30 thoughts on “Jamie Dominic by Michael Stokes”

  4. Finally total naked!

    but the third photo….hmm…i’m not so convinced!

    Nice body, nice face, but the penis is always altered!

    Reply

  10. I don’t think it’s different or smaller necessarily than the other semi pic. Upon close examination (hehehehe), it’s obviously curving in the same direction, and the head is the same. I would suggest that as it gets harder, the curve becomes more pronounced. What we’re observing is the outer portion of the curve, which, from our perspective, will shorten the overall appearance. The curve isn’t as pronounced when semi-erect because it’s able to hang a little more, which is why it may appear larger (to a less discerning eye) in the other pic.

    Furthermore, these aren’t raw images, so even if the penis was left “unretouched,” the overall image has been processed — lighting, contrast, color, etc. Just look at the face pics. This is why so many people are quick to cry, “Fake!” It doesn’t look like the dick was stretched (or pasted in later); it just looks like the photo is heavily processed.

    Reply

  12. But … in the photos of his semi-erect bulge in wet underwear … his dick looked alot bigger.

    Am I the only one a little … disappointed? I WANT TO SEE A BIG VEINY MONSTER COCK.

    Reply

  13. That’s the worst photo shop job ever. He’s not actually that big, but his REAL “package” looks great on him. So, I don’t understand why people keep trying to make him look different.

    Reply

  17. Hi, I’m the photographer, and it is interesting to read all these comments. Perhaps I can help. First, I assume the photo in question is the basement shot, which is NOT heavily processed. The as-shot image is almost like this one, just darker and perhaps less contrast. In this image, I increased the contrast, lightened the image overall, and put a mask on the skin to even it out, remove blemishes and imperfections. I try to keep the skin looking like skin and not like wax. For those of you who think that dick is fake, it is not. That is Jamie’s dick. Jamie has a big dick, and what has been done to it or not done to it in other images – I don’t know. What is funny is that because it is smaller than the swim suit one, people think it is fake? If I shoot a hard-on straight on, it will look super short. In the swim suit shot he pulls it all the way to the side, which is the best angle to see the length of a penis. It does not cast a shadow because the shadow it is casting is not in the pic. Look at the light source above, it will cast a shadow downward. See how his head has made a shadow on his neck and chest, well his dick most likely was casting a shadow on the floor. So Jay is the most correct. The biggest issue I had with this photo is trying to match the skin tone of his body with that of his dick. His dick has an egg plant color that as much as I struggled with, could not make it a nice flesh tone. I did smooth the skin on the dick, not eliminating veins, but there was some artifacting going on that was just unappealing. I hope this is interesting and helpful to you all. Sincerely, Michael

    Reply

  18. Thanks Michael for the photos and clarification. You are a great photographer. We would love to more photos of Jamie with full hard-on. It would be even cooler if you take close-up of his dick and a jo session. Thanks in advance.

    Reply

  19. Hey Tom, thanks for the kind words and support. The photo I take are high res enough to be closer to his dick, but then you lose his face, right? I try to stay on the border of what could be considered fine art photography and porn. I don’t care if someone calls my work porn, but I don’t want to produce work that is designed for mass consumption, an image that is designed solely to masturbate to. I’ve done cum shots before, and I have to say that it doesn’t thrill me too much to do them. I think that is best for video, but I’ve seen some photographers pull it off well; I just haven’t yet. BUT having said that I’d love to shoot Jamie shooting, but I doubt it will happen. I’ll ask him. I have shot him with his girlfriend, both were naked. I have not finished editing those images. I don’t think you can see much of his dick though, more of an implied nude shoot. We were going for a fashion, edgy look, but Jamie was hard most of the time ’cause his girlfriend turns him on so much.

    Reply

  20. Hey guys , Jamie is one hot guy cant we just enjoy the pictures
    without all becoming critics.Micheal please keep shooting this HOT boy,i for one will never gat sick of looking at him.Maybe bring out a book?

    Reply

  23. How about regular photos without all that “artistic photographer” editing and additions? I don’t think the pics are genuine. I think they’re manipulated beyond acceptable. Sorry, try again. FAIL.

    Reply

  28. Aloha Michael and guys,

    I think the photos of Jamie are spectacular! And you take spectacular photos of him, Michael. But you could probably photograph a phone book and make it look like Jamie!! HAHA!

    The only ones I didn’t like were the bleached blond ones. Just doesn’t look right on him. And I sure hope he grows his bush back. Just looks weird on men when they shave their groins. Almost a turn-off. I like some tats too, but I just wish Jamie’s chest tats were gone or at least very much smaller. I like to taste skin under my tongue, not ink. The ones on his back are nice though. I could tell his erect dick wasn’t fake by looking at the wet white undies shots. You can tell it’s the same dick, just tumescent in the whities. He is absolutely goregeous. By the way, can you tell us how tall he is? Or is that not allowed…

    Reply

  30. ”

    Finally an image of fully erect model/singer Jamie Dominic by renowned photographer Michael Stokes! Wow! Pretty HUNG!

    ”
    I don’t agree
    Friendly, Santos

    Reply

Leave a Comment