So many in this set! I can't pass up featuring the pacifier pic.
Printable View
So many in this set! I can't pass up featuring the pacifier pic.
I couldn't neglect you amateur gynecologists! Here is a clear view of Champagne sliding my purple "instrument' up her cunny.
[QUOTE=Supereloquent;1105098]A mosaic collage of the last ten pics posted.[/QUOTE]Awesome variety. What goes into your selection for the collages?
Those eyes are magnetic. Even if the pupils are drug induced.
Great job!
And. Last, but certainly not least: Champagne licking my cock like an all day sucker!
I told SE I might put together a collage of effects of stimulants on eyes. Roman women knew the effect of dilated pupils on their beauty, and would use Bella donna (a poisonous plant) on their eyes to dilate them. See if you don't think the women in the collage have attractive eyes! Dilated eyes indicate arousal, and doesn't that look good to us.
I picked up a few images from the web to illustrate the effect, and that classic image of the hottie hitting the dipper.
Oh yeah--and one image of a girl with her eyes rolled back! Whew.
[QUOTE=Vbgent4u2c; 1105105]Awesome variety. [/QUOTE]
Thank you.
[QUOTE=Vbgent4u2c]What goes into your selection for the collages?[/QUOTE]That is a long story, with a continuing "paint-on-the-wall" analogy, which you will understand soon enough, so, here goes:
I used to just bunch all my pics together and post all of them at once after a report, sort of like throwing paint against a wall. Sometimes there might be 60-100 or more pics posted this way for one SW. I got many complaints for this, some rock throwers and assholes letting off steam to be sure, but some were reasonable people who suggested that so many pics together was "visual overload." I saw their point. So, I started to post pics just 10 at a time, allowing some time in between the posts, in order that they might be better absorbed and appreciated."Throwing my paint on the wall," then seemed to be much more like careful brush strokes. This seemed to dramatically increase the views per pic in the pic gallery. That was not necessarily my aim, but it was a good measure of the change being more successful and appealing to those looking at the pics either in the gallery or in my thread.
A member with fashion magazine expertise, and a professional eye for female beauty through photography, PMed me and suggested that a lot of my pics were of the same type, even in groups of 10, and it was not as eye catching and interesting as more variety in poses and types of pics might be. I resisted this thought at first (I can be stubborn, in case you didn't already know, LOL) , but I thought about trying this in deference to his professional experience and expertise in these matters. What this change would entail would be taking my pics out of time sequence order and placing them in groups specifically for the differences in what was being worn (or not worn) , poses, angles, use of props, distance of the camera to the subject, etc. In other words, to give each set of 10 a better VARIETY. Now my "paint on the wall" was not only more carefully applied, but with more attention to detail. This makes it more interesting to view each set of 10 not only as a batch of pics in the pic gallery, but also as pic icons to open when posted in my thread with each post, and clearly when combined together in a collage.
If the dramatic increase in views per pic of my stuff is any measure, both of my pic posting changes have been very well received.
[QUOTE=Vbgent4u2c]Those eyes are magnetic. Even if the pupils are drug induced.
Great job! [/QUOTE]Champagne is a self-admitted popper of opium-derived pills (percs and roxys). An opiate is a downer and pinpoints the pupils, as Giani pointed out for us. However, I agree with you: the look on her face and in her eyes was alluring and magnetic, nonetheless.
[QUOTE=Supereloquent;1105108]And. Last, but certainly not least: Champagne licking my cock like an all day sucker![/QUOTE]SuperE. I admire all your work. Truly. This one drives me SO crazy. Great stuff. I could look at her pics all day. And the services you describe from her makes me want to drive three plus hours to find her. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Giani; 1105118]I told SE I might put together a collage of effects of stimulants on eyes. Roman women knew the effect of dilated pupils on their beauty, and would use Bella donna (a poisonous plant) on their eyes to dilate them. See if you don't think the women in the collage have attractive eyes! Dilated eyes indicate arousal, and doesn't that look good to us.
I picked up a few images from the web to illustrate the effect, and that classic image of the hottie hitting the dipper.
Oh yeah-and one image of a girl with her eyes rolled back! Whew. [/QUOTE]All I can say is WOW, great stuff! I will have to agree that dilated eyes are an erotic appeal.
[QUOTE=KantDelay;1105133]SuperE. I admire all your work. Truly. This one drives me SO crazy. Great stuff. I could look at her pics all day. And the services you describe from her makes me want to drive three plus hours to find her. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Hey Kant,
Super's work is terrific.
I am going to be in Philly the middle of next month. If you are there the same time I am maybe we can coordinate our resources for some Champagne reconnaissance?
[QUOTE=Supereloquent; 1105131]Thank you.
That is a long story, with a continuing "paint-on-the-wall" analogy, which you will understand soon enough, so, here goes:
I used to just bunch all my pics together and post all of them at once after a report, sort of like throwing paint against a wall. Sometimes there might be 60-100 or more pics posted this way for one SW. I got many complaints for this, some rock throwers and assholes letting off steam to be sure, but some were reasonable people who suggested that so many pics together was "visual overload." I saw their point. So, I started to post pics just 10 at a time, allowing some time in between the posts, in order that they might be better absorbed and appreciated."Throwing my paint on the wall," then seemed to be much more like careful brush strokes. This seemed to dramatically increase the views per pic in the pic gallery. That was not necessarily my aim, but it was a good measure of the change being more successful and appealing to those looking at the pics either in the gallery or in my thread.
A member with fashion magazine expertise, and a professional eye for female beauty through photography, PMed me and suggested that a lot of my pics were of the same type, even in groups of 10, and it was not as eye catching and interesting as more variety in poses and types of pics might be. I resisted this thought at first (I can be stubborn, in case you didn't already know, LOL) , but I thought about trying this in deference to his professional experience and expertise in these matters. What this change would entail would be taking my pics out of time sequence order and placing them in groups specifically for the differences in what was being worn (or not worn) , poses, angles, use of props, distance of the camera to the subject, etc. In other words, to give each set of 10 a better VARIETY. Now my "paint on the wall" was not only more carefully applied, but with more attention to detail. This makes it more interesting to view each set of 10 not only as a batch of pics in the pic gallery, but also as pic icons to open when posted in my thread with each post, and clearly when combined together in a collage.
If the dramatic increase in views per pic of my stuff is any measure, both of my pic posting changes have been very well received.
Champagne is a self-admitted popper of opium-derived pills (percs and roxys). An opiate is a downer and pinpoints the pupils, as Giani pointed out for us. However, I agree with you: the look on her face and in her eyes was alluring and magnetic. [/QUOTE]I agree. The changes are for the better. Definitely more artisic.
[QUOTE=KantDelay;1105133]SuperE. I admire all your work. Truly. This one drives me SO crazy. Great stuff. I could look at her pics all day. And the services you describe from her makes me want to drive three plus hours to find her. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your props.
Looks are not everything. I have slept with women who were 12s on a scale of 10, and it was like fucking a bored piece of cardboard. For me, everything starts with attitude. If a woman has a great 'tude then that covers a lot of other flaws she might possess. Assuming a given of impeccable hygiene, and a great attitude, everything else is gravy. Looks are an important "gravy" to be sure. After all, I hate to eat my turkey and mashed potatoes dry. Throw in some fresh beans, biscuits and cranberry sauce (sexual skills) and you have a feast worth remembering. Champagne had it all: CLEAN and WHOLESOME (a SW doesn't get any better) , a WONDERFUL and WARM personality, an absolutely GORGEOUS face and body, a love of FILTHY, DIRTY conversation, an erotic PLAYFULNESS capable of awakening the dead, and sexual abilities that are OFF THE HOOK!
Cephlapod Love pointed out a little while ago that I had taken some better money shot pics of Candace than I posted for her in my money shot contest in September. I recently re-posted a good money shot of Candace as a reminder pic when someone voted for her a Best MILF, and Giani included this shot in his collage, which discussed pinpoint pupils. Whew! Talk about "connections."
ANYWAY, all this talk about money shots, including Dripper's mentioning it again some time ago (we all know how much Dripper adores money shots) , reminds me that I promised you a reprise of my money shot contest as a special division of the BJ competition. Jen's "waterfall of cum" pic won the initial money shot contest. This time I thought I would change it up a bit by re-introducing the nominees, but then narrow it down to MY 5 favorites from the total field of 19. You aren't limited by my biases in any way; you can vote for whomever you like. Awards will be presented to the top 5 places, so, if the voting is too light, my top 5 favorites may just be the winners.
This part of the contest will be a little different. Since money shots are near and dear to my heart, you can make up to 5 votes in priority order. Votes will be "weighted" by the place in which they are voted (a weight of 5 for your first place vote. 4 for your second place vote, etc.).
Here is the first group of 10 nominees for the money shot contest out of a total of 19. They are shown in no particular priority order. The number associated with each pic is the alphabetical order of the nominee.
This is a mosaic collage of the first 10 nominees just posted.
The second and final group of nine nominees.
Mosaic collage of last group of nine nominees.