| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2009 02:10:27 PM · #51 |
I figure if they have fun doing it, then it's ok. When you force them to sit through a shoot in which they have no interest, then you're exploiting the fact that you're the parent and they don't have an option. Oh wait, then they're exploited every time they have to make their bed or brush their teeth or contribute to the household work.
 even the dog got paid with ice cream for this shoot.
 jcar is my son and he's 10. He has a couple of self portraits on the site. He must be exploiting himself.
Message edited by author 2009-09-13 14:10:52. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 02:10:42 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by MAK:
I use em and pay em nothing, I keep a few locked away under the stairs incase a good challenge comes up where I can shoe-horn a few in |
I don't even lock them away...I throw them outside and let them brave the elements when I am finished with them....ya know, gotta teach them young how to be tough.....
 |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 02:12:59 PM · #53 |
so paid models aren't exploited in your opinion?
umm
i said earlier on - i'm not against the photos of kids, etc. just merely trying to see things from the the OP's perspective - at least i think i am.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Actually, when I use my child or my neighbor's child in a photo for DPC, they are paid models. Usually they're paid in ice cream or something. But they're paid. So unless paid models are exploited I see no difference. |
BTW - happy b-day :)
Message edited by author 2009-09-13 14:16:20.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2009 02:16:14 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by purifier:
I didn't have more space in the title and what I ment was that they shouldn't be used for photography achivements. I dislike when some of the photographers are using the innocence of a child to play with the emotions of the viever just to score high. What do you think? |
Trying to cut thorugh the noise and address the OP's original concern...
DPC is a contest and it's all in fun. The core community here is a small one, and many of us recognize each other's kids. No one's getting rich or famous on these photographs. And any subject that is tasefully presented, in my opinion, is fair game. Why not children? They're an intriguing part of most everyone's lives.
You're suggesting (and I recognize that you didn't actually use the word) exploitation. If I was keeping my own or some other child from somehow living a normal life because I kept him/her in photo shoots all day long, all so that I might become a DPC celebrity, then that would be wrong.
Michael Jackson was exploited. Little Riley Roflmao -- hardly. No children are suffering by having their pictures appear here. Likewise, no one's getting rich or famous by posting them here. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 02:19:03 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by njsabs2323:
Originally posted by MAK:
I use em and pay em nothing, I keep a few locked away under the stairs incase a good challenge comes up where I can shoe-horn a few in |
I don't even lock them away...I throw them outside and let them brave the elements when I am finished with them....ya know, gotta teach them young how to be tough.....
|
Oy, that kid has Rain. When I was a kid, my parents woke me up half an hour before I went to bed, and made me clean the street in front of our house with my tongue! A bit of rain would've been a blessing, it would. But it wasn't so bad as it sounds--the only real troubles I had were when they took my picture and showed to people. Now that's exploitation, it is!
[acknowledgments to Monty Python] |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 02:29:13 PM · #56 |
But seriously--a photograph of ANYTHING is intended/hoped to evoke some sort of response by a viewer. The OP may be particularly susceptible to manipulation by photos of children. I find that truly great photos of children are uncommon (and noted with surprise just how many great shots were in the recent free study).
Others are manipulated by any picture of a pet. Again, most of them don't get to me, but a few do.
I think the reason most of us take photographs is for an emotional connection of some kind--and when another person feels an emotional connection, we feel even better--a success! And most of us inherently seek our own emotional reaction when viewing photographs, and when voting on them.
So OF COURSE an emotional reaction is intended and involved, from the start of the image capture to the viewing of it by others. No matter the subject.
So the OP feels unfairly manipulated by photos of children. But to suggest that subject matter that moves viewers emotionally is somehow unfair and so should not be done at all is utterly and completely missing the point of the thing itself.
Some people want to cover the world with leather to protect their feet. It is much simpler to wear shoes. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 03:37:16 PM · #57 |
People tend to take photographs of their surroundings. If you live on the ocean, you take photographs of the beach. If you live in the city, you tend towards gritty urban reality. If you are a parent, you tend to photograph your children.
About half the cameras in the world are bought by new parents to photograph their children. I'm sure it shocks the senses of a twenty one year old that most photos taken by parents are of their children but this is so. Doing so is no more exploitive than you taking images of your young friends looking young and angst filled. To us such scenes seem alien and artificial because it is not the warp and weft of our lives.
When you have children you will see that true exploitation requires you to betray their trust, not just using their image. There are a lot of emotional images of children, because the child is striking a pose, he is collaborating in making an image. If my daughter were truly sad, taking a photograph of her would be a violation of trust, posing looking sad may look the same to you , but is a very different experience for her.
The suggestion of banning a type of image because it could be exploitive is a dangerous path, surely images that reveal too much skin are as dangerous to the models, and images that make the elderly look wrinkled are bad for them, eventually we would ban all images of all humans to keep away from potential exploitation. Of course then we would have to turn to our pets, or better phrased, our "animal companions" what gives us the right to exploit them in our images? I think the only real way to be safe is to ban all photography of any living thing, because otherwise something might be exploited by someone.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2009 04:56:43 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by purifier:
but waving with those photos infront of the whole world is something different. I don't know, my point of view is that family is a sacret thing and I for sure would not post that kind of photos in some near/distant future of my life. |
These statements above are what I object to....
What exactly do you mean by this, and would you PLEASE give a valid example of your point?
I have NEVER objectified, or used a child, for any kind of ulterior motive whatsoever.
I find the idea abhorrent, and am quite frankly, not too clear on where you draw your line.
You certainly do not have much life experience at age 21, which doesn't necessarily make you ignorant, but I feel safe in saying that your perspective differs greatly with those of us who have been parents and/or have worked with children for many years.
By your perspective put forth, I have to wonder about this image....
Were you not using these kids, obviously set up in a specific manner, to evoke feelings and achieve a good score?
Isn't this exactly what you're talking about????
They're kids! Maybe not by your definition, but I'd bet I was in my 30s when they were toddlers, so they're certainly kids to me.
You say you're not trying to create an issue, then make statements like the ones above, you definitely leave out much in the way of understanding.
Perhaps if you'd start again, and try to explain what you mean it would help.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2009 04:59:27 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Psssst! Max is from the Republic of Macedonia. ;) |
Wasn't the Childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang from Macedonia? |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 05:16:56 PM · #60 |
 purifier, it would be interesting to see some examples of what you consider the exploitation of children. Some images had to get you thinking this way so it would be nice to see them. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 05:52:52 PM · #61 |
Thanks for posting, I hadn't seen a few of them, now I have a few more photos added to my favs list. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 06:07:18 PM · #62 |
I'm guilty of using kids as well.
                     |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 06:16:49 PM · #63 |
I had to look up the Republic of Macedonia. I was thinking of ancient history, I have no new knowledge of it.
So, I'm thinking maybe the OP has no way of knowing to what extent everything that can be exploited is exploited in the USA. Nothing is sacred here, or safe from the advertising industry. Everything is for sale, in one way or another.
Has the OP seen the Microsoft ads that use little kids--"I'm 7 and I'm a PC." I wonder what the OP thinks of that?
In other cultures, the family is very private, & photography of all people is forbidden. Period. Some people believe that the camera is taking a piece of their soul along with the picture.
So maybe the OP is asking how can we exploit children by showing their picture in public, & maybe the answer is we define exploitation is another, more complex way.
No intent to infuriate or ilsult anyone, here. [eta] I'm all for keeping them in a closet under the stairs.
Message edited by author 2009-09-13 18:22:50. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 06:20:13 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by purifier:
Finaly some people appeared in this thread that have objectiveness and rationality...and also not being rude. You've hit the spot kandykarlm. Did you ever noticed that in many contests (considering the task in the contest) where a photo of a kid is the last thing that will cross on your mind to post, but still there they are 3-4 or maybe more photos with kids only connected to the specific task with the title of the photo. For example for the forthcoming contest "9" I take a picture of a kid (without a birthday cake) and wrote in the title "I'm 9 years old now". The example is lame I know but I won't point out any specific photos that I have seen in many many contests |
Many people here i think try to shoot for the challenges and try to meet the topic as literally and exactly as possible. but i've seen many others who like to shoot specific subjects either because they do it for a living or are very interested in developing their skills in a certain niche. they try to keep within their niche and still try to connect it to the challenge theme. they may sacrifice points for shoehorning but they are participating and shooting what they like. That's why regardless of the challenge theme you'll keep getting pictures of sunsets, flowers, water drops, faces, insects, children etc, in every challenge. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 06:22:09 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I had to look up the Republic of Macedonia. I was thinking of ancient history, I have no new knowledge of it.
So, I'm thinking maybe the OP has no way of knowing to what extent everything that can be exploited is exploited in the USA. Nothing is sacred here, or safe from the advertising industry. Everything is for sale, in one way or another.
Has the OP seen the Microsoft ads that use little kids--"I'm 7 and I'm a PC." I wonder what the OP thinks of that?
In other cultures, the family is very private, & photography of all people is forbidden. Period. Some people believe that the camera is taking a piece of their soul along with the picture.
So maybe the OP is asking how can we exploit children by showing their picture in public, & maybe the answer is we define exploitation is another, more complex way. |
that's very deep, but if you read the very first post, you'll see what he doesn't like.. it's not as complicated as we've all made it out to be... he left a good example also I believe somewhere here on page 2 specifically stating what he doesn't like.. It's basically using kids as shoe horns into challenges just to get a higher score based on the fact that the voter will see a cute kid and then automatically score it higher regardless of the fact that the image has nothing to do with the challenge at hand..
No intent to infuriate or ilsult anyone, here.
Message edited by author 2009-09-13 18:22:42. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 06:25:02 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I had to look up the Republic of Macedonia. I was thinking of ancient history, I have no new knowledge of it.
So, I'm thinking maybe the OP has no way of knowing to what extent everything that can be exploited is exploited in the USA. Nothing is sacred here, or safe from the advertising industry. Everything is for sale, in one way or another.
Has the OP seen the Microsoft ads that use little kids--"I'm 7 and I'm a PC." I wonder what the OP thinks of that?
In other cultures, the family is very private, & photography of all people is forbidden. Period. Some people believe that the camera is taking a piece of their soul along with the picture.
So maybe the OP is asking how can we exploit children by showing their picture in public, & maybe the answer is we define exploitation is another, more complex way. |
that's very deep, but if you read the very first post, you'll see what he doesn't like.. it's not as complicated as we've all made it out to be... he left a good example also I believe somewhere here on page 2 specifically stating what he doesn't like.. It's basically using kids as shoe horns into challenges just to get a higher score based on the fact that the voter will see a cute kid and then automatically score it higher regardless of the fact that the image has nothing to do with the challenge at hand..
No intent to infuriate or ilsult anyone, here. |
hahaha
Well don't we all know that shoe horning a kid into a challenge does NOT result in a higher score? And how would you know for sure. You can shoe horn something else into the next challenge, but that doesn't prove anything. Usually, you get a higher score on a better picture.
Message edited by author 2009-09-13 18:26:53. |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 08:34:58 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
that's very deep, but if you read the very first post, you'll see what he doesn't like.. it's not as complicated as we've all made it out to be... he left a good example also I believe somewhere here on page 2 specifically stating what he doesn't like.. It's basically using kids as shoe horns into challenges just to get a higher score based on the fact that the voter will see a cute kid and then automatically score it higher regardless of the fact that the image has nothing to do with the challenge at hand. |
Originally posted by purifier:
I dislike when some of the photographers are using the innocence of a child to play with the emotions of the viever just to score high. What do you think? |
That's the first post. It'd be nice if he'd explain exactly what he means by this statement.
It's not cool.
I don't see how that works because I don't think like that.
I pretty much was appalled at the concept.
Then, he went on to say.....
Originally posted by purifier:
Ok...here's a situation take a shot of a child and than an adult with the worthless camera in the world and from not so artistic angle of shooting and no post processing...I bet that 9 out of 10 people will like more the shot with the kid, and why? Oh well all of you are right...the kid drives more emotions in you, and you forget about the questions: does this photo look artistic, does this photo is well edited, does this photo is shot from the perfect angle?...and because of your emotions you give a highter score that it should have. If photography is all about driving your emotions of compassion lets flood DPC with shots of pain, hunger, suffering...then everybody would be happy. |
I'm sorry, but this isn't the most charitable of perspectives, and I'd personally like to have the young man come forth, sort out, and explain where he's coming from, because it's just not a very nice picture he's painting.
Honestly, I can't say as I've ever even remotely gotten that feeling from any picture of a kid I've seen since I've been here, and I know I'm pretty damn active.
Later on in that same post, he flips out this jewel, which was the point at which I'd had enough.
Originally posted by purifier:
oh well lets just USE THEM for better good
In France commercials involving children are banned.
Do you see where am I aiming at? I'm just suggesting that people should stop using something pure for their egoistic purposes. |
And of course, since I didn't particularly care to be called out as a manipulative, egoistic person who cares only for a score, I called him on the carpet and was promptly hit with this.
Originally posted by purifier:
I'm trying to have disscution here and I'm not falling on some cheap strategies like "the best deffence is the offence" making me look like I'm sort of bad guy. |
The only person making the OP look like a bad guy is himself.
I noticed that he didn't respond to my query about his motives with the shots of the kids I'm assuming were his friends, and he hasn't answered anyone's request for the situation and/or images that provoked this calling out of people who "use" kids.
It's not like this guy is a stone n00b.....he's been around since August of '07 and entered 15 challenges and done some voting and commenting.
So.....what's up now that he's decided that there's an issue?
|
|
|
|
09/13/2009 08:45:31 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by purifier:
I didn't have more space in the title and what I ment was that they shouldn't be used for photography achivements. I dislike when some of the photographers are using the innocence of a child to play with the emotions of the viever just to score high. What do you think? |
 |
|
|
|
09/13/2009 09:17:38 PM · #69 |
Women should not be used in photography (too)
it is unfair to make voters vote on their beauty instead of the photographic qualities - hehe
|
|
|
|
09/13/2009 09:28:07 PM · #70 |
I'm going to go with - 'this guy is young'.
Let's face it, until you're a parent you have NO IDEA how much your children will feature in your life.
I remember my best friend and I PROMISING each other that when we had kids we'd never be 'those sorts of parents' that can't have a conversation without the children coming up - I mean 'What's up with those people!'
... until I BECAME on of those people - and then I was as stuck by the wonder of children (mine in particular) and have never recovered - GRIN!
For the longest time I wouldn't put images of my kids on the net - until I came here, and I found a creative way to 'use' my children.
Additionally - my family are so pleased with my participation here (happy Mama, happy family), that when I do enter challenges they are often right alongside me as I 'create' or search for an image.
We say 'DPC weekly challenges are a sport the whole family can play'
It's not like we ever put them in any 'real' danger 
eg: this one was so much fun, we were rolling around laughing at ourselves!
So I'm going to cut the OP some slack and guess that so far he has yet to become a parent, so he's just 'guessing' who he'll be when he has children - if he stays around long enough I'm sure he'll be as smitten as we all are with our gorgeous children.
PS - not one of mine, but I do think this guy went WAY to far (GRIN), breaking his kids leg for this all time favourite of mine 
Message edited by author 2009-09-13 21:29:35. |
|
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: 03/11/2025 02:10:52 PM EDT.
