| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2002 06:27:22 PM · #126 |
Good point. I think that the new sight will have it all fixed from what it sounds like, so I will get out of this discussion. Have a great day all.
:) No hard feelings.
Sonja
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
How should we deal with it when a user submits a pic to PG-13 that some users feel should be R?
-Terry
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 06:30:28 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
[i]I'm new on this but in just 2 weeks I've seen more that belongs or a porn web site that I care too. My grandchildren, ages 15 to 2 like to look at this and I have to run them out of the room. I also understand young people submit pictures. I'm no prude but I don't care for these on a family web-site
I stand strongly behind these images as art, and we consider each entry on a case-by-case basis. The new version of our site will allow you to block images marked as belonging to nude galleries.
Drew[/i]
I will elaborate on that and say that you will be able to block them from your own computer screen, not block them from being on the site. I think earlier there was a confusion on that, so I just thought I'd expand on it a bit. :)
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 06:31:00 PM · #128 |
THat's ok, I feel for ya, you're living in an oppressive regime :) just kidding. I mention the US constitution because this site is located in US as well.
I think as far as photography goes, as long as it doesn't violate any local laws the website is located on and doens't violate any laws that you're coming from (Internet is a bit weird, there are two sets of laws governing a website, the viewer + the website location), then it's fine for me.
Still i havent' seen anything that i'd classify as "pornography" on here yet. And my personal taste on nudes are that the less it shows, the better the photographer has the chance of doing well because for me at least, it gets my imagination going when i see a nude that is covered up. Surely if it shows actual penetration or genitalia manipulation to stimulate in a sexual fashion, then that's porn and Drew and the owner of the site will have to decide to do what they want on those images. But I don't think we should ban those photos that have nudes that show breasts, for example. (Or a male's ass as the current challenge shows)
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Being a Libertarian (no it's NOT the same as a liberal), I am never offended by the photos, but always offended by people who post on forums about what needs censorship and what doesn't.
I am glad that Paganini and I agree with this. There should be no banning of anything, right?
Oh, and by the way, the US Constitution doesn't apply where I am, nor where many other members live. The U.S. Constitution, therefore, is of no value in this discussion.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 06:31:47 PM · #129 |
| I just have one more question. Why is it that most rant and rave about the children shots, but when it comes to nudety it "lets have it, the more the better"? |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 06:39:29 PM · #130 |
Probably because people have seen a ton of children photos. It doesn't mean a child's portrait is bad, or portraits in general if it's done right. But most from what i have seen reminds me of some snapshots of children i have seen again and again. And nudes are just rarer on here.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I just have one more question. Why is it that most rant and rave about the children shots, but when it comes to nudety it "lets have it, the more the better"?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 07:21:55 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I just have one more question. Why is it that most rant and rave about the children shots, but when it comes to nudety it "lets have it, the more the better"?
I don't think anyone has expressed a "the more the better" opinion about nudity here. If I was out to see how many naked pictures I could get my hands on, there are plenty of other sites out there where I could accomplish that quite efficiently. There are, indeed, a certain number of photos that are probably nudes just for the sake of being nudes, just as there are kid photos for the sake of kid photos, and teddy bears for the sake of teddy bears. A shot of any subject can be poorly executed, but that alone is not reason to ban that subject -- it's something for the voters to sort out throughout the week. I personally would like to see less nudity, but not none.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 07:26:42 PM · #132 |
Thank you kindly :) Good luck all!
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by myqyl:
[i]Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]let's not rehash what is nudity/art/pornography again... I think this thread has about lived its useful life...
I agree with you John, but I have last question. Earlier in the thread you said you were on 2 other sights without nudity. Could you share the URLs? Then everyone can be somewhere they are happy :)[/i]
Photo Critique Forum
DigitalPhotoContest.com
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 07:55:30 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
[i]I like this idea! When I go rent a movie I look at the ratings. This would satify all of us.
Originally posted by m_square:
[i]How about a system like the movies have. PG 13 & R. when you submit a photo there would be an option to select a PG 13 or R. You would be required when submitting a photo of nekked people to select one.
In your setup page you have the option to select view all, view all except PG13 & R rated, view all except R rated (x would not be an option??).
This Idea would help me you see my son just entered the contest (he is 11).
It could be a problem down the road.
[/i]
How should we deal with it when a user submits a pic to PG-13 that some users feel should be R?
-Terry
[/i]
That is simple you detail what is PG 13 and R.
Why not say from the waist up it will be called PG 13.
From the waist down and including whole body it will be called âRâ
I think it would be best to keep is simple and not make difference between male and female.
Now if the up loader dose not apply the proper rating the site would give a warning. And it would be adjusted.
On the second time ... You get the picture.
This would be just a few lines to of code to add on the down load page and the preference page.
Note: we do not have to call it PG 13 or R we can call it ânude topâ and ânude top and bottomâ or âTâ for top and âT&Bâ for top and bottom
Finding the correct words would be harder. I donât want to see them go away. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:07:08 PM · #134 |
I encourage the nude photography. Maybe as the photographers get more experienced with nudes they will start to really produce some provacative work like
Imogen Cunningham's Two Sisters
orRobert Mapplethorpe's Derrick Cross
But.......
Other folks who don't like these images aren't always prudes or need to be educated or enlightened either. I applaud their willingness to stand up for what they think in a time of political correctiness where many folks feel nervous about drawing lines and appearing judgmental or conservative. :-) |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:14:51 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You may be correct or not in your interpretation of pornography - but it doesn't say this is 'family site' anywhere. As always, you have to exercise your judgement in what you think younger family members should have access to on the 'net. This is not a family web site. It is a photography web site.
i beg to differ...a site that allows participation of children in submitting and voting on photos submitted instantly becomes a 'family site'.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 8:13:45 PM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:20:09 PM · #136 |
By the Way....
To show you that nude photography can work to inspire NON-Nude photography...my entry this week is based in part on the Robert Mapplethorpe's Derrick Cross Photo
Now...try to figure out which photo is mine...this might be fun >:-D |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:28:28 PM · #137 |
| Now that you have given your photo away,Hokie, I need to know where you got that neat stuffed flamingo.:-) |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:36:41 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Digipixer:
Now that you have given your photo away,Hokie, I need to know where you got that neat stuffed flamingo.:-)
LOL!!! :-D
He was specially imported from "Fetishes 'R Us" |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:41:44 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by lmhr:
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
[i]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.
rapsiii,
I shot the photograph your refering to and although I agree one should have the right to comment or discuss whater topic we feel, I find very offensive the way you describe my photo. I undestand that is what it feels to YOU, but I think we all deserve a bit of respect.
respectfully,
LM
Very interesting. I am sorry you take my remarks about your PICTURE as a personal attack. You may be a wonderful person and I don't recall making any remarks suggesting otherwise.Nor do I recall makeing any disrespectful comments about YOU. But as far as your winning photo goes; I am amazed that you would submitt what is little more than a vailed crotch shot and not expect some rather strong reactions to the image. Personaly, I love a good nude, even well done XXX porn shot can be tremendously entertaining. I just don't like YOUR photo. It is not a particularly creative answer to to challenge, it doesn't satisfy my concept of art or even good photography.I don't even find it interesting. It isn't pornography. And it isn't any good. IMHO it is highly over rated and I am dissappointed that our voters gave it a winning position. To sum it up,I think the photo stinks. That is not a personal attack on you. I can't help it if you choose to take it that way.
PS:
Site Etiquette
Constructive criticism and competition are more than welcome on the site. Blatant instances of slander, profanity, vulgarity, or other personal attacks anywhere on the site will not be tolerated. This is a website for people of all ages and skill levels to have fun and improve their photography. All we ask is that you treat others with the respect they deserve. don't t[/i]
As to your inclusion of the site rules, you have accused me of a personal attack. Am I also guilty of slander, profanity, and vulgarity?
Considering my true intent, these accusations are truely an offence!
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 08:47:22 PM · #140 |
| As an accused pornographer I would welcome the option to rate my photos for an appropriate audience. I have no desire to subject images of mine on people who would find them offensive or have no desire to view them. That's not why I took them. I photograph what I find beautiful I don't expect everyone to share my views. Besides, if those people stop looking at my photographs my score will probably go up. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 09:13:28 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by lecook:
Originally posted by Gordon:
[i]You may be correct or not in your interpretation of pornography - but it doesn't say this is 'family site' anywhere. As always, you have to exercise your judgement in what you think younger family members should have access to on the 'net. This is not a family web site. It is a photography web site.
i beg to differ...a site that allows participation of children in submitting and voting on photos submitted instantly becomes a 'family site'[/i]
You have the perfect right to beg to differ, but you would still be incorrect. This is not and has not ever presented itself as a 'family' site. The people who asked if their children could submit were told
pretty much exactly what I expressed above. It is not kid-friendly.
It is not designed to be kid-friendly. There are no claims made that
it is kid-friendly. If people decide that they understand that and
sensibly decide to allow their children to use this site under supervision, I have no problem with that.
However - that explicitly _does_not_ mean that the site is or will become kid-friendly.
From the rules on subject matter, which have not changed as long as I've
been here:
Subject Matter
Submissions may not promote hatred towards any group of people or single person. Blatantly offensive and lewd photographs will not be tolerated. Nudity is allowed, but pornography is not. Use your good judgement here -- if it's going to get us kicked off our host, it will be disqualified. Quoting a wise professor, "I don't know what IT is, but I know IT when I see IT."
Nothing at all about being kid-friendly. You may have been under the
misguided opinion that it was supposed to be. I am sorry for any confusion that has been caused.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 9:20:30 PM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 09:15:11 PM · #142 |
There's a potential problem though with making viewing/voting on a picture a voter's option. Those who don't want to see nudes, will skip voting. The voters who love nudes definitely will look at and may give it an extra high vote just because it's a nude. So, the nudes may end up with relatively few votes and high scores and WIN. Then, the non-voters will still be looking at it for a whole week on their home page :)
In other words, by allowing the choice to not view/vote on a nude, you give the nude picture an unfair advantage. There are other pictures that may not have much appeal to you but you are forced to vote on it before you can move on to the next picture. And because it has no appeal to you (it may still be a great picture though), you give it a low vote.
Therefore, if you hate nude pictures, you definitely ought to look at them and vote them low, even if the choice were given to you to skip seeing them. If you don't, you do an injustice to the non-nude pictures.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 09:17:14 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by hedonist:
As an accused pornographer I would welcome the option to rate my photos for an appropriate audience. I have no desire to subject images of mine on people who would find them offensive or have no desire to view them. That's not why I took them. I photograph what I find beautiful I don't expect everyone to share my views. Besides, if those people stop looking at my photographs my score will probably go up.
I don't really believe that people are seriously accusing you of being
a pornographer. However, if you are submitting photographs with an
adult 'content or theme' I don't think it is too terrible to ask that
you'd indicate as such.
Then people could self-censor or restrict or narrow their experiences as
much as they like and everyone else could also view your pictures if they wanted to and I believe nobody would have a valid cause for complaint.
Except of course when a naked picture wins picture of the week - how do
we partition it then !
You are probably right that given the choice to not view your entry or
complain about your entry, that your score would rise if the people who
would feel morally offended did not see it.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 09:51:50 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Why is there a need for a checkbox for guns and bullets? A gun is an object, same goes for bullets. It takes a human to put it to bad use, it's a tool. I think if we're going to do a check box for it, we need to do it for:
- knife, it can kill too
- baseball bat, it can kill too
- fist, it can kill too
- foott, it can kill too
- car, it can kill too
- hammer, it can kill too
These items CAN be used to kill, but their primary and intended function is generally constructive (to humans).
A gun's INTENDED use is to kill. Or to pactice at becoming more proficient and economical at killing -- bullets are expensive, you know.
I don't find a hammer offensive, UNLESS you depict it smashing someone's hand. An image of a gun I generally find offensive unless it is depicted in a context opposing its use. I can appreciate the art and engineering which go into small arms, without "liking" them, and would probably be more appreciative if you showed a stack of guns being smashed by a big hammer.
Please don't criticize folks over what they are or are not offended by. Feel free to express what you, yourself, are or are not offended by. I only worry about someone who correctly claims to not be offended by anything... |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 09:54:41 PM · #145 |
Then that means if you do not like flowers then you can't vote on them and the same with people who don't like photos of kids. :) I can deal with that.
Originally posted by hedonist:
As an accused pornographer I would welcome the option to rate my photos for an appropriate audience. I have no desire to subject images of mine on people who would find them offensive or have no desire to view them. That's not why I took them. I photograph what I find beautiful I don't expect everyone to share my views. Besides, if those people stop looking at my photographs my score will probably go up.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:13:31 PM · #146 |
| On my home page is a button to vote on the opinion poll. I have three options this week. The button stays "clicked" unless I change my mind and unclick it, or click on another. A similar button on the winning photo-to show or not to show-would solve the problem that this weeks winner has presented. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:28:23 PM · #147 |
Nudity is one thing, but when two people are involved, it becomes a little more complex. I mean, the man's face is just a couple of inches from her genitals...the message is quite clear. I'm not a prude but some things are private, and shouldn't be readily accessible to youngsters. Keeping such images separate from the rest may work, as someone mentioned. The picture is not PERSONALLY offensive to me, but it wasn't depicting LOVE, or it wouldn't have been in that challenge. It is portraying sin, as described in the challenge. Is that the message to send? That a relationship between a man and woman is sinful? Depends on the context huh?
I feel that some line needs to be drawn. Exactly where that line needs to be, I'm not sure. I don't claim to have the solution here, just putting in my 2 or 3 cents. ;-0
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:30:34 PM · #148 |
I hadn't read this entire thread when i posted above. If the new site indeed allows special treatment for nudes, why not other categories:
meat images offend vegetarians (in an old archive here i read the stir created by an image of a dead cow)
religious imagery offends atheists
gun imagery offends the gun-control lobby
etc
etc
It's really ironic: since the proposed changes will favor nude pictures in the voting distribution, the trend will be towards more and more nude pictures appearing (since the nude pictures will get fewer votes and also far fewer 1-3s). |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:32:28 PM · #149 |
P.S. I was at this site when 2 of my grandkids were looking on with me. They like this site, and we enjoy discussing pics together. How do you discuss a man's head between a woman's legs to a 10 year old? My 15 year old probably needs no explanation but it was sort of an embarrassment between us.
No offense to the photographer meant, but it's not the kind of stuff to browse with your family....lol
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:35:34 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Journey:
I hadn't read this entire thread when i posted above. If the new site indeed allows special treatment for nudes, why not other categories:
meat images offend vegetarians (in an old archive here i read the stir created by an image of a dead cow)
religious imagery offends atheists
gun imagery offends the gun-control lobby
etc
etc
It's really ironic: since the proposed changes will favor nude pictures in the voting distribution, the trend will be towards more and more nude pictures appearing (since the nude pictures will get fewer votes and also far fewer 1-3s).
Well, the most important reason is that none of these other categories are likely to cost someone their job if viewed at work.
-Terry
|
|
