>>4488991
because its photoshopped

>>4488991
good from far but far from good?

I dislike how much it brings out the skin and hair texture on top of being excessively bright.

>>4488991
it's the overdone old lady tanning bed back that clashes with the peach not as tanned cheeks

>>4488991
> What makes pic related so uncanny and unpleasant to look at?
Too many local adjustments imo

I'm actually a little serious when I wanna find out what gear inthecrack used for their high res pics of women's assholes, they always had the crazy 10mb pictures where I could see any little shitstain they left behind

>>4488991
I feel like it should be cropped to just the ass and a bit of thigh.

>>4488991
The colours are wrong. Probably taken with a sony. Skin should not be magenta.

>>4489061
I thought they made skin green?

>>4489083
The issue is the green/magenta colour balance, they're always either green or magenta. Can't be fixed in post.

>>4489087
>>4489061
Its shot on a canon

>>4488991
I find this image very pleasant to look at if you know what I mean

>>4489092
Nope. Sony. Nice lie, kid.

>>4489095
>s-sony has to be bad, in every thread
Olympus is still out of business and released the em5iii 3 times because sony apsc and ff destroyed any reason micro four thirds had to exist

Sony won. They did more than just win. They drove pentax, olympus, and panasonic into the dirt. Shilling on 4chan wont change the broader market. Your favorite brands are dead. Sony killed them.

>>4489126
Retarded, or replying to own bait?

>>4489132
Both.

>>4489126
Funny how you didn't mention Canon because all professionals use Canon. No Canon = not pro. Just facts. Sorry about your bruised ego, you can get butthurt all you want, it's the objective truth. No professional would accept Sony images and no one paying a professional will be content with Sony images. Just facts.

>>4488991
Most probably homosexuality

If this were /ic/, I'd say body proportions and perspective are all wrong.
The combination of the hips being so much wider than the waist (perspective distortion?) and the lighting dropping off too quickly between cheeks and back (local adjustments?) suggests that the lower body is completely detached from the upper body.
The lighting also makes everything look fake, but I can't explain that.

>>4489126
it's just deepstate wikipedia trannies trying to solicit donations from that one australian schizo that sends them $5 every time someone makes a snoy post

>>4488991
>anus_peek
kino

imagine taking off her panty and just getting in there and licking her ass

>>4488991
>lust provoking image
>irrelevant time wasting question

>>4490043
>4chan.org

>>4489016
I had those printed at max resolution on D size paper and framed on my walls back in my twenties. Everyone thought it was funny to see my nice apt decorated in high res asshole art, until my friends wife popped over to get him, looked around, stormed out and never spoke to me again lol

>>4490219
There's a significant percentage of women whose entire self-worth has been based on the market value of their vagina. Nothing is a stonger denial of their self worth than someone who places their poop hole as more important than their life giving slimy hole. Most humans are simple animals.

The lighting setup has been designed to provide maximum coverage from all angles.
The photographer likely wanted to work fast and cheap, so he's not shooting this like an artistic shoot. He's trying to get the maximum number of ok shots in as short a time as possible. What you end up with is the very flat 80s Style porn mag look that we see here.

>>4490043
It neither provokes lust nor is an irrelevant question in my view. Color accuracy matters

File: DSC06242.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4488991
I went round to sex my ex and took this. We all know why this is better.