UPD Download Film Have A Crush On You
Tamar Rochon
If you or someone you look after is finding it hard to swallow tablets or capsules (solid medicines), you might think that the answer is to crush a tablet or open a capsule to make swallowing medication easier.1 Mixing the contents of a capsule with food or adding a crushed tablet to a drink may seem a better option than asking your doctor or nurse to change a prescription to a more suitable format such as a Liquid Medicine. It is not safe to crush a tablet or open a capsule without first checking with a healthcare professional such as a Pharmacist or your Doctor.2 Guidelines state that a recommendation to manipulate a solid dose medication is only to be made as a very last resort.3
A crush fetish is a fetish and a paraphilia in which sexual arousal is associated with observing objects being crushed or being crushed oneself. The crushed objects vary from inanimate items (e.g., food), to injurious and/or fatal crushing of invertebrates (e.g., insects, snails, worms, spiders), or vertebrates (e.g., birds, reptiles, mammals).[1][2]
In the most severe cases, crushing has involved homicide[3] or extended torture until death of restrained animals including dogs, cats, pigs, and monkeys. Animal welfare organisations, such as the Humane Society of the United States, condemn this practice and consider it extremely disturbing.[2] Additionally, links between animal abuse and violence towards humans are being researched, with animal abuse perhaps being a precursor to further violence, and animal cruelty cases have been tracked by the American FBI since 2016.[4][5] The motivation for these acts may be in the financial gain derived from producing a film of the acts, which is sold on the Internet to crush fetishists who find the content sexually gratifying and perhaps entertaining, a tailored genre known as "crush film". Those in impoverished areas may be more likely to produce and star in this content due to financial gain.[6]
There are currently no laws specifically forbidding the crushing of animals, but the production or trade of crush erotica involving live vertebrates is illegal in many countries, including the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom.[7] In the United States, interstate commerce in (hard) crush videos has been illegal since 2010,[8] and many other countries also have banned them.[9]
In crush films, the crushing agent is typically a woman, who will concentrate her body weight upon her feet to compress the object against the floor. The feet are typically dressed in sexually suggestive dominatrix-like footwear, such as high-heels and lace stockings, but other footwear or bare feet may be used. This recalls elements of both foot fetishism and BDSM culture.[2]
The legality of crush films and the actual practice of crushing varies by region; however, many have been posted on web sites and are available for download via the Internet, making the control of their distribution difficult.
In 1999, the United States Congress enacted a statute affecting the legality of crush films which criminalized the creation, sale, and possession of depictions of animal cruelty, though with an exception for "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."[19] In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the ban on the sale and possession of such films (if not otherwise obscene) as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee for freedom of speech.[20] The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Stevens, finding the law unconstitutional because the law was so broad and vague that it included any portrayal of an animal in or being harmed such as by hunting or disease.[21] On November 28, 2010, bill H.R. 5566, which prohibits interstate commerce in animal crush films, was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and on December 9, the bill was signed by President Obama becoming the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010.[8]
In 2006 an Internet crush video surfaced in which a woman stomps on a kitten with stiletto high-heels. Eventually the woman drives her heel into the kitten's eye and penetrates the eye socket, leading to loss of blood and the death of the kitten.[26] Internet users discovered and revealed the identity of the woman, and revealed that the cameraman was a provincial television employee. The nurse posted an apology on the Luobei city government website, claiming that she was susceptible to persuasion to crush the kitten, being despondent from her recent divorce.[27] Both the nurse and the cameraman lost their jobs as a result of the incident, although their actions were not illegal under the country's animal cruelty laws.[28]
Generally speaking, losing detail in your image is a bad thing. However, there is a creative way to do so that is most commonly employed in cinematography, known as "crushing the blacks." I alluded to this technique in my recent article on creating your first Photoshop actions and I received a number of queries about this technique. This article will give you a brief overview of what the effect is used for, why you would use it, and how.
There are only really a few constants in elucidating this technique, and that is you're making the image flatter and you're altering the shadows. There's variations in how this process is performed and to what extent, but you will always lose detail in your shadows. This has many drawbacks and it certainly doesn't fit every image, but it can overcome obstacles and has worth in other areas too. For example, in cinematography it is often used to remove unwanted noise in the shadows; this applies to photography too. By removing the contrast in the shadows you're reducing the noise as well as the detail. This is a consideration of mine, but my primary motivation for using it when I choose to is that it can help your subject "pop" from the background. It is also part of, if not the entirety of, a look that has been popularized by Instagram, old film, and VSCO to name a few. Many of the filters and action sets that mimic any sort of film will crush the blacks to some degree or another. Let's get to some examples and how to use the technique in Photoshop (though this is achievable in Lightroom and other editing software). It is particularly effective in low-key images or images with a large dynamic range or high contrast.
Although it depends on the image, I tend to crush the blacks in two different ways. The first, I create a curves adjustment layer, I click the shadow point in the bottom left and I change the values of the input and output to 15 each. This is the lighter and less invasive method. The alternative is a little more heavy-handed and I almost never leave the opacity at 100% when I employ it. You raise the shadows to whatever output value suits you; I tend to find 15 again to be in the right region. You then create a new point along the curve in the slightly brighter shadows and lower it, again until you find the look you're after. This is almost always then followed by raising the midtones back to their original state or marginally darker. It may be to some people's tastes as it is darker and moodier, but it rare fits my editing aims. Let's use a quick headshot I took of actor Joe Hughes as an example. Here's before any curves adjustment layers have been applied:
In this case I would (and did) opt for the lighter method and then almost always mask out the subject of the image. Whether I'm working on products or people, a loss of detail and contrast is unwanted. Here is a larger resolution version of before crushing the blacks and after.
Crushing the blacks could be used for noise reduction in the shadows, stylistic purposes, or even to lower the detail of the shadows in horror films, but for me its greatest application is the separation it can offer between your subject and the background. Huge amounts of my work features this technique followed by the careful masking out of the subject and if performed correctly, it can add subtle pop to your images. This is prevalent in my product imagery in particular and below are some real-world examples, so to speak.
Crushing blacks in video was an unavoidable result of using film in the film only era, for there was no way to maximize highlights and shadows at the same time, which is why the opposite of crushing the blacks, blowing the highlights, was also common. Even with still film trying to get the best range required a lot of time and skill in dodging, burning and masking, which is why when we look at prints from the film era they have blown highlights or crushed blacks under contrasty scenes.
Now I know you are talking about the purposeful use of crushing blacks, but it's nice to see the promotion of something that not only emphasizes the subject but reminds me of the look of film as opposed to the common look with digital where shadows and highlights are often well exposed. While that gets us closer to the way our eyes see things, paradoxically it is more often than not less attractive.
Gorgeous photos. I wonder how much of the 'crushing the blacks' increased use has to do that our displays are getting better at displaying pure black. I remember old CRT monitors, would never really go that black, even when the monitor was off. I think that spec is called contrast ratio.
I've found that most printers (even really good ones like BayPhoto and Miller's) will mush the dark details with the pure blacks. Even with the right ICC profile and calibrated monitor. For this reason, I always try to keep print images slightly less dark than I want... and it turns out better (as I want) every time. I feel like it's a contrast issue... like you'll get better results if you can have lower contrast on the dark side of the histogram.
Long before digital, the concept of exposing for the highlights was a "known" with transparency film...as digital became the new holy grail, the highlights were still the chief concern, since the sensors tended to "bloom" on the high exposure (blowing out highlights, plus) On neg film-particularly black and white, the concept of exposing for the shadow, processing for the highlight, and exposing for the mid-tone was how we held detail as best as possible for newsprint (dot gain on that sponge paper was like playing roulette with the ROP ads). The output to print can be effected by so many variables and the best thing to do is to test and calibrate...everything. Human vision has such a broad latitude of tone...whereas film naturally crushed that tonal range, and paper even more-so. The digital image looks flat...and I believe someone ahead of me on this thread mentioned the consideration that if we could reproduce the human visual range as an image, it would look too flat to us. I think that's one reason why HDR work sometimes looks to false (not including the tendency to make it too crunchy on color values or sharpening)
ffe2fad269