Divina is grate as a model , but not Leonardo as photographer , what a drastic change in color temperature between Pic 51 and 52 .
Legs all the way up to her divine ass!
You're such a gorgeous woman. Your ass is divine and your perky boobies are perfect.
Why must you tease us bush lovers with your show of pubes like that? It's cruel.
Typical Leonardo... A dozen or so good shots...scrap the rest. Divina is ALWAYS divine! Gotta love those 25 yr old butts and perky little titties on most of these petite ladies!! YUMMY!!!
Divina looks great in a pretty dress and barefoot. She also looks great nude. Leonardo remembered he cant handle sunlight and has posed Divina in either the dawn or sunset, only a few rays touching her hair. The background has been used many times, for Candice B and othersI think its his garden, Maybe K knows. I gave Divine a 10++++ and Leonardo a 10
first class model and fourth class photographer. i would name this girl divine not Divina. an ass to die for.
One of my favorite met models, so cute and so hot, love her tight petite sexy body and those uninhibited poses showing off that sweet little ass, yum yum
Like last time, I didn't recognize her at first with her hair pulled back. It makes more of a difference than I would ordinarily think, and she looks amazing.
Divina is one of the sexiest models on this site.
No one has a more beautiful ass than than her.
I don't think it's too much to expect to see photos where Divina's beautiful face and her aforementioned beautiful ass appear in the same photo and BOTH are in focus !
This isn't amateur hour, Leonardo.
Time to step up your game.
Right with you on the first 2 comments.
On the rest, I don't know why you say that.
I mostly use medium res, but I downloaded in hi-res 20 27 44 46 63 78 84 85 which I thought were some of the best shots of face and ass. On just 1 (63), there was just a little blurriness.
Considering that other 'togs on here frequently provide poor depth of focus, exposure and framing, (all in my opinion) I don't know why you pick on Leonardo.
He also includes more shots of head-to-toes from the rear or arse-to-toes than any other active tog (I think, if there is another, please point him/her out to me). Indeed, many recent sets do not have 1 shot including ass to feet of the model standing.
So please extend your criticism to all the other togs guilty of amateur hour. I get quite fed up of reading gushing praise of what I consider poor sets.
Leonardo has a track record of producing some really poorly shot sets which gives rise to the possibility that he/she doesn't know how to use a camera properly. This set is an obvious example. If you look at frames #123 & 124, although they may not have been shot exactly one right after another (there may have been a few frames between them) you'll notice an obvious difference in overall color saturation. One looks good, the other is "washed out". This isn't just simply a matter of the sun suddenly going behind a cloud - this washed out color is evident throughout the entire set.
You're right, "wgworld" has repeatedly complained about Leonardo but, like Doug and his unshaven fetish, it just happens as though wgworld doesnt' particularly like Leonardo's work and choses to voice it.
It's truly a shame that, in order to produce a really good set, one has to run most of these photos of a particularly enticing Divina through PhotoShop to get even images throughout.
I don't particularly care for Leonardo's kind of slap dash approach to his/her work either, but it's what the members have all come to expect from his/her work. Wgworld just happens to harp on it.
Thanks for that arkie. Its a pity there is not a general forum to air these kind of opinions. Its just that I have noticed that a lot of sets by various togs do not have the technical quality you would wish for, especially ones using natural light. Maybe Lenardo is worse than average, I don't have time to compare - but I defend Leonardo because I think that Leonardo is better than most in directing the models and framing the shots, so find his work features highly in the pix I think worth keeping.
Oh, and I realised 82 was a bad example of arse out-of-focus. But again, how many pairs of shots have I seen by other togs, 1 with face in focus, 1 with pussy in focus - its normal here.
Still, with so many sets on here, there must be some for all of us to like !
What would have made this set even better for me would have been to have Divina pose in a pair of sexy high heels. Having her in a very nice dress and very nice makeup and hairstyle ~ but barefoot ~ just seemed half done to me.
Divina is a goddess but the photography is second class at best. Was he shooting with a point and shoot camera? There were maybe a dozen shots with good color balance mixed in but the overall white balance was way off. Washed out colorless, flat looking and smokey. #93 was the first photo with good color balance and depth. This is inexcusable. A simple one click adjustment and these photos come alive but this Leo didn't even bother. :(
Divina deserves so much better.
I concur, hip. As Divina/Leonardo sets have been, this is pretty much the standard fare. Her sets shot by Peter Guzman have received higher scores from myself. As much as I appreciate Divina and her fine athletic hard body, there is nothing outstanding in content here and technically it seems less than outstanding.
Hipshot, as we all know by now, the publication date of a set has nothing to do with the time it was actually shot.
In other words, this set could easily have been sitting in the MA vaults years before being published. I have noticed that in all the old sets in the archives the color suffers with age, even the digitally shot sets. I don't know what the explanation is, but I suspect that this set was shot several years ago.
Fer, It is not likely for digital files to deteriorate in a manner that would cause only a uniform color degradation. Files can become corrupt, but the loss is usually more evident if it will open at all. More likely it is the limitations of the earlier digital cameras themselves, or if they were shot in film and converted to digital later.
I agree, this does appear to be an older set.
At 39 megapixels this set can't be that old because cameras with that resolution haven't been around that long and even so it does not excuse poor photography or lax post processing. Digital images do not fade or degrade over time. I have photos in my library that I took 10 years ago and they are the same as they were when taken. That's the beauty of digital. The older sets look less attractive because they were done with lesser equipment and with less experienced photographers. Digital cameras have improved exponentially over the last few years.
To be honest, you probably know far more about photography than I do. All I say is check out the sets in the archives from even five or ten years ago and you'll see degradation even of the digital sets. I don't know the explanation of that, because I know so little about photography. However, you are probably right based on the fact that it is a 39 megapixel set.
It's not so much a matter of "degradation" of digital images as it is of digital interpolation. When you shoot an image @ what your camera may say is "hi-rez" then store it as a .jpg file then open it and close it maybe a time of two in a program like PhotoShop, each time you use the .jpg format you lose some degree of resolution and if you try to "boost" the file size back up to the original size, the computer program has to jump through a number of hoops doing recalculations which results in image pixels being smeared or cloned when right next to each other. .Jpg file storage is called a "lossy" storage algorithm for just this reason.
The thing about the color saturation, that's either mis-handled initial shooting on the part of the photographer, or selective color manipulation after-the-fact by the photographer in something like PhotoShop. In looking through this set, there doesn't appear to be any dramatic lighting shift caused by clouds or localized fog, it just looks like the camera might have been set to reduce the contrast or color saturation levels across the board and only some images were post-processed to "correct" this.
hip, not meaning to mimic what you said, but I said essentially the same thing, then I scrolled down to find your reply here at the bottom. Sorry, not wanting to appear as a parrot.
No offense guy. At least we are on the same page. ;)
Divina is a beautiful woman and Leonardo has captured her beauty very nicely.
I don't believe I have commented before on the fine job Leonardo's team does in scouting out locations for shoots; today is a great example.
A couple of long range shots to show the building, home, or location in all its' splendour will be nice in the future.
Thanks to Divina for posing and to Leonardo for continuing to not go crazy with unnecessary photoshopping.
Leonardo has used this site to death! Granted it is nice but a great example of scouting? Not! He has 3 or 4 sites he uses for everything.
We recently saw Lily at this site. I like it...as much as I CAN like an "outdoor" site. ;o)
However many times Leonardo has used the site, and whenever the site was first used;. somebody found it, ∴ it was and remains great scouting.
I have ZERO problem with a great site, even 3 or 4 great sites, being recycled. We don't know the logistics involved. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
This stunning little lady always find a way to have the cutest and sexiest poses...especially when showing off her gorgeous ass!
I love how Divinia props herself so seductively on her lovely feet.
Thanks again Divinia...'til next time! (Don't wait too long please!)
More sets of model Divina A on the Met Art Network: