Old Pix- Can I Post Them?

[Rick Munroe]

As opposed to some site where I have no idea who the owner is? Yes!

 

Wait, I'm confused. I thought one of your concerns was the loss of ownership of your intellectual property. No?

[+ Lucky]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought one of your concerns was the loss of ownership of your intellectual property. No?

 

No, it is convenience of posting. If my pictures had that much value, no I wouldn't cede ownership of them. But I conceded a few posts back that there was little interest in them, so I really don't care if another site took ownership of them so I could post them. I am just too lazy to go to another site to upload them.

[RockHard]

RH uncut.

 

I am just too lazy to go to another site to upload them.

 

Lazy is not a word in my vocabulary.

 

Hence, for those who love vintage foreskin:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7099/7323405276_9635f0a213_b.jpg

[+ Lucky]

What I like, RH, love, is truth. And doctored dicks are not truthful. Granted, truth itself is hard to find, and even hard to know. But when you tell me that the photos are not of the true dicks, but photo-shopped, I lose interest.

[seeker630]

What I like, RH, love, is truth. And doctored dicks are not truthful. Granted, truth itself is hard to find, and even hard to know. But when you tell me that the photos are not of the true dicks, but photo-shopped, I lose interest.

 

Knowing they are doctored and no longer authentic makes me lose interest as well. In some way, it seems to go against the spirit of the board (with it's emphasis on truthful ansd accurate information), but of course this is porn, not escorts.

[RockHard]

But when you tell me that the photos are not of the true dicks, but photo-shopped, I lose interest.

 

Well then, since I'm here to entertain only you, I'll stop. (It would have been wrong to lie about the photos.)

 

but of course this is porn

 

Actually, it's vintage porn, which came long before Photoshop. I thought it would be fun to take a sexy photo from yesteryear and see what might have been had the studios had Photoshop back in the day. I had fun.

[+ Lucky]

Well then, since I'm here to entertain only you, I'll stop.

 

Awww.

[RockHard]

Lucky, don't look!

 

I wouldn't want your lack of interest to cause a health concern.

 

I had two more vintage images "in the can" before your last post, and given the 6+ guys who wrote to say thank you and how much they loved my photos (thank you all), I might as well add the last two to this thread.

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8009/7328735172_7d114c4b95_b.jpg

 

The guy on the left reminds me of Hunter Parrish, and every time I see him do a nude scene on "Weeds," I imagine how fun it would be to fuck his sweet ass.

 

As for "the truth," I don't have a problem with escorts who chop a few years off their age as long as their face and body can support the exaggeration. I also don't have a problem with Photoshopped cock as long as the retouching is believable and close to the truth. Everyone who knows anything about photography knows that an expensive glass lens never captures "truth" in the way most humans think of truth or see it.

 

Every man also knows a flaccid cock will react to many things, depending on the state of everything when the shutter clicks. Whether it's weather, nerves, cold water, air conditioning, horniness, or whatever, a flaccid cock can change by an inch or two, and those changes can never be ordered up when you require them, as in a scheduled photo shoot on a winter day in NYC with a new photographer.

 

So I don't have a problem if any guy wants to add an inch to his flaccid cock if he thinks that will make his photo more sexy. I won't think he's a liar if the photo turns me on.

 

As for Photoshopping erections, I'm not a bottom or a size-queen, so erect length and girth means little to me. I know some guys want proof of the measurement, and many of those guys would bitch if they found out a guy was advertising with a Photoshopped cock. The way I see it, a camera lens adds 10 pounds by default, so these guys who come with rulers and measure a cock in Planck length and based on a photo are stupid-silly and obsessed, IMO.

 

Porn studios and/or magazines almost never publish a box cover or a photo poster with an un-retouched cock. If you think any professional advertising department of any business is selling you truth, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[seeker630]

Well then, since I'm here to entertain only you, I'll stop. (It would have been wrong to lie about the photos.)

 

 

 

Actually, it's vintage porn, which came long before Photoshop. I thought it would be fun to take a sexy photo from yesteryear and see what might have been had the studios had Photoshop back in the day. I had fun.

 

I'd very much like to see an unre-touched version along with your edited version. I'm curious as to how much you changed them. They ARE very sexy.

 

Apparently you are very skilled with Photoshop.

[maxwellissmart]

What I like, RH, love, is truth. And doctored dicks are not truthful. Granted, truth itself is hard to find, and even hard to know. But when you tell me that the photos are not of the true dicks, but photo-shopped, I lose interest.

 

If you compare to the originals, they're almost exactly the same—so it's not like RH has misrepresented anything to the point of becoming fiction.

[maxwellissmart]

I'd very much like to see an unre-touched version along with your edited version. I'm curious as to how much you changed them. They ARE very sexy.

 

Apparently you are very skilled with Photoshop.

 

Both have very slightly longer erections, and the angle has been changed very slightly as well.

[+ azdr0710]

really liking these vintage shots....thanks, again, RH....the slight re-touching certainly isn't to the point of ridiculous like some we've all seen....still very realistic while being better than average and nice to look at

[RockHard]

I'd very much like to see an unre-touched version along with your edited version.

 

It is fun to view the before-and-afters, but I don't really want to educate anyone on my technique.

 

I happen to think the best way to view a B&A is by placing one photo directly on top of the other, so you can toggle back and forth, and I don't think the software here recognizes Behavior code. Since I did these images quickly and for fun, I didn't save the originals.

 

If you compare to the originals, they're almost exactly the same...Both have very slightly longer erections, and the angle has been changed very slightly as well.

 

None of the models have erections, as far as I can tell. I added an inch to the shaft, and I dropped the weight of the cock and balls to make it look more flaccid. I did not alter thickness, even though it may appear as though I did.

[maxwellissmart]

It is fun to view the before-and-afters, but I don't really want to educate anyone on my technique.

 

I happen to think the best way to view a B&A is by placing one photo directly on top of the other, so you can toggle back and forth, and I don't think the software here recognizes Behavior code. Since I did these images quickly and for fun, I didn't save the originals.

 

 

 

None of the models have erections, as far as I can tell. I added an inch to the shaft, and I dropped the weight of the cock and balls to make it look more flaccid. I did not alter thickness, even though it may appear as though I did.

 

By "erection" I mean the penis and balls. I'm able to discern what was done to each photo, in a side-by-side with the original.

[RockHard]

I'm able to discern what was done to each photo, in a side-by-side with the original.

 

Some people are more talented than others. Now I'm tempted to create a test.

[maxwellissmart]

Some people are more talented than others. Now I'm tempted to create a test.

 

Well I just love me a test.