| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2002 11:43:35 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
For those who are concerned about "underage" participants of this site.
How about parents of the above mentioned deciding whether they can participate or not.
As most people I know would not have a problem with any of the images on this site
to be shown to their children (with the appropriate supervision).
Bottom line, YOU as a parent guardian, etc., should be involved in making sure what your
children do and see, and not the administrators of this site, other sites, TV stations, radio, etc.
Dimitrii.
Most of the parents have been through this issue in a previous thread (2-3 months ago?) and pretty much feel this way already -- I know I do. I'd like to have the option to suppress display of the winning photos on the Home page (both for discretion and bandwidth), but otherwise have had no problem with any of the phots posted here. I'm much more concerned with images of violence than nudity...I think the site guidelines already this issue specifically, and I think they're working exactly as intended. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:01:40 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
[i]For those who are concerned about "underage" participants of this site.
How about parents of the above mentioned deciding whether they can participate or not.
As most people I know would not have a problem with any of the images on this site
to be shown to their children (with the appropriate supervision).
Bottom line, YOU as a parent guardian, etc., should be involved in making sure what your
children do and see, and not the administrators of this site, other sites, TV stations, radio, etc.
Dimitrii.
Most of the parents have been through this issue in a previous thread (2-3 months ago?) and pretty much feel this way already -- I know I do. I'd like to have the option to suppress display of the winning photos on the Home page (both for discretion and bandwidth), but otherwise have had no problem with any of the phots posted here. I'm much more concerned with images of violence than nudity...I think the site guidelines already this issue specifically, and I think they're working exactly as intended.[/i]
I agree with you completely, on the option of masking some of the images at the parent's request.
However I think in regards to the violent images (which I personally do not usually favor, especially when they are badly done), they should not be excluded, but have an ability of being masked; just like should be any other image an individual might find inapropriet to his/her personal tastes.
Dimitrii |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 01:48:36 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by timwatts:
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
[i]Is this a web site to teach kids photography or a place for photographers to be challenged in their creativity in the context of a contest?
--------------------
Both. It's a public place and you can't stop either group of people contributing.
This is not some club for accomplished photographers, it's a place where anyone at all can come to learn and have fun.
There are several 'under-age' people who contribute to this site and others who have their children's help when voting on the images. (BTW I am neither!)
Cheers,
Tim
[/i]
See, that's the problem. It can't possibly work this way. If it is indeed a place where people come to learn, can anyone then tell me what kind of learning it is to be placed next to a child who posts photos of his cat? What kind of learning is it to restrain creativity instead of
trying to educate people?
And now people are talking about masking photos of their choice- masking images they obviously had to see in the first place so they could decide wither they would mask it or not; which doesn't make much sense because all the photos are in thumbnails in the first place (except for the winning image) and once you've seen the enlargment, you don't have to view it anymore if you don't want to, which basically gives the same result as masking the photo.
Martin
aka. DrJOnes |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 01:52:11 PM · #29 |
I find it funny that if you think images of nude women in demeaning positions to be a bit objectionable you are labeled a prude or handicapped by religous conviction or it's "your problem".
I personally have no problem at all with the nudity presented here and don't find the women to be in demeaning positions. There is absolutely no porn here. Sexual tension in a photo is not porn. Further more, who's labeling who here?
Actually, I think if a photographer finds himself having to take these kinds of photos its a lot like the musicians I knew back in college who had to drive nails in their hands and eat glass to get their message across. Their musical talent should have been enough to encourage people to listen without all the circus tricks if they were any good.
Are you saying that there is good and bad motivation for one's inspiration in shooting photography?
It's not risque anymore in most photographers opinion around the world. It seems sorta cliche and an easy way out of more difficult nude photography to most photographic students and schools of thought.
Isn't it in the process of learning to do things that inspire you, even if it means walking in somebody else's footsteps? Everything has been photographed. Landscaped photographer have been doing it for ages and they are still doing it today. How many falls and rivers have been photographed? Is it a cliché ? What about portraits? What about shooting a face reflection in a knife- a shot we've seen before on horror movie posters? Is it an easy way out in a challenge? No more than the nudes that slowly appear. They are as challenging to execute well as any other subject matter.
No offense hokie. I love your photography by the way.
Martin
aka. DrJOnes
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:01:23 PM · #30 |
The masking I mentioned was for the perposes of perantal control nothing more.
Dimitrii |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:25:54 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
I personally have no problem at all with the nudity presented here and don't find the women to be in demeaning positions. There is absolutely no porn here. Sexual tension in a photo is not porn. Further more, who's labeling who here?
Are you saying that there is good and bad motivation for one's inspiration in shooting photography?
Isn't it in the process of learning to do things that inspire you, even if it means walking in somebody else's footsteps? Everything has been photographed. Landscaped photographer have been doing it for ages and they are still doing it today. How many falls and rivers have been photographed? Is it a cliché ? What about portraits? What about shooting a face reflection in a knife- a shot we've seen before on horror movie posters? Is it an easy way out in a challenge? No more than the nudes that slowly appear. They are as challenging to execute well as any other subject matter.
No offense hokie. I love your photography by the way.
Martin
aka. DrJOnes
My post was more of a devils advocate than strictly along lines of my own sensibilities.
My bottom line point is that people on either side of the issue of adult subject photography shouldn't claim the high ground..either in morality, creativity, etc..etc..
I do find some of the photos to be unusual in the sense that they are in a sexist style of image but people haven't taken up that argument yet..unusual for a site with so many women participating.
I would bet the same images with men in them instead of women wouldn't play as well :-D
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 03:52:56 PM · #32 |
Are you talking about 7272? The image with the woman in the cage? She looks happy to me :-)
(Can someone tell me if it's a self-portrait? :))
I'll bet if that's a photo of a non-photogenic woman (don't want to offend anyone), then it woudln't do as well.
Originally posted by hokie:
I find it funny that if you think images of nude women in demeaning positions to be a bit objectionable you are labeled a prude or handicapped by religous conviction or it's "your problem".
Actually, I think if a photographer finds himself having to take these kinds of photos its a lot like the musicians I knew back in college who had to drive nails in their hands and eat glass to get their message across. Their musical talent should have been enough to encourage people to listen without all the circus tricks if they were any good.
It's not risque anymore in most photographers opinion around the world. It seems sorta cliche and an easy way out of more difficult nude photography to most photographic students and schools of thought.
However, I sorta like the photo variety though and if the women posing in these photos liked it...more power to them I say :-)
But then again I laugh at Beavis and Butthead too >:-D
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 04:21:52 PM · #33 |
In fairness to all of the photographers in the challenge, please don't discuss specific images until voting is over.
Drew |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 04:28:24 PM · #34 |
What humors me most about this site is that if I take a stand and say, "I object to nudity in pictures because of reasons X, Y, and Z," I will immediately be labeled as prudish, ignorant of art, a religious fanatic, etc., and be accused of trying to censor someone's art or denying them their (for Americans) first Amendment right. Yet, if I take a stand as saying, "Please no more kids, cute cuddly things, etc." I will be applauded as some, and mildly chastised by others. I seriously doubt I would be called a censor.
And my point is? As has been said 1001 times in this very forum, people here are of different levels. People here are of different beliefs/colors/nationalities/height/weight/hair color/and shoe size. People here have different motivations and interests. Our pictures reflect these. To some, a nekkid pic is porn. That is an opinion. To some a picture of a baby is boring. That is also an opinion. I personally think that if you are going to complain about one subject matter, then those same complaints/arguments need to be applied to all subject matter.
Vote on the pictures, if you choose, and move on. If you don't like it, so be it.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 05:59:39 PM · #35 |
But would I be out of line if I humbly requested next week's challenge be the subject "Erotic"? I've been looking for a good excuse to take nudies of my girlfriend anyhow.
Now a rap.
Just a little sump'in for you guys to hear
Nekked pictures I have no fear
Some will be offended
But my rights are defended
To even take a pic of my hairy rear!
Thank you... thank you...
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 06:38:33 PM · #36 |
"Just because it can be done, they think it must be done."
--standard Service Bureau workers' description of graphic designers |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 11:52:40 PM · #37 |
hokie, I can't help you with your Beavis and Butthead issues, but I can say that I posed for two of these "nekked" photos and loved it! And the pictures that resulted were beautiful (at least to me and the photgrapher - my husband).
Amanda
shedonist
Originally posted by hokie:
However, I sorta like the photo variety though and if the women posing in these photos liked it...more power to them I say :-)
But then again I laugh at Beavis and Butthead too >:-D
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 12:29:51 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I do find some of the photos to be unusual in the sense that they are in a sexist style of image but people haven't taken up that argument yet..unusual for a site with so many women participating.
I would bet the same images with men in them instead of women wouldn't play as well :-D
I have a bit of trouble with some photos here. I don't look at them and think "sexist" though... the way I judge them is pretty much the same way I judge any photo featuring a person or people... if I feel a connection or some empathy or I appreciate the emotions being captured, I like it. In cases where I would never want to be in the position of the woman in the photo, it's hard for me to connect to it, and I react badly. Usually I comment on that.
As an example, that photo from last week with the seven women all in black leotards and tights posing on that staircase... people might think it was sexist, but I saw it and thought it seemed like so much fun :). I could imagine being on either side of the camera and having a great time. I guess that's not the way the photographer would have intended people to connect with his photo, but it's just the way it happened for me.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 12:38:05 AM · #39 |
Happily, we are getting some pics of nekid guys mixed in with the women, and some of them do well.
I'm just tired of ppl calling anything cliche. It's all photography. It's all been done. Taking a GOOD portrait with one light isn't really THAT easy. Taking a GOOD photo of a bridge and reflection isn't THAT easy. Taking a good photo of a spider for the fear challenge.... ok...that's a little cliche. My point is ... darn. I forgot it already. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 12:42:44 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Just because it [i]can be done, they think it must be done."
--standard Service Bureau workers' description of graphic designers[/i]
The General seems to have hit the point several times in this thread.
I'm sorry that my opinion is so much against the trend here. But I am rather ashamed that our winner this week is a cheap knock off of an old Playboy style cartoon. Nude photographs can be wonderfully creative without inciteing lust or any sinful thought what so ever. But this one was not creative or incitefull, heck, it isn't even a nude. I'd like to be able to block it out just so I don't have to see it every time I log on. It rather offends my olfactry cognition response. Every time I see it I get a whiff of dead fish. LOok, I love a good nude. Show me one! |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 12:49:00 AM · #41 |
Arguing whether a nude/semi-nude picture is "in good taste" or "art" or "porn" is a matter of individual interpretation. However, censorship is undeniably censorship and must be fought at every possible level.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 01:01:47 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Arguing whether a nude/semi-nude picture is "in good taste" or "art" or "porn" is a matter of individual interpretation. However, censorship is undeniably censorship and must be fought at every possible level.
Who is calling for censorship? I just want to be able to block the picture of my choice from being presented to my vision every time I log on!You think that you have the right to stand in the town square and shout anything that you want. OK, fine. But what about my rights not to be presented with offense. This is the problem with freedom of speach. There doesn't seem to be a freedom of hearing, or of viewing. I don't want to go around with my eyes shut or ears plugged, but I don't want to be sensually assulted by the same nasty visions over and over again. I am a big boy. I can handle anything I come across. You are not good enough to hurt me in this web site. But when freedom of speach and freedom of choice come to odds, I choose. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 01:04:32 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
I'd like to be able to block it out just so I don't have to see it every time I log on. It rather offends my olfactry cognition response. Every time I see it I get a whiff of dead fish. LOok, I love a good nude. Show me one!
As gross as this description is, I agree to some extent. I don't like that pantyhose look :/. In terms of my previous post, I don't connect to that photo well at all. I wouldn't want to be that woman, all dolled up in flesh toned pantyhose and conservative high heeled shoes. Maybe fishnet tights with stilletos, or knee-high platform boots :P. I'd get a cool Rocky Horror Picture Show feel from a photo like that :).
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 01:25:41 AM · #44 |
| Sorry for the graphic description of my reaction Lisae. But you did a wonderful job of summing up my basic reaction. Gross! That is the word. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 01:53:33 AM · #45 |
Even if it's the most wonderful thing you've seen since last week, you should have a choice about whether you see it 800 times this week...
Jak -- I myself am NOT asking for any censorship or rules changes!
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 1:51:35 AM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:49:00 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
Who is calling for censorship? I just want to be able to block the picture of my choice from being presented to my vision every time I log on!You think that you have the right to stand in the town square and shout anything that you want. OK, fine. But what about my rights not to be presented with offense. This is the problem with freedom of speach.
First of all, learn to spell. It's S-P-E-E-C-H, not speach, so do that before you SPEAK :) And if you think there is a problem with free speech, go live in another country. I am sure Iraq would love you there. After all, i don't think the truly devout and radical muslims like nudes either.
Secondly, if you don't like the photos, you can either vote a 1 and move on, or just don't vote. I'd rather be able to look at what people are presenting than to following some anal-retentive rule because it hurts your feelings. If i have to looking furry teddy bears each week, I think you can stand to look at some nudes.
I'll make you a deal: you stop bitching about nudes and i'll stop complaining about cute cuddly photos :) OK?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:07:36 AM · #47 |
Please tone it down -- neither spelling nor grammatic ability (in USA English) are membership criteria for DPC. Please address only the CONTENT of the member's message in the forums; you may evaluate form, style, and esthetics in the photographic submission area.
Why do you want to deny someone the right to express their opinion that "free speech" should be limited, and how can you do so without implementing their suggestion? |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:10:38 AM · #48 |
I am hiding Paganini's post because it directs abuse at a particular user. If it is wrong to hide it then please tell me, as I'm still new to the mod thing :)
Konador - I'm going to unhide that post, because GeneralE already posted a warning. Something like this is definitely worth a warning, but I think hiding posts should happen if they're ruder than that or if the person doesn't respect the warning and continues. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, I'm sorry :).
Lisa
(sorry, I meant lisae)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 3:29:11 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 3:31:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:25:29 AM · #49 |
IMHO, none of the entries in question are any more "questionable", "edgy", or "extreme" than exhibits that can be found in almost any Art Museum
you want nudes? look at the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel
that's my new guideline ... "if it's good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for DPC"
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:49:32 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
I am frowing upon this.
Um, why are you "frowing" dude. Does this make you blush?
.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 3:47:37 AM. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:21:54 PM EDT.
