>>4167773The real full frame bois left. Sometimes new ones come and leave. Even then, the kind of photographer that 4chan attracts usually doesn't see any artistic value in model photography so they would skip over this thread for something about landscapes or macro. I would go as far as saying that 4chan is a homosexual mecca. They simply do not like women. The most honest portraiture I see (rarely) on /p/ is of men, and then it's back to nonhuman subjects. That may be objects of sexual desire, as well.
Surely, you could theorize that people do not want to post other peoples faces on 4chan, but I think that you need a passion for women to photograph women and a homosexual man will not see an endless fountain of artistic value in something he finds mildly repulsive.
And I would have to agree with them, despite not being so gay, in a way that is critical of the overuse of women as objects in photography rather than one that is just not into women. Throwing a woman in the frame is how you get anyone under 60 and male to think you're an artiste. People automatically start reading everything into the picture and looking for reasons to enjoy it because the mere presence of a woman stimulates their dopamine receptors. Even though you're just paying random sluts off 7th ave $5 for 5 minutes and are taking what amount to test shots, playing with the camera's settings while trying to keep them from leaving.
What sets this genre of photography apart from anything else that may happen to have a woman in it is a strong male gaze and inevitable pornographic content, with the abuse of effects people perceive to be more artistic to mask it. White women make up the bulk of the pornography, of course. The way light works with darker complexions requires too much artistry, while the way white skin is photographed makes it very easy to overexpose and make creamy, smooth, and sexual.
This plague of photography was unintentionally parodied in Mark Cohen's photo, breasts lips hair.