Scylla Rhiadra

DP Yumyum has some, and you might try Tram, which is mostly shorter styles for women, but they have some unisex I think. I like Sintiklia for men -- but I actually wear them myself.

Thank you! The lens settings are really useful. I've been using Myra Wildmist's for a long time, and they've been useful, but these are more comprehensive. There's a great deal of useful material here, which I plan to study! Thank you!

My eye keeps stopping at this pic, possibly because of the striking contrast between the vividness of the background, and the more ethereal appearance of your avi (which is lovely btw). Anyway -- beautiful pic!

I took this pic as an illustration for something I'm writing and decided it's sufficiently nice to post. And it has a garden in it.

Sure! Totally happens to me all the time! 😏 I'm not going to get into a discussion about how "adult" various different articulations of BDSM may or may not be, but I will suggest that context matters a lot. Comparing the caging of your wife in this pic with a jokey moment from a 60s sitcom is a bit like suggesting that there's no difference between a pic of a female equestrian holding a riding crop, and a Domme wielding one. They're both women with riding crops, right? My comment is really about how a few of the pics, and (as others have suggested) occasional accompanying narrative, are pushing the envelope of what has been, by common consensus as well as policing by the mods, viewed as "appropriate" here. There is a level of intimacy in some of these pics that makes some of us uncomfortable. Dancing with your wife? Absolutely. Engaging in adult activities? Not so much. We want to see nice pics of your avatars, not be treated to overly-intimate glimpses of your personal life. It's too much like exhibitionism, and it more or less compels us to become unwilling voyeurs. In any case, it was an observation, and a remark about my own level of discomfort. I'm not a mod, and I don't want to play forum cop, so it's up to you how you respond. And that's really all I want to say on the subject.

Thanks! That is indeed the kind of feeling I was intending to convey!

I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable about the way this, and a few other pics here, are edge-casing adult content here. A pic of a caged woman being watched over by a man who appears to have *coughs* bodily fluids dripping from his chest surely belongs in the adult subforum? There is some real ambiguity about what is "appropriate" for this thread, and this subforum, as witness the moving of the "Spicy" thread to the Photography subforum. This just feels to me, personally, a little much for this particular place.

Right. So they split two of the effects of view angle into two separate sliders, and then, by employing two different units of measurement for essentially the same thing, made it necessary to use a calculator to harmonize them so that the corresponding values make sense. Except that, as I noted -- and correct me if I am wrong -- the slider for FOV has the opposite effect that it is supposed to, actually decreasing the depth of field (and therefore increasing blur) as the angle (the "width" that "goes into the space that is your screen," as you say) increases. On top of which, of course, view angle and field of view are actually dependent upon focal length, which is yet another separate variable that has its own slider that, so far as I can see, does exactly the same thing as the FOV slider. So that's another value that you have to calculate to bring into conformity with view angle. At least this one operates as it is supposed to, decreasing depth of field as the focal length increases. How does any of this make sense?

Hmmm. Not really? It's not something I tend to think about generally: I use light and shadow (and sometimes DoF) rather than colour to produce this effect. The nearest examples I can think of offhand from my own pics are this one: and this one: But in the first example, it's arguably the bright white of the top, rather than the colour of the embroidery on it, that is having the most impact. And in the second, while my burgundy dress is virtually the only colour in the pic, it is pretty muted itself, and doesn't really "pop out." Might make for an interesting experiment to try this more consciously, though!

So, I'm writing this piece of depth of field in Second Life photography, and I'm having a difficult time trying to differentiate between two sets of sliders in the Phototools in Firestorm, which I think are also both available in Black Dragon and the LL Viewer. These are "View Angle" and "FOV" or "Field of View." My understanding has always been that these are essentially the same thing, but measured somewhat differently: they both reflect the amount of a view that are recorded by the camera, which is itself determined by the focal length of the lens. So far as I've been able to determine, the main difference between these two is in how they are measured: View Angle is measured in radians, while FOV seems generally to be a measurement of the distance across the focal or object plane, measured in linear units such as metres. So, View Angle measures, as the name implies, the angle of sensor's capture, while FOV should be the distance of visible field at a right angle to a line drawn between the camera sensor and the photo subject. If this is correct, adjusting the one should automatically change the other, as increasing or decreasing the View Angle should have the effect of increasing or decreasing the size of the Field of View, a wider angle meaning a larger field of view. This is, of course, not what happens in the SL viewers: adjusting the one does nothing to change the values of the other. As confusingly, each slider does something different. View Angle does indeed change the angle of view, and the size of the field captured in the photo, as one would expect, and the values do seem to correspond pretty closely to what one would get by "zooming" or changing lenses in an RL camera. Field of View, on the other hand, seems only to increase or decrease the Depth of Field, and so far as I can see, in no way affects the shot if Depth of Field is disabled. Also confusing is the fact that the FOV slider runs from 0.1 to 180, which suggests that what it is changing is view angle, measured in degrees rather than radians. Except of course, it is doing no such thing Finally, unless I am misunderstanding, increasing the field of view should actually widen the depth of field, rather than narrow it, as seems to happen if you adjust this slider in the viewer. Bumping up the FOV, in other words, should decrease rather than increase the amount of blur. So, basically, I don't understand the function of the FOV slider here. On one hand, it seems to simply split the effect of view angle between two sliders, one ("View Angle") zooming in and out and effectively changing the field of view, and the other ("FOV") impacting on depth of field -- except that, as I've suggested, it seems to do the opposite of what it should do. Help? I'll tag a few people here who I know have an interest and/or expertise in cameras or SL photography, but I'm sure there are others who have suggestions to make! @taisiyakarpenko @Nalates Urriah@Orwar@Myra Wildmist Many thanks, Yours in confusion, Scylla

It's best used for communicating the idea of "action," or of an impromptu snap taken quickly without posing. It definitely can be (and often is) overused, and I agree with your sentiment about wanting to turn the pic sideways -- but one of the reasons people seem to use it is because the vast majority of computer screens use a landscape format, and you can fit more detail in from side to side, rather than top to bottom. Of course, that doesn't apply if you're viewing on a phone. I think a lot of people do this, and use a dark black & white format for the same reason. I think there's something to be said for the idea that really bright colours can look more "cartoony" than muted ones. I don't, or very very rarely, desaturate pics myself, but I am attracted to a darker, more muted colour palette, perhaps unconsciously in part for that reason? Again, I think desaturation can be overused. A really clever use of colour would tend to produce more muted shades for background, and more punchy ones for the focal interest, in order to draw attention to the main subject of the pic.

Hmmm. The downside that I see, and that I'm sure others will too, is this: I don't mind erotica, and occasionally delve into that myself, but I don't do explicit sexuality or porn, and I'm not interested in seeing it. In fact, I'll usually unfollow anyone on Flickr whose stream is focused on sex. If that's your thing, great, but this doesn't sound like the place for those who aren't into that. Yeah, I get that there's an SFW category, but if it's not getting a lot of use, then there is going to be little to no community there, and that's the main reason I'm sticking with Flickr, at least for now. I've made dozens of friendships there that have, in some cases, extended in-world, and there are some terrific artists who I follow on Flickr as well. I deeply dislike the approach that Flickr is taking to this -- I've no problems with paying for an account, but I don't like censorship being used as a club to beat people with. But until there is sufficient critical mass of like-minded photographers somewhere else, Flickr is where I'm staying.

Lovely pic, as always. But I'm starting a drive to collect funds to buy you a new sofa.

I think what you surely must mean is Mistress of Gloom and Shadow . . . *coughs* Thank you. 🙂

Oh pish posh. First of all, there's nothing whatsoever "crappy" about it. It's a beautiful, well-executed, and stylish shot. Secondly, it's not a "copy." It's an . . . allusion! Yeah, that's it! An allusion. In any case, beautifully done.

This is adorable. I love your sense of humour.

I have a substantial folder of materials substantiating this, if you'd care to peruse it. FORTUNATELY, he is always a sweetheart. Which is what really counts.

I love this shot. Great pose, nice us of depth of field, and a really beautiful avi! Yay you!

This is really lovely.

What a really great shot, Taya!

Welcome back, Weston! Sorry to hear about the beagle. 😔

So, I decided to treat myself to a new apartment. And I have a tradition (well, ok, this is only the second time but that makes it a tradition, right?) of doing a video of me dancing in any new place when I've finished setting it up. So here it is. Me dancing for 7 seconds. In the living room of my new place. It's a tradition. Really.

Checkov? Ibsen? Pinter? Or perhaps you prefer the classics: dontlookatmygf.resident?