Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:
According to Boobpedia, this baby-faced bombshell appeared in “Penthouse” at least 26 times. Presumably, most of those appearances took place in the ’90s, when she was at the apex of her modeling career and bushy eyebrows were still in fashion. Like Marie McCray, she sometimes reminds me of a living Elvgren girl. Unfortunately, Stacy seems to have gotten implants at some point. Most of the photos I’ve featured here are pre-enlargement.
Nudity below the fold. Have a great weekend.
Related
- Apparently, she was born Sabrina Moran and has appeared in a few movies, including the legendary “Embrace of the Vampire.”
- TheNudeEU.
- Vintage Erotica Forums.
Some content on this page was disabled on November 14, 2018 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from J STEPHEN HICKS. You can learn more about the DMCA here:
Blowhard, Esq.
Callowman
Sherbrooke
Eddie Pensier
Enzo Nakamura
Epaminondas
Fabrizio del Wrongo
Fenster
Brundle Guy
Glynn Marshes
Paleo Retiree
Atypical Neurotic
Question Lady
Sax von Stroheim
Sir Barken Hyena
The Mistaken
Uncouth Reflections 
Some of these blast-from-the-past pictures really show how warm and lifelike film looks compared to digital, even though we’re looking at digital scans displayed on LCD computer screens. At the high end, movies with multi-million-dollar budgets may still shoot on film, but at the lower end like snapshots of random naked ladies, it’s all digital.
Funny as it sounds, comparing film to digital would show the differences more starkly if you looked at glamor and nude photography, since there’s a gulf between 20 years ago when Playboy was shooting its centerfolds on large-format film (8×10), and today when the very best would be a medium-format digital shoot, or more likely some dude with his iPhone.
Hollywood studios still spend a lot these days, so movies don’t show as wide of a gulf in image quality from 20 years ago to today.
And where digital in movies just makes them look more bland and crappy, it makes glamor and nude photography look more lurid and low-rent (like that Ukrainian chick from a few weeks ago). The pictures from the early ’90s are sexually provocative, but they show a certain level of craft that it took to make them, making them feel not so unwholesome.
This is different from hardcore pornography, which has always been recorded on a crappy-looking medium to minimize costs, whether half-assed film in the ’70s, videotape in the ’80s and ’90s, or digital today. By unconscious association, shooting glamor / nude / selfie photographs on the cheapest-possible medium gives off a strong porny vibe.
LikeLike
I often get a bigger rush out of old-school porn photography, especially stuff from the ’70s. Much current stuff tends to have hard edges and super-smooth textures. Yuck (IMO). There was a movement to get rid of all that and go natural around the early 2000s — which I’ve tried to write about here and there — but it’s mostly been overtaken by the new breed of photographers. Or are they better seen as Photoshoppers?
Some of these Moran photos look like digitally worked-over versions of ’90s photographs. Which is interesting to think about . . .
LikeLike
i have original photos of Stacy Moran that nobody has. ive been approached about them at times. interested?
LikeLike
Pingback: Naked Lady of the Year | Uncouth Reflections