My dictionary is clearly out of date, was looking up the word magnificent and this image was not beside it.
My foolishness aside this is genuinely quite an arresting image, a well balanced combination of playfulness and sensuality that shows enough whilst still retaining a tempting mystery. Not that there's anything wrong with baring all, just that sometimes a more reserved revelation can be more powerful than laying it all out.
I am only left wondering whether a full colour image would have been better or not. That's not to say the black and white is not a striking and effective choice, it is, but would colour have been more effective? Probably more a preference thing on the part of the viewer / me mind.
Anyhoo, everyone involved done real good and my thanks for sharing.
Also, I spotted your debate, below, over the filter issue, and I completely agree with you. When a person enters any establishment that sells raunchy magazines ― I do not mean pornography, I mean magazines like Maxim, Loaded, etc ― they only have to glance at the covers to see images far more explicit. What are we going to do? Ban kids from newsagents? Of course not.
The rules are there for a reason. They contain no ambiguity. You followed them. Anything else is personal opinion. Therefore, any discussions about the matter are discussions about opinions, not the rules.
Thank you, there you go. I mean...only yesterday I saw actresses at the golden globes wearing dresses far more revealing than what is presented in this image.....as far as I know there was no mature content needed there
Hey, it came as no surprise that you were told "God bless". It's almost certainly a religious thing. The one thing that I know for a fact is you don't do really "adult" shots, and if you decided to, you'd class them as such.
You look great, and it is not right for someone to try to restrict people acknowledging that. You followed the rules, and nobody should insinuate that you have not done so.
Some people just need to grow up. There is a "Back" button on all Internet browsers! If they don't like it, they can click it!
It doesnt fit the requirement for mature content, neither in the nudity context or explicit sexuality one. Therefore I didnt see the need to have it there. If you have a problem with the female forms, I apologize, thank you
True, those are the technical rules. I don't think that's the spirit of the rules, though. No need to be a lawyer about it. There's nothing to lose by putting the filter on. Thank you for being considerate!
Well I personally don't think there is a need for one, or would you consider gala dresses that show even more to be "mature content". If my picture doesnt fit in the required fields, I won't mark it as such. I guess everyone has there own limit to the tolerance of the female form.
I have been a fan of your work for some time now. I have resisted comment on your more risqué work until now...........................Holy s**t!!! You are breathtaking. Eric knows how to capture your beauty.