Shitty posing/cringe thread

File: ashura.jpg (47KB, 624x464px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 624x464px

>>5980984

http://www.collectiondx.com/toy_review/2012/choryujin

http://www.collectiondx.com/toy_review/genesic_gaogaigar_final_ver


>mfw

>>5980984
Is this a bait thread to see if he's watching?

Because otherwise it's really not that bad.

Yeah, retarded caption and a bit off in the posing but still better than anything you see in this place.

>>5980984
Those guys may be arrogant, dumb, hoodrat douchebags and lots of people there have zero taste, but they can pose figures better than most of the people here. (As long as they're Marvel Legends.)

>>5981070
>>5981217
Fuck off, Booga.

>>5981070
>>5981217
t. ACBA

>>5980984
>>5980984
>>5980984
fucking hate this nigger so god damn much

File: confused spidey meme.png (1MB, 796x798px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 796x798px

>>5981070
>calls the posing shit
>calls caption shit
>nah it's still good tho

TJ Omega and Scottimus Prime toy hunter are the kings of cringe.

>>5980984
Superman be all like "whoa, we got a badass over here"

>>5981244
he didn't say there were shit nor did he say it's good.

File: 1470390496762.png (33KB, 281x355px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 281x355px

>>5980991
every fucking time

>>5980984
I find it hilarious when someone gushes about articulation and shows they can't pose the figure for shit.

>>5980991
Why does that toy come with a dildo?

>>5982470
it's actually a big robot-sized eraser that negates energy blasts

>>5981244
also, toy photography has more criteria than posing.

>lighting
>camera angle
>technical quality
>backdrop

all of these are really good.

>>5983239
And lets not forget the really nice looking giant pile of fuzzy cotton wool. Super good stuff.

>>5983258
desu i like it. its meant to be fog, and does a good job at that.

>>5983262
have you ever seen fog before?

File: FogCity4.jpg (29KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x425px

>>5983277
i think its the best option you have for that size.

using cottonwool is a common technique thats widely agreed on being the best option. you're the one being wrong here.

>>5983288
>using cottonwool is a common technique thats widely agreed on being the best option

>poorfags can't afford dry ice and water

I mean sure cotton is fine if you're someone that doesn't give a shit about photography.

>>5983294
Says the person who knows nothing about scale and photography.
Fire, water and fog are three things that don't work well when using things at 1/12 scale. Using dry ice and water to make fog for something roughly 6 inches tall would look retarded. That's why movie miniatures need to be built at a much larger scale when they are going to be used with elements like that. (and even then it looks shitty sometimes)
Cotton wool has been used for decades in miniature displays and photography.

>>5980984

JAZZ HANDS!

>>5981217
No, they don't.

>>5983288
>i think its the best option you have for that size.
Might be the best option but looks more like a pile of dry ice instead of actual fog.

Looks more like clouds actually.

>>5983239
too bad the posing undermines the whole pic.
>"let's dance clark!"
>"whatever"

>>5980984
>boog

>>5980984
>Hands up don't punch!

>>5983239
>lighting
Super basic
>camera angle
Its just flat on on the toys where you can't see anything but superman's cape. Its composed pretty shittly even ignoring the piss poor posing
>technical quality
As in?
>backdrop
Rocks on black

>>5983612
The photo threads here on /toy/ say otherwise. Pix don't lie. Most of you can't pose worth a shit.

>>5983777
You are aware you are comparing people who casually pose and take pictures on /toy/ as a way to join in, as opposed to these guys who act like it's a super serious hobby?

There are people on /toy/ with skills at posing that make ACBA look like retards with parkinsons.

>>5983722
Compared to "grainy picture of figure in front of messy apartment, 3500x5000px" you mostly see here OP is still better though.

Like, it IS basic.
Most people here don't even reach basic state however or are willing to put in more than five seconds for a photo.

>>5983804
better doesn't make it good
Also random people on /toy/ don't have instagrams dedicated to their shitty pictures

>>5983815
Random people on /toy/ never do any better than half-assed.

>>5983838
and the posing in op's pic isn't half assed?

>>5983838

Batman isn't even throwing a punch

He's just there, with his hands up awkwardly

It's trash and D'Quandys and you should fuck off

>>5983838
What makes something not half assed then? Dedicated lighting and alley backgrounds?

>>5984265
>What makes something not half assed then?
-Putting a little bit of thought and effort into what you're doing.
-Posing a figure with tons of articulation LIKE a figure with tons of articulation, and not like one of those Kenner Star Wars figures that have only 5 points.
-Putting some thought into the pose. Make it LOOK semi real, and not like a stiff mannequin. A little dynamic and 'life' goes a long way.
-Set up the scene. You have one shot to tell the story. Composition is very important. Take a couple of minutes and think about what you're wanting to show. Again setting a figure or two down in some haphazard position and letting the view figure out what you meant is lazy.
-Focus. Why let everything be blurry?
-You don't need fancy backgrounds, but why take a picture with your shitheap of a desk in it? All it does is take away from the subject you're shooting, and show that you don't give a fuck that you're a pig. Get a nice big piece of posterboard, or move your figures someplace else when you want to take a picture.
-Take more than one picture, and use the best one. Don't just take a pic and post it as is. You aren't wasting film, it's the digital age. take as many as you need until you get something that really looks nice.
-Crop/resize your photos. Why would you think anyone wants to see a 5000x3200 pic of a blurry mess of two dept store mannequins holding each other up in front of a garbage heap?
-Don't blame your camera because you didn't take the time to take a good picture, and don't use the "sorry, I tried." excuse when you didn't. You don't need a top of the line camera to take decent pix, nor do you need Photoshop, when you have a free basic image editor already on your machine/device.

It's just little steps you can take to make your less than mediocre shit look so much better, instead of shitting it out and expecting people to praise it. And no. Alley backgrounds are for arrogant faggots who're trying to cover up their insecurity.

>>5984844
Tldr
Fuck off booga

>>5985006
If you'd ave taken the time you would have known I'm not that faggot.
I don't like those assholes any more than you do, but I'm sick of seeing people post absolute shit, and then expect to get praised for "doing such a wonderful job".

>>5981070
>>5981217
>>5983239
>>5983258
>>5983288
>>5983537
>>5983777
>>5983804
>>5983838
>>5984844
>>5985013
Go away, ACBA.

File: Toy photography.jpg (68KB, 960x725px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x725px

>>5980984

>>5980984
"Batman look out! Superman is hiding in that cotton processing plant!"

>>5980984
>"It was just a prank Bruce!"

File: IMG_5500-640x853.jpg (117KB, 640x853px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x853px

PEW! PEW! IM A PROFESSIONAL TOY REVIEWER!

http://marveltoynews.com/comicave-studios-shades-iron-man-mark-26-6-figure-review/

File: 1401616163262.jpg (97KB, 720x718px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 720x718px

>>5980984
>OpenThemShits
mfw

Wow this IS a cringe thread

File: download (1).jpg (7KB, 185x139px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 185x139px

AKA the come watch ACBA get buttmad thread.

Wheres all the shitty pose pictures

>>5984844
the op did not even do half of that

>>5981244
>posts weeb Spider-man
POETRY

>>5988539
and I never said OP was good, either. In fact it's a pretty good example of how not to lay out a scene. Sues is there with his jazz hands sort of falling backwards, Batsy's punch is all fucked up. It looks like he's about to throw it, instead of it already happening. It's very poorly constructed, and not very well thought out.

>>5983777
Lol look at this cunt

"It's not a hobby it's a life style"

>>5983838
You act like every thread us supposed to only have "studio quality" pics posted. It's not half assed. Most of us are just showing off our toys.

>>5988755
>>5988750
Man it really blisters your ass when somebody tells you the truth doesn't it?
Why not take some of the advice, and critiques you get to heart and try to actually improve yourself, instead of fighting so hard to be mediocre? How else do you learn and do better?
Nobody ever said your pix had to be "studio quality". Just stop putting up shit and apologizing for it. Post something you did right and be proud of your work.

File: IMG_5615.jpg (241KB, 736x943px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 736x943px

>>5988995
Looks like one of those face-hole boards at carnivals.

>>5983239
Yeah. Toy photography is an art, right?

But since you brought it up ...

- The Lighting: Is fine. But I hate how all ACBA ppl feel like they only have one lighting set up. Not one of them is original or different. OP is no exception

- Camera Angle: 45 degrees straight on from the subject. Yeah. Great.

- Technical Quality: The fuck you on about? ... >>5983804
Oh, grain?? That can work if you're going for it stylistically (ie: not the ACBA status quo)

- Backdrop: Yeah sure do love that black backdrop. Or do you mean that grey shit that's covered with gobs of cotton?

>>5984844
Dude, you're the cringiest thing in this thread.

The photos you guys take are fine. That's whatever. But your personality's what kills it for me.

Everything has to be a certain way and you guys take yourselves way to seriously. Look all those rules. And so condescending too.

And yet not a one of you has any sense of individuality. If you were put 10 random ACBA photos in front of me I wouldn't be able to separate them by different photographers.

IMHO the photos are fine. It's the captions, comments, hashtag, and attitudes that are cringy.

So which one is worse? People who think taking pictures of toys is art, or people here who are so high and mighty that they judge and criticize every single creases in lighting etc.

You guys are both sides of the same coin. It's like an arthouse avant grande film director who's pretentious and the film ""critic"" in Cannes or whatever who are even more pretentious than the filmaker in his criticism.

In the end, both of you guys are just manchildren who spent too much money on plastic crack and trying to justify it online

File: bitch please.jpg (607KB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 2592x1456px

>>5989042
Go to your ally and suck some more ACBA dick.

>>5989088
"Both of you are bad"
Gtfo with that gay shit , your highness.

>>5989088
who are you even talking about?

>>5989076
>>5989090
How many times do I have to keep saying it? I'm not part of ACBA.
I think they're pretentious assholes. I hate most of the stuff they put out. It's true what you say about the alleys and the elitism, their fucking rules, etc.
All I want to see is people here do good work. I offer good, solid advice and tips on how to take better pictures. Some of you take the time to actually listen and put some of those tips to work, and your pictures show it.
I don't understand why, when somebody gives you legitimate advice, a good portion of you fight tooth and nail to put it down. It's like you don't want to even try to do better. How can you want to stay stagnant like that?

>>5989120
> I offer good, solid advice and tips on how to take better pictures
It's not though. It's just your opinion you're pushing onto others. You're not an authority on the subject.

And you're rules and how you present them seem on par with I think the ACBA standard is. Which is why I thought you were a part of them. Idk maybe you should think about joining them.

>>5987434
ahaha what the fuck

>>5989146
You tell me, honestly, which of those tips are not good solid advice for taking good pix? Not the presentation, but the actual tips.
It's advice I've discovered myself, and have heard from lots of other people here on /toy/ who take photos.
So either
1) You're upset because your skills and abilities are being questioned, and you're resisting because you're being defensive
2) You know it's good advice but you ignore it anyway just for spite
3) You're comfortable with where you are and you don't want to improve.
All of which is pretty pathetic.
I also half suspect you don't even take photos, but you're here just to argue and be contrary because that's how you get off. Which is also pretty pathetic.

>ACBA people still can't pick their battles and argue every single instance of them being criticized in any way

This makes it impossible to take them seriously.

>>5989269
No one is upset about their "skills and abilities" cuz no one here prides themselves on taking pics of their toys and thinks it's art. Well at least I don't because most of the time I am just showing them off and occasionally I will but a board behind so that people don't see the mess in my desk. But it's not art for me.

I have seen people here that take better pictures of scenes that blow all the ACBA people out of the water and they don't have the ego that they do. That one anon said it. It's more about what they say that is cringy. Like that one fag that likes the Finn figure because "he is me cuz, I am black BLM" and how much pride and delusional they are. They think they are the reason why Hasbro takes their pictures of their figures for the promos or packaging differently now.

They are a joke.

>>5989269
I'll bite this one.

>don't use 5poa figures because articulation means better!
Totally subjective, I've seen photos of lego minifigs that are very nice.
>Focus. Why let everything be blurry?
because sometimes a rack focus looks cool
> don't use the "sorry, I tried." excuse when you didn't
You don't know a person's technical background. You could be trying to hold a person who's never tried to take a serious photo to the same standards as somebody who's been at it for years.

Saying "sorry, I tried" can be completely legitimate...stop being so angry and let these people enjoy their life.

>>5989443
>don't use 5poa figures because articulation means better!
>Totally subjective, I've seen photos of lego minifigs that are very nice.
Never said any such thing.
What I said was if your figure has a lot of articulation, use it. DON'T pose it LIKE a 5POA figure. If you have a Figuarts Darth Vader fighting a Figma Captain America, don't pose them like a Lego Darth Vader fighting a Lego Captain America. Utilize what you have to it's fullest. You only have minifigs? Great. Shoot lots of pix, just learn to do the best you can with them.

>Focus. Why let everything be blurry?
>because sometimes a rack focus looks cool
Again not what I said or implied. I'm talking about the entire shot being completely out of focus and blurry. Like you just pointed the camera at it and pressed the button without letting it focus properly.
Specialty focus like the rack focus can indeed be cool. But that's not what I'm talking about.

>"sorry I tried..." yadda yadda yadda.
Sure, Nobody knows for sure if they did or not. But if the same person keeps posting the same out of focus, badly laid out shots over and over again, you can almost guarantee they didn't try their best. I've been here long enough to know that a bunch of you just don't give a shit about yourselves enough to do a decent job with something, and post any old thing expecting to be praised for it. You can also tell when somebody is actually trying to do a good job, but they need just a little bit of work and polishing to make it happen.
I also know when people DO post a very good picture and use the excuse for sympathy. They thrive on the "oh it's ok you really did do a good job" schtick because that's sometimes the only positive reinforcement they get.

So again, You show me where any of the advice I posted isn't valid. Without twisting it to fit your agenda like you did this go-round.

>>5989443
Don't bother. It's subjectanon. He's a delusional autist who is incapable of accepting he might be wrong. I still remember the shitfit he threw when someone dared to suggest that articulated stands were a better solution to supporting figures than jamming the end of a coathanger into a crevice.

Acba sounds like a joke

>>5989473
That's because it is.

Anybody who points out your failings is subjectanon.
Anybody who disagrees with you is subjectanon.
Anybody who proves you don't have a leg to stad on is subjectanon. It's just an excuse you throw out there so you can avoid doing anything to improve yourself because you got asspained when called out for your mediocrity.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not him.

>>5989473
They are a HUGE joke. But they're the boogeyman du'jour around here. When people get caught short they either play the "You're ACBA" or the "You're subjectanon" card because they don't have anything to back them up.

>>5989479
Nah man. There's a reason Subjectanon is so widely mocked around here. He's like a slightly more articulate Greg or some kind of reverse weeaboo. He's elitist about Marvel Legends of all things whilst simultaneously scoffing at actually good figures (especially Figuarts or anything by Bandai, which makes me wonder if the CEO of Bandai raped him as a child), is obsessed with SCULPT to the exclusion of all else, including QC, plastic quality, decent paint and articulation (see his boner for ML), advocates stupid display techniques like jamming coathangers into joints instead of just using a proper stand, thinks die cast metal is satan and anyone who likes it is "delusional", and actually defends ACBA. Also he tried to chop his own penis off with a pair of scissors.

>>5989473
They are.

They flipped out over someone making a post on their blog that no one reads for saying that they don't always offer constructive criticism and the admins of the group called on the users to dogpile that person over it.

They have a collective ego made of paper thin glass but like to pretend that they are hardcore and street. It's bizarre and I feel sad for them becoming so frustrated over so little so often.

>>5989473
There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea, but it's the execution and attitude that make it a joke. I wouldn't be surprised if a kid tried to post a pic there they'd just delete it because it doesn't follow whatever rules for quality they have. So instead of just being a community of action figure collectors to post pictures they are an elitist group. Not everyone wants to post great pictures, or make dioramas, maybe they just want to have fun with what they have on hand, and that isn't ok. Just look at counter's stop motion, he uses boxes and whatever's around and his area of work is just a room, not some big diorama, and he does amazing work.

What I'm trying to say is there shouldn't be some level of quality, subjective which such a thing is, no less, involved in this. Sure there could be subdivisions, say one that's trying to emulate reality, some trying to emulate comic book stylings, some for fun, etc. But that's not what they want it to be apparently. Instead it's a hub for "adult collectors" who pretend they're posting professional level pictures (not saying some aren't, because there is certainly some good stuff there). At the end of the day, I think they're a joke because of the attitude they bring to action figure photography, which though I agree has many facets and ways to do it, it doesn't make any one more right than another.

>>5989510
I know who he is, and he's a colossal twatwaffle. But you find that people who don't have any way to back you their thoughts or positions, will invariably throw his name out there as if it cancels out the argument. Like >>5989469. He can't find a real issue with what's been stated so he tries to cover it up by claiming "You're subjectanon, so it doesn't matter what you say."
It's a cheap shitty way to cover the fact you're losing.
Also; did it turn out that the wire hanger guys was really him? I thought that was one of the other /toy/ nutjobs.

>>5989510
Talking about being elitist when you yourself are saying MLs are trash. Come on man.

>>5989529
Not him, but I'm about 99% sure that wire hanger poster was subjectanon.

The first thread where that happened was beyond on point with his typical shit.

>>5989532
I never said MLs were trash. For their pricepoint they're...OK I guess? But being elitist about them over toys that are unquestionably superior is just stupid.

>>5989442
>>5989443
Thank you for wording a counter better than I could. I was going to respond, but I don't think I could in a way that would make him I wasn't actually upset.

>>5989269
My skills as a photographer aren't the issue here. It's the fact that you're presenting your opinions (tips) as fact.

You have the same sort of mindset as those ACBA guys.

>half suspect you don't even take photos
I do. But that shouldn't matter.

>but you're here just to argue and be contrary because that's how you get off.
Nope. I just don't agree with the elitist/holier than thou mindset you're projecting. But you can't deal when someone disagrees with your point of view.

>>5989583
>It's the fact that you're presenting your opinions (tips) as fact.
I challenge you again. Show me which of those tips aren't factual. not because you don't like my attitude, not because it reminds you of the ACBA guys, not because you twist what I've posted to fit your argument.
AS IS, I defy you to find any one of those tips to be wrong or bad advice.

>>5989548
Ah, I guess I kind of read between the lines. That said I wouldn't even say unquestionably. Now, there are certain figuarts or what have you that are amazing, but then there are others like jango, who, in my opinion especially because of the arm movements, is a toss up between it and the black series. Then there is the revol Deadpool which some might have an issue with certain aspects compared to the ML. And besides, if we say unquestionably that means in all facets, and if I were to hand an ML or some import to a child (which I wouldn't do because they're usually filthy and not careful) I would rather the ML because I know it would be able to handle the potential punishment. Regardless. I actually think ML are starting to get overpriced for what they are, but they're improving and occasionally adding more to the box, which I suppose helps offset the costs a bit. But then again, imports are getting more expensive too, and often times I don't feel like I'm getting enough for what I pay for those either. Up to the individual at the end of the day.

>>5989592
Yeah. I haven't refuted your tips yet. You have me confused with the other guy.

>-Posing a figure with tons of articulation LIKE a figure with tons of articulation, and not like one of those Kenner Star Wars figures that have only 5 points.

This right here is what leads to shitty posing. Also static poses don't always look bad. So this is just a matter of opinion and not actually advise or even fact.

>>5989630
If you pose 2 5poa figures having a sword fight (Lego minis for example), you are going to have nothing but a limited pose. Two figures with straight arms hitting swords together and not much else. Which, if all you have is 2 5poa is OK. That's what you work with.
If you have 2 Figuarts having a sword fight, you have a much larger range of articulation. You can have dynamic poses with the illusion of movement. You can make it look as though there's power behind each swing and block. You can make it look more realistic.
If you take those same 2 figuarts and pose them the same way you posed the minifigs, Straight armed, no movement, no use of any of the articulation available, then it will look terrible. (unless you are doing it as a joke, but that's not what I'm talking about)
So yes, utilizing a figure's articulation to make the poses better is very good advice.

>Also static poses don't always look bad.
Never said they did. See, you're altering what I said to fit your argument. But if you want to take it further, you can have a figure in a static pose and have it look like shit (Arms drooping from shoulders, hands by it's side twisted at odd angles, neck tilted at a weird angle, looking like you just pulled it from the box and slapped it onto the table,etc) or you can have it look good (standing straight, utilizing a few tweaks here and there, etc. Again just to add a little 'life' to the pose. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapposto for a really simple way of making a static pose stand out.)

All of those tips can be summed up very simply as just taking the time to think about what you want to show, and following through with it. Don't just say "whatever" and call it a good job. Most of the time it won't be.

But come on, you KNOW this if you've spent any time here, and read some of the critique/advice threads. This is basic stuff that's designed to help people do better.

>>5989630
>This right here is what leads to shitty posing.
Not knowing HOW to use all that articulation is what leads to shitty posing. If you can't grasp those basics, it doesn't matter how many joints a figure has.

File: I'm sensitive.png (56KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x700px

I heard you guys talking shit about me like i wouldn't know.

Just remember, you guys are delusional and have given my name away to everyone who butthurts you.
I'm everyone now.

>>5989770
>comes all the way over here because somebody said something bad about him and yet claims we're butthurt.
>tries to act hard on a toy forum

Lol, are all you ACBA people this pathetic?

>>5989770
If you're actually boog or D instead of listening to the idiots in this thread and others read between that and try to see some of the constructive points people are trying to make. Not everyone is out to get you and some people here aren't drones, read what those people have to say.

File: manyfacedboogieman.jpg (53KB, 459x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 459x640px

>>5989789
>come read this thread to see what people are complaining about now
>notice my name pop up
>read through it
>I'm suddenly ABCB too
Keep piling up everything that butthurts you, huh?
I feel left out that you're making who i really am into just meaningless catchall boogieman, but that's the nature of a strawman, huh?

>>5989801
There's been nothing constructive about anything you guys have said the moment you made it into a brand war.
It's worse now that you guys basically just use the name as a boogieman or samefag.

It's pretty pathetic on how far you've taken this and have you've made it so meaningless by trying to pile everything into it.

Now all we need is to get Greg, Andrew and Peon in this thread, and it can turn into a real clusterfuck.

>>5989869
Don't forget Jin and Diosoth

>>5989868
Think negatively and see this as a personal attack from a bunch of anonymous people online. And not everyone is a part of whatever brand war you're talking about, some have no stakes in this race other than trying to improve how ACBA is perceived through them themselves changing certain perhaps counter intuitive practices. If you're content the way things are then go ahead, I can't stop you, but at least considering constructive criticism is something you should try to do. Stop letting a vocal minority dissuade you from people genuinely trying to help.

>>5989116
People on /toy/. You guys are making fun of ACBA folks for smelling their own farts (which they do), but you guys treat it as if posing is some real art.

The real art is earning the money, and maybe display configuration to blend your collection well into your room so it doesn't look like manchild cave with overpriced plastic cracks. Everything else is just manchildren playing with their toys, no matter how hard you spin it.

>>5981220
I'm not him, I hate that nigger.

>>5981244
>posing shit
I said a bit off, you illiterate nigger.
>caption shit
That has nothing to do with the picture does it, dumbass?
>nah it's still good tho
It is, even more so if you compare it with average shit in the photo thread.

>>5989090
Why are you so angry?

Why are the newfags ruining this thread?

Holy shit this thread is filled with whiny cunts.

What is happening to this board?

File: boogieman.jpg (79KB, 714x533px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 714x533px

>>5989931
>see this as a personal attack
oh ho ho ho, sorry, but there's nothing personal when someone is so far off point that they might as well be telling me that telephones were made by aliens from the amazon river in Antarctica

>some have no stakes in this race other than trying to improve how ACBA is perceived
Blahblahblah ferris wheels are the french balloons sneakers sneakers sneakers sneakers sneakers sneakers sneakers.
This is completely meaningless to me, because you're just referring to me as samefag for all your problems.
How about responding to people as whoever they are in the post instead of calling them SubjectAnon?

Too hard? Or do you really wish everyone who disagrees with you is the boogieman?

299 post to go guys, keep shitposting about boggiemen and acba and faggots defending them and other cunts that negate opinions because said opinions use strawmen and all that shit

File: pennyarcade02.jpg (84KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x305px

>>5990114
I think it was funnier when people were getting upset that their poor for fun photographs were called poor and then getting angry that someone was criticizing them for what they are.

Like with everything posted on the internet, it's going to get criticized. You should expect it. Either roll with it, ignore it, but getting super defensive is only going to lead to shitstorms which can be quite entertaining and funny to read, while making you look stupid.
It's like that /co/ thread about that one lady writing getting upset her Mockingbird comic was being criticized on twitter. Nice thread where the writers defended it by saying those who disliked it was misogynistic hater. Sorta like that guy criticizing a photo being called part of ABCA.
The parallels are delicious.

BASED Boog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVZBqGhIm2I

>>5990355
>double jointed knee

Is this guy retarded?

File: deadpool revoltech.jpg (47KB, 401x374px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 401x374px

How frightening.
It's one of Frieza's transformations.