and camera angles make a difference, too. It's the same reason why a lot of people don't look like their photos when met in person. Or, a pro model looks ordinary in person but looks extraordinary in photos. Either the science works or it doesn't.

Many would argue, and I would agree, that Photoshop in porn is necessary to get closer to the truth. The chances of getting the cock, the face, and the body muscles all in the right place at the right time is VERY challenging and time consuming. In a porn photo shoot, 9 times out of 10 the face and the body will be perfectly composed, but the cock will have drooped. In digital, it is very easy to replace the droopy dick with the one that's full-mast from another frame. Why settle for half-mast if you don't have to?

For the sake of believability, the key is to hire someone who knows what he is doing.

On top of all this, entertainment is the point, especially if I have to entertain myself.

[BiBottomBoy]

Also we're a  web forum.

Looking at big dicks is fun

[AdamSmith]

11 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

If you bothered to take the time to learn the science behind camera lenses, you might find out that lens glass is spherical, therefore, it distorts the subject by default. Depending on the length of the lens, rarely, and I do mean rarely, does any photo tell the precise truth about the cock in a photo.

The only way to "accept the dick that the guy has," you have to hire the guy and see the cock in person.

In most cases, a photo of a cock is pure fantasy because of the science of photography. This might explain why Al Parker was famous for telling his fans "blame my cock size on the cameraman." And that's before Photoshop. Lighting and camera angles make a difference, too. It's the same reason why a lot of people don't look like their photos when met in person. Or, a pro model looks ordinary in person but looks extraordinary in photos. Either the science works or it doesn't.

Many would argue, and I would agree, that Photoshop in porn is necessary to get closer to the truth. The chances of getting the cock, the face, and the body muscles all in the right place at the right time is VERY challenging and time consuming. In a porn photo shoot, 9 times out of 10 the face and the body will be perfectly composed, but the cock will have drooped. In digital, it is very easy to replace the droopy dick with the one that's full-mast from another frame. Why settle for half-mast if you don't have to?

For the sake of believability, the key is to hire someone who knows what he is doing.

On top of all this, entertainment is the point, especially if I have to entertain myself.

You have given here, in terms kindly adopted for lay  consumprion. an elegant intro to this highly technical topic of 1-, 2- and 3-point perspective.

Thank you! Very clear and well done.

I know it from many years behind the journalistic camera. And the vertical stat camera in the darkroom, etc. And then the digital-technology follow-ons.

And of course just from being an art history whore. (Did I ever recount my personal story about Jasper Johns? A genius, and a truly dirty old man!   Lovely, in every way.)

Vasari (was it? God, the mind goes quick  ) gave a great Googleable technical treatise on perspective.

[BiBottomBoy]

yeah. I mean entertainment is the reason for watching

[RockHardNYC]

7 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Thank you! Very clear and well done.

How sweet. I'm definitely no scientist, but I do have a curious mind I have played one on TV.

Not sure what Lucky's issue is with Photoshop and cock. He's had the issue for a long time. Photoshop is just a modern artist's tool. Considering Lucky's appreciation for some of the Arts, he may be burdened by selective appreciation.

I remember a well-known escort who didn't like my enhanced cock images over at Hooville. Maybe bigger cocks made his look smaller? I've stopped trying to figure out the pathos of certain escorts.

Most people know little about the science of photography, yet everyone with an i-Phone thinks they're a photographer these days. These ignorant folk wrongly believe that a camera can see as the human eye sees. Nothing could be further from the truth. A camera is always distorting the truth. A camera can only capture "reality" with serious limitations.

Another falsehood is the belief that Photoshop means "fake" or "retouched." It certainly can mean those things. However, in the realm of digital, every digital file (image) requires some kind of processing or editing in order to produce a finished image. Some cameras (in Auto mode) do the processing work for the user, but almost all professionals prefer to use professional modes and tools to bring a digital image to life. And if you decide to print a professional image, the need for post processing software, such as Photoshop, becomes even more crucial.

I expected more brain from Lucky. I hear as we age, we get more set in our lazy ways.

[BiBottomBoy]

Eh. we all have our tastes.

Lucky may be different from the rest of us.

[RA1]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 9:21 PM, BiBottomBoy said:

Airplane is pretty awesome

I have never seen an aviation movie without errors, usually serious errors.  Airplane is an exception in this regard.  NOTHING in it is accurate.

Best regards,

RA1