[tdotter]

Palomine-you are right in saying those two are truly not underrated because they have their fans.I'm saying underrated because they should have been more popular than they are.
When you look back over the years in the xxx actress department.Look at the women who were considered the top performers,I:e winning awards and being all over the place,most of the time they are not the hottest.
For instance,Belladonna.Belladonna is a great performer and is certainly not an ugly woman but for the time period she was considered the top actress or close to it,there were so many actresses I would've ranked ahead of her.
It's all subjective and we all have are own opinions.

[transmogrifer]

would larkin love count in this then? she is probably one of the singularly most prolific clips4sale studios but in the tongues entrie on off-topic forum, she seems unknown to this forum

[Palomine]

@tdotter and transmogrifier:

You both raise valid points.

It's probably worth remembering that our particular fetish is NOT the majority interest insofar as the mainstream adult entertainment industry goes... when awards are given, or sales records broken, more often than not it's going to be a model/actress who's not mentioned in this forum often if at all.

JMHO... but I think that Denise Davies, Tyra Moore and Larkin Love are all fairly well-known and popular among fans of larger, natural breasts in hardcore. To be sure, they're not as well known as some other performers, but not every one is going to be in the top tier as far as name recognition goes. AFAIK, all three of them are still working (though I don't recall seeing anything new from Denise in a bit) so their relative notoriety is still subject to change: they could become more well-known if they produce more great content and attract more eyeballs/enlarge their fanbase.

Again, I really am a fan of all three women: each one of them is a perfect example of what appeals to me personally: wonderfully pretty but blissfully non-generic, naturally large breasted, enthusiastic at hardcore and (most important) most of their work leaves them looking like actual real women, not over-processed, unerotic simalacrums of women.

[DJPFC]

I'll respectfully disagree with Salem's regret about Denise's choice of venues: there are dozens of posts in other threads here that echo a popular sentiment: that the content from PinupFiles is so heavily processed that it actually detracts from the models: not just the thick laying-on of makeup and filters/post-processing that render some photos about as life-like as 10-year-old CG, etc... but of course their even more-widely-decried habitual use of optical distortion to 'enhance' models (the irony of the fact that the models hardly need that kind of 'enhancement' seems lost on those responsible for such decisions).
 

A bit of a correction here -- our stuff is not THAT heavily processed.  It's actually quite minimal compared to what you would see in magazines or in any print medium.   The only people who think that what we do qualifies as such are those who like absolutely ZERO in terms of retouching, and I wouldn't exactly call that "popular sentiment".  Maybe popular in your mind, but not in the population at large and certainly not with our models. 

If we didn't retouch, 80% of the models who work with us would never work with us.  Call us crazy, but models tend to want to look their best, especially when fully naked.  The "warts and all" look doesn't flatter anyone.  True, there are some models who don't care about that or who simply have much lower standards but those are generally the kind that we are not interested in working with anyway and we certainly don't cater to fans who want that kind of thing either.  If cheaper, more amateurish stuff is what appeals to you, there's plenty of other places to find it.

[Palomine]

A bit of a correction here -- our stuff is not THAT heavily processed.  It's actually quite minimal compared to what you would see in magazines or in any print medium.   The only people who think that what we do qualifies as such are those who like absolutely ZERO in terms of retouching, and I wouldn't exactly call that "popular sentiment".  Maybe popular in your mind, but not in the population at large and certainly not with our models.  

If we didn't retouch, 80% of the models who work with us would never work with us.  Call us crazy, but models tend to want to look their best, especially when fully naked.  The "warts and all" look doesn't flatter anyone.  True, there are some models who don't care about that or who simply have much lower standards but those are generally the kind that we are not interested in working with anyway and we certainly don't cater to fans who want that kind of thing either.  If cheaper, more amateurish stuff is what appeals to you, there's plenty of other places to find it.

Well, since you've taken the liberty of telling me what my standards are, allow me to correct you: I did NOT advocate 'ZERO' in terms of retouching, nor do I think (or claim) that 'ZERO' retouching is 'popular' or desired. I simply echoed the oft-posted sentiment that the stills from your site are often heavily processed... that may not be your opinion, but if posts from many users here (and elsewhere too) are anything to go by over the years, lots of folks don't share your opinion. On occasion, PF content has actually managed to achieve that seemingly impossible task: to render images of some of the world's most extraordinary women almost completely unerotic. That's my personal opinion, but given how many times you (or one of the other folks using the DJPFC login) have replied (often angrily) to others users making similar observations (about filtering, optical distortion, etc...) even you can't deny that it's not an uncommon one.

Your 'all or nothing' response is nothing more than a straw-man argument in the classic sense. No one suggested 'ZERO' or 'warts and all' was desired, yet you rail against that as if there's a crowd with pitchforks and torches chanting for that outside your door. I (and many other consumers of adult entertainment apparently) simply like models to still look real instead of looking like synthetic approximations of women, that's all. Of course models want to look their best: when being photographed pretty much everyone (including non-models) shares that desire. AFAICR, no one has ever suggested that PF (or any producer) lay off their makeup artist or uninstall their photoshop licenses... no matter what you may think you're hearing.

Obviously, yours is a commercial enterprise seeking profit like any other, and someone there decided long ago that the other path: the retouched-with-a-heavy-hand approach... was the way to go, as is your prerogative. Users here (myself included) are free to compliment and/or critique that decision and the content that results from it, as they are with content from ANY producer, provided that they do so within site guidelines.

[DJPFC]

Well, since you've taken the liberty of telling me what my standards are, allow me to correct you: I did NOT advocate 'ZERO' in terms of retouching, nor do I think (or claim) that 'ZERO' retouching is 'popular' or desired. I simply echoed the oft-posted sentiment that the stills from your site are often heavily processed... that may not be your opinion, but if posts from many users here (and elsewhere too) are anything to go by over the years, lots of folks don't share your opinion. On occasion, PF content has actually managed to achieve that seemingly impossible task: to render images of some of the world's most extraordinary women almost completely unerotic. That's my personal opinion, but given how many times you (or one of the other folks using the DJPFC login) have replied (often angrily) to others users making similar observations (about filtering, optical distortion, etc...) even you can't deny that it's not an uncommon one.

Your 'all or nothing' response is nothing more than a straw-man argument in the classic sense. No one suggested 'ZERO' or 'warts and all' was desired, yet you rail against that as if there's a crowd with pitchforks and torches chanting for that outside your door. I (and many other consumers of adult entertainment apparently) simply like models to still look real instead of looking like synthetic approximations of women, that's all. Of course models want to look their best: when being photographed pretty much everyone (including non-models) shares that desire. AFAICR, no one has ever suggested that PF (or any producer) lay off their makeup artist or uninstall their photoshop licenses... no matter what you may think you're hearing.

Obviously, yours is a commercial enterprise seeking profit like any other, and someone there decided long ago that the other path: the retouched-with-a-heavy-hand approach... was the way to go, as is your prerogative. Users here (myself included) are free to compliment and/or critique that decision and the content that results from it, as they are with content from ANY producer, provided that they do so within site guidelines.

Well, since we are the ones who actually do the retouching on them, we know exactly how much is retouched.  Since you have not seen the originals of our photos, and you never will, I don't know how or why you feel you can make a qualified judgement on how much they are retouched exactly, but I can assure you that it is considerably less than magazines or other popular mediums do.  If you insist on insisting that  we "retouch-with-a-heavy-hand approach" then I don't know what else to tell you, other than you're wrong.  You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't make it correct.

[solvegas]

OK guys, can we go back to underrated girls, please ? Mine is Sofia Staks. She lives here in Vegas and I always thought she had great legs and tuschi. Had great anal shots /films also. 

[tester]

I'm with DJPFC.

There's no shortage of unflattering unprocessed and generally unbelievably bad content out there. One brief look at the magazine aisle in any supermarket will blow the over processed theory right out of any sane discussion.
There's no strawmen here from DJPFC just ignorant irony of the highest order.

I'd much rather see more content from them then more posts by easily offended pedants with endless hours to quibble and natter.

[zeo]

A bit of a correction here -- our stuff is not THAT heavily processed.  It's actually quite minimal compared to what you would see in magazines or in any print medium.   

In general it's not the post processing that annoys me but the in-camera work. Outside of playboy and Chloe V I rarely see post-processing that reaches the level of annoying. But the in camera work with lenses, angle, depth of field, etc has IMO looks like it has become a one-uping. Each trying to make their girls look bustier than the next company's. It's gotten very annoying to the point where I just ignore the stuff where it's done more times than not.

[DJPFC]

That is certainly a very fair criticism and we do pay attention to that sort of thing, believe it or not.  We try to mix in a combination of long distance, medium distance and close-ups to give a good range of perspectives in each shoot so that we can have at least a little something for everyone.  We all have different individual preferences and a lot of folks like that whole "boobs in your face" sort of thing, so we try to get that as well.  Plus, it's just kind of our preference, too -- we just feel the photos have more immediacy when the camera is more proximate to the model.

[detroitmaggs]

I'd say Dahlia Dark. Not that she's underrated, but she isn't as popular as I thought she'd be considering she looks like a pinup model from the 40s, although with much larger breasts. 

[DruulEmpire]

OK guys, can we go back to underrated girls, please ? Mine is Sofia Staks. She lives here in Vegas and I always thought she had great legs and tuschi. Had great anal shots /films also.  

Sol, I'm with you on Ms. Staks, she once came out here to Pittsburgh in the Nineties, a real sweetheart.

[Palomine]

I'm with DJPFC.

There's no shortage of unflattering unprocessed and generally unbelievably bad content out there. One brief look at the magazine aisle in any supermarket will blow the over processed theory right out of any sane discussion.
There's no strawmen here from DJPFC just ignorant irony of the highest order.

I'd much rather see more content from them then more posts by easily offended pedants with endless hours to quibble and natter.

You're entitled to your opinion tester, as are DJPFC, all those users who've made posts about the degree of image processing/distortion, and me too. If you dislike the fact that everyone else here can express their views within site guidelines, that's just your problem and one you'll have to learn to live with. Though your post above falls within those guidelines, your abuse this morning of the Notify Mod system certainly doesn't, thus you've earned 10 days off for that. BTW, just a suggestion: since you're apparently unaware of what 'strawman' means, you might want to google it before you continue to demonstrate your own ignorance while accusing others of that very same thing.

@DJ: I've been in professional digital imaging for the past 20 years: I know a processed image when I see it... but even Mr. Magoo could make an informed judgement about these matters in some of the most egregious cases. Your statement that your images are less processed than those in 'print' media speaks volumes about this matter ...given the reality of how much over-processing is common in print, you're hardly doing yourself any favors by drawing such a comparison. More to the point: though I'm personally not a fan of your chosen level of processing, I don't for a second deny your right to do it: it's your paysite and you can produce what you like. What does rub me the wrong way is when you respond to users who comment on it and make denials that fly in the face of the facts before our eyes. They've got just as much right to express their opinions as you have to express yours.

The group of people who share the DJPFC user ID have always been welcome to promote their paysites here and are held to the exact same standard as every other forum user: they can post and respond to other posts, just as anyone else can post and respond to theirs. That's why it's called a forum.

[Palomine]

Alright, I thought of a very deserving model/actress who could qualify as 'underrated' though I say that knowing full well that countless hordes of fans have been admiring her for (literally) decades. tdotter's recent post of Donna Ambrose (linked from) another thread:



...reminded me of just how much I've enjoyed her work over the years (she also works under the name Danica Collins and/or a combination of those names). I think it was her in the 'Kissogram Girls' many years back and more lately she's been appearing in videos from Lady Sonia (whom I'm also a big fan of). She's surely in her 40s now (maybe even 50ish? ...I dunno) and frankly, Donna/Danica is, to me, equivalent in beauty and sex appeal to Keli Stewart but she also does hardcore. A low-rez vid cap of her from one of Sonia's domination vids is attached... in it she and Sonia are applying Danica's ample charms to the raging erection of a restrained (and unbelievably fortunate) fellow, with predictable results.

Really, she's tastier than most any pair of 20-year-olds you could name. So, by that logic, she should be as famous as Chloe Vevrier or someone like that I supoose. PS: I'm like 95% sure Donna and Danica are the same person, with a career that spans decades, though I haven't done any googling to verify it... if I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will let me know.

[tdotter]

^Yes,she also goes by Danica Collins.