Take a look at Addie's new set in the Hopefuls section. It's called "Risky Business" and it's a terrific set. Go on... take a look. I'll wait here.

Now, I'm normally not at a loss for seeing areas where a rejected set can be improved, and I like to give what I think might be helpful criticism for a Hopeful's next try. But I have nothing to offer here because this one already hits every note perfectly!

The model is adorable, just as advertised, with great ink and cute new black hair. She is sexy and creative in her posing and the props she uses are interesting in themselves. The location has personality but doesn't impose on the subject or get in the way. The lighting is brilliant and vibrant and every shot is dynamically composed and beautifully focused (check out the detail and luminosity every time the camera looks into Addie's eyes!) The images are sequenced nicely (other than being in reverse order, which is obviously not Addie's fault but a problem with SG's code or instructions based on how often if happens in Hopefuls' sets) and Photoshopping several of them into multiple images adds urgency and motion to the story. And the story -- is there anyone looking at this site who doesn't know the iconic image of a young Tom Cruise in his briefs singing his freedom for no one's pleasure but his own? The set is fun and funny and exciting. So... WTF?

If this set isn't a perfect SG set, then I think this community needs an explanation of what exactly IS a perfect set! Enough of this crappy arbitrariness and the Cheney-like secrecy in making decisions on which sets go pink! I would love to hear an SG photo editor explain point by point why this set is rejected and justify that explanation in relation to some of the recently accepted sets. I won't hold my breath.

(Expand blog to see video)

This is a modification of a comment I wrote on the board for Addie's set.

Take a look at Addie's new set in the Hopefuls section. It's called "Risky Business" and it's a terrific set. Go on... take a look. I'll wait here.

Now, I'm normally not at a loss for seeing areas where a rejected set can be improved, and I like to give what I think might be helpful criticism for a Hopeful's next try. But I have nothing to offer here because this one already hits every note perfectly!

The model is adorable, just as advertised, with great ink and cute new black hair. She is sexy and creative in her posing and the props she uses are interesting in themselves. The location has personality but doesn't impose on the subject or get in the way. The lighting is brilliant and vibrant and every shot is dynamically composed and beautifully focused (check out the detail and luminosity every time the camera looks into Addie's eyes!) The images are sequenced nicely (other than being in reverse order, which is obviously not Addie's fault but a problem with SG's code or instructions based on how often if happens in Hopefuls' sets) and Photoshopping several of them into multiple images adds urgency and motion to the story. And the story -- is there anyone looking at this site who doesn't know the iconic image of a young Tom Cruise in his briefs singing his freedom for no one's pleasure but his own? The set is fun and funny and exciting. So... WTF?

If this set isn't a perfect SG set, then I think this community needs an explanation of what exactly IS a perfect set! Enough of this crappy arbitrariness and the Cheney-like secrecy in making decisions on which sets go pink! I would love to hear an SG photo editor explain point by point why this set is rejected and justify that explanation in relation to some of the recently accepted sets. I won't hold my breath.



This is a modification of a comment I wrote on the board for Addie's set.