But what about at the resolution it was intended for? I thumbnailed it last time because it is very large. http://i.imgur.com/MD7ju.jpg (2916x1944)
I took this picture of myself with a professional camera, for the sake of honesty there has been no editting involved in this version, only minor make up the day that I took it.
But I really do hate the my face, my cheeks are way too fat and it looks like I still have baby fat. My lips are awkward and not straight which really bothers me. My boobs are too small and I wish they were bigger.
My thighs are huge but you can't see that in the picture.
The entire reason I even started playing video games was because I was too embarrassed about myself and I preferred to be away from physical contact with other people and play games like league of legends, tf2 or whatever happens to look fun on steam and so on.
Incase people are still calling BS then go ahead and search the image in google yourself and you will find zero other copies out there because this is a picture that I took of myself, not something I stole from someone's facebook. Here, I even did it for you https://www.google.ca/search?tbs=sbi...h=947&biw=1920
If you really want I will take another picture of myself tomorrow morning with a timestamp.
In hindsight it was probably a bad idea to post that on an account named "SerialKiller", looked very suspicious and fake I'm sure.
Last edited by This name sucks; 2012-08-17 at 10:57 AM.
I currently own a Nikon D7000, worth $1100 in the US (that's without a lens) and that's designed and marketed as amateur/enthusiast. When it comes to Nikon, and with the arguable exception of the D300s (some professionals simply need the APS-c 1.5x factor), you don't reach cameras designed and marketed as "professional" before the D800, which is $3000 in the US (also without a lens). Other brands tell a very similar story.
I took the following, unedited picture with a four year old Nikon D60 which, even when it was new, was designed and marketed as an entry level amateur-camera. It cost $740 (with a lens and small, external flash included) here in Sweden, and do note that Sweden has high taxes.
Whilst it's true that the lens, a 50/1,4, is techically regarded professional, it's an old model, one of the absolute cheapest professional lenses and its strongest selling point has been beaten by the non-professional, even cheaper 50/1,8G.
What I'm trying to say isn't that money == quality (although I understand that it might be easy to think that's what I believe, based on this reply). What I'm trying to say is that you have to go very, very far up to find cameras that are actually designed and marketed as professional and those are the only cameras that I, personally, refer to when speaking about professional equipment.
If the camera that took your photo is a Nikon D3100, Canon 1100D, Pentax K-x or Sony A37, then fair enough, they're good cameras capable of very good image quality, even better than in your photo, not trying to bash but it's simple fact. It's just that I will not agree that any of them are professional, and neither is the camera that took your photo, unless the photo isn't a fair represention of the camera's potential. You do get A LOT of bang for your buck these days, even great quality doesn't require professional equipment.
And to be fair to him
---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 03:54 PM ----------
"In space, no one can hear you unless you scream!"
Body Dysmorphic Disorder, look it up. See someone about this.
Last edited by Kirse; 2012-08-17 at 03:13 PM.
"Healing is a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. All the healers try to gobble all the marbles up. Disc priests take the marbles off the board."