| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2003 11:47:18 AM · #1 |
| ShutterCity.com has a great little warning page right before you choose to see a photo that may contain questionable shots. I would really like to see that put into place on DPchallenge. I can't imagine that it'd be easy to update the website to include this, but since you're soliciting suggestions, this would be a great option for those of us that would like to skip over these. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 11:49:04 AM · #2 |
I would like to see an option to only see nude photos. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 11:51:37 AM · #3 |
I actually wish something like this would be possible too...I don't do my voting during the day cause I am not sure what to expect, I do it late at night when my 6 year old is in bed.
I don't mind him seeing nude photos that are very tastefully done but occassionally there are ones I am not really wanting him to see.
Gee I wish school was year round then I wouldn't have this issue...lol |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 12:12:48 PM · #4 |
I can usually figure out which shots I don't want my 4 year old seeing over (or under) my shoulder from the thumbs... What would be nice is a way to "turn off" specific pictures so they won't come up for me... Most of the shots I don't want her seeing have nothing to do with too much skin... She has a Venus and David magnetic dress up dolls on the fridge so she's seen all the skin there is... It's the fake blood or violent shots I'd rather she wasn't exposed to.
I know this would be a lot harder to code, but I can wish :)
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 03:46:36 PM · #5 |
| I'd be perfectly to flag my own photos (if appropriate) for violence or nudity with a check-box on the submission page. I think most people would also be more than willing to warn people over questionable shots, since they are likely to vote low anyway. And I think any people who deliberately mislead the voters for the shock value would be violating the general site rules anyway, so I wouldn't expect it to be a big problem. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 04:01:52 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I can usually figure out which shots I don't want my 4 year old seeing over (or under) my shoulder from the thumbs... What would be nice is a way to "turn off" specific pictures so they won't come up for me... Most of the shots I don't want her seeing have nothing to do with too much skin... She has a Venus and David magnetic dress up dolls on the fridge so she's seen all the skin there is... It's the fake blood or violent shots I'd rather she wasn't exposed to.
I know this would be a lot harder to code, but I can wish :) |
actually I have to agree there I didn't like my 6 year old seeing all the pills in the Matrix challenge and since then seems to be a big deal to photograph pills, there really isn't much of a beauty in pills and also the syringes so why waste your time with the drug scene when there is so much more out there to photograph? |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 04:06:00 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I can usually figure out which shots I don't want my 4 year old seeing over (or under) my shoulder from the thumbs... What would be nice is a way to "turn off" specific pictures so they won't come up for me... |
A quick kludge: you could vote for those first, so they won't come up in the random-rotation thing?
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 04:11:18 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd be perfectly to flag my own photos (if appropriate) for violence or nudity with a check-box on the submission page. I think most people would also be more than willing to warn people over questionable shots, since they are likely to vote low anyway. And I think any people who deliberately mislead the voters for the shock value would be violating the general site rules anyway, so I wouldn't expect it to be a big problem. |
Paul, I think you have what is probably the best overall solution to this. Since we are on the honor system here, it seems a reasonable approach to take that approach for a "questionable" warning as well. I initially did not think that such a warning was really worth the trouble, however after reviewing the above opinions, my thinking has reversed.
In addition to Paul's suggestion of asking the submittor to flag the photo as to content, I would add that the viewer should have the option to turn the warning on or off. I'm guessing that folks would generally err on the conservative side when deciding whether their submission contained "adult" content, and therefore there would be quite a few warnings popping up. They could become quite a nuiscance!
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 04:44:22 PM · #9 |
Can we have something put in each of our profiles, that will allow all nude and similar shots to be hidden from view, even in voting (full size picture) as well...
I would like to see something like this!!
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 04:55:03 PM · #10 |
| I've always wondered, so here's a question to "Anti-Nude" photo activists. Do you shower and dress in total darkness? In over a year since I've looked at this site, I think there's been 1, maybe 2 photos that could have been considered more porno than art. And those I believe were quickly taken out. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:06:40 PM · #11 |
I don't like to see to many flag photo can you fix that as well :-))
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:10:14 PM · #12 |
well, how can you say that one's art is porno?
how can you say that ones porno isn't art?
depends maybe?
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:33:38 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by matt betea:
I've always wondered, so here's a question to "Anti-Nude" photo activists. Do you shower and dress in total darkness? In over a year since I've looked at this site, I think there's been 1, maybe 2 photos that could have been considered more porno than art. And those I believe were quickly taken out. |
Caution, Will Robinson!
This thread could get seriously out of hand!
Matt, I agree with your assessment in regard to the nudity, and I also agree with Völundur that one man's art may just be another man's porn. My initial opinion was that we should be tolerant, and realize that just because an image may be shocking or even offensive to us, that is our personal opinon. Thus, I did not think the warning was worth the trouble.
However, since childern may be exposed to the site (heck, we even allow them to become members, which is wonderful!), I think that those who desire such a warning system are justified in the request.
Personally, I would rather take the opportunity to explain to my child WHY I feel an image is objectionable than to shelter them. Soon enough they will be exposed to it anyway; I may as well be proactive. And I have absolutely no objection to my childern seeing tasteful nudity; much the opposite. I do not want them thinking nudity = sex = porn.
In summation, I think I've seen maybe a half dozen photos that I personally would just rather not have seen, in over 7700 that I have voted on.
My 2¢
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:44:38 PM · #14 |
Alternative:
Lock your doors, turn out the lights, and disable all forms of communication. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:14:23 PM · #15 |
In reference to the nude shots...we are all born that way, we strip naked everyday and almost every child has seen a parent naked and alot even nuzzled a breast at one time.
I like the idea of having a NO NUDES button. This way these photos won't be punished just because some prude thinks a breast is pornographic. The human form has been done over and over many times as art and there is a good reason why. It is gorgeous! Is the statue David porn, because his penis is showing?
As for pills...I would almost bet that over 65% of the people out there are on drugs of some kind. Do you take your pills in front of your kids? Is that not saying that it is alright to "take medicine?" I work as an ER RN and understand the use of drugs and the over use of them also, but to say that a picture of a pill can be harmful or encouraging to a kid is a little out there in my opinion.
I have worked with many people that take drugs (illicit) and their parents did it too. Alot say they never knew until they were already taking drugs thmeselves, but a few more said it almost was a family thing to sit around a smoke a bowl, etc. So, if you ask me, if you properly teach your kid the rights and wrongs and impose some limits, a picture will not have anything to do with in illicit behavior.
Sheltering someone from something, and not explaining it instead, leads to stupidity and ignorance. We have enough of that in this world already.
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 18:17:02.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:18:41 PM · #16 |
Come on people, this is the internet! If DPC is too racey for you, you better go cancel your National Geographic subscription.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:27:34 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jerrft:
Come on people, this is the internet! If DPC is too racey for you, you better go cancel your National Geographic subscription. |
When I read NG I have a choice about which pages I view and which I don't. When cycling through the photos to vote one doesn't have that option.
Please note that those advocating a more pre-emptive flagging system are seeking to AVOID CENSORSHIP by allowing people to take individual responsibility for what they themselves see, rather than calling for restriction of what the rest of us can view. And note that it is not just about nudity--like myqyl, I'm much more concerned about my son seeing a depiction of violence than a partially unclad body. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:28:38 PM · #18 |
| Not banning, just options!!! |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:33:30 PM · #19 |
While I personally would like not to impose any limitation on the nudity on this site here is an example, of what I'd like to be able to post/see (WARNING EXPLICIT NUDITY); at the same time, I believe in CHOICE, if people want to choose to shelter themselves or their children from any kind of imagery, it's their right. Granted there is more than one way to do it, but I think a warning page chosen by the image poster is a reasonable approach. Or even, something as simple as putting a warning in the title; it will both let people avoid it, and attract those who are interested.
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 18:35:41.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:56:53 PM · #20 |
Dmitry, I see nothing wrong with that shot myself. As before, it is almost like David with his doodle hangin out. Big deal. It is artwork. It is not sexual, he doesn't have an erection, he isn't mounting someone or something, and it is barely even noticable (because of the shadowing, if that is you dimi LOL), until you really look.
By the way, news flash, every male has a penis (when the wife lets ya have it anyway) and all women have breasts and genitals also. I am not a nudist or anything like that and I don't "Rock out with my cock out" in public. I just think people need to get over a hang up like this if they are wanting to be photographers/artists, and be able to objectively judge something on its merits as art/photography. This is a digital photography site and photography is many things to many people, and art is one of them. Nudity is art:
Photography is art:
Therefore nude photography is art
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:45:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
However, since childern may be exposed to the site (heck, we even allow them to become members, which is wonderful!), I think that those who desire such a warning system are justified in the request.
Personally, I would rather take the opportunity to explain to my child WHY I feel an image is objectionable than to shelter them. Soon enough they will be exposed to it anyway; I may as well be proactive. And I have absolutely no objection to my childern seeing tasteful nudity; much the opposite. I do not want them thinking nudity = sex = porn.
In summation, I think I've seen maybe a half dozen photos that I personally would just rather not have seen, in over 7700 that I have voted on. |
I agree about this. That's what I was getting at I guess. Where is a photo on this site that wouldn't be suitable for a child? I didn't think the people that posted here regularly submitted their best attempt at porn. Maybe I'm a bit more open in my interpretation than some? Don't know. It just seems a bit frivolous, doesn't the site already have a "block nudity" option? I mean I think the site admins have tried to already accomodate those who do not wish to view it. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:58:22 PM · #22 |
What's suitable for a child to view should be left up to the parent. That said, I am IN FAVOR of a warning, preferably put all the nude stuff on one page. That way I can get to the GOOD STUFF FIRST!! 8-) Some nice 'life art' in the self portrait challenge. I applaud the photographers and their models!
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 19:59:22.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:11:35 PM · #23 |
I personally would like to see more nude males!
:| |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:12:37 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:20:32 PM · #25 |
[quote=kavamama]What's suitable for a child to view should be left up to the parent. [quote]
Bravo and that being said why can't we make it a little more kid friendly I know I'm not the only one with a child around and for me to have to vote at 1am is kind of sad but it is summertime and he is up later than during the school year, so I either just quickly select a number and get past the nudes and other things he doesn't need to see or I vote at 1am when I am half asleep and don't really look closely at the photos.
Just think how much higher I might vote on a nude photo if I didn't have to click on 5 and just move on cause he is in the room watching tv and I don't want him to see the photo or I am actually awake and voting cause I have the freedom to vote anytime of the day even when he is around cause I know the nudes and violence photos will be marked and I can reach them later when he isn't around.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/13/2024 06:53:17 AM EDT.
