Coho Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 There has been a lot of discussion lately (and forever) about nude issues. It seems a lot of the current rating criteria are designed to keep nudes at a (LOL) respectible level in the TRP but at a "cost" to other types of images. We have had the nude filter discussed. We have had discussions about certain body types predominating. We have had discussions about ponography and violence against women. So, why not just add a switch to the TRP: nude and sans nude. This would be an experiment. It is not meant to be censorship but a tool to please many viewers who feel nudes and not flowers, have all the fun. There would be no other changes. Only the views in the TRP default would be filtered or not. Just a compromising thought. And remember, I am naked underneath my clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 David, amoung all the other topics discussed about nudes, this one has too been discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Many of the nudes are actually only partially undressed or may be covered by props. Perhaps Photo.net needs a new nude checklist for photographers. The checklist would count the number of breasts, genitalia, and buttocks. If the score is too low, it goes to the Fashion category. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 That wouldn't work unless an admin enforces it and that would be time staking. Besides, there are people posting all kinds of non-nude photos just to get the attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coho Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 In the past (and as a joke) I have posted a few nude animal photos in the nude category. In each case, I got more ratings than in the nature category. Additionally, I got some descent criticism. You can only look at so many nude people before something else seems refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen_r1 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 As you state, the issue of nudity has been discussed ad nauseum. Perhaps it should be put to rest. My personal view is that anyone who comes onto this site should be emotionally mature enough and artistically sophisticated enough to recognize nude art for what it is. I am not suggesting that they are all masterpieces. Yes, many do receive ratings that are higher than they deserve and a few even border on pornographic. But there are good photos and bad photos. I don't think that, artistically speaking, the nude photos are any better or worse than any others on the site. On what basis is this suggestion made? Is it because they are "offensive"? Well people are offended by many things. Personally, I am repulsed by many of the insect photos (which also seem to be one the rise-or is that just my imagination?) I think they are ugly and grotesque but I am not crusading to have them removed or segregated. And by the way, many of the scantily clad images are more overtly sexual and distastful than most of the nudes. The issue is not how much skin is showing but how tastefully (and artistically) it is presented. My two cents... (ok, 72 cents) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingell Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 David, I love your approach to the nude issue. As soon as I get him to sign a release, my cat Rocky will be making his photographic debut. Anybody know if there's a "male nude" restriction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 It is a well-known and frequently remarked-upon fact that photos submitted in the Nudes category get a lot of ratings. It is also one of the higher-rated categories, although as a category the ratings are not as high as Landscapes, Macros, Insects, or Birds. It is the only category where the "Rate Category" feature is heavily used. And if you look at "Favorites" selections, there are members whose only "Favorites" are nudes, and no doubt the photos' status as favorites had as much or more to do with the attributes of the models as it did with the quality of the photographs. The site management's philosophy towards Nudes is that they are an artistic subject sanctioned by centuries of tradition, and a subject for photographic art for as long as photography has existed. The site does not permit images of nudes where pornography is the clear intent. But it is often difficult to divine intent, and an image does not have to have been created by the photographer as pornography in order to be approached in that way by a viewer. Thus, the site's policies don't prevent the Nudes category from being used as a free soft porn site by some visitors, and unfortunately, there isn't much we can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coho Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 Brian, I agree with everything you say. However, there are some users of the site who have issues with the perceived (and sometimes real)predominence of nude images. In many cultures, this is tabu. And as this is an international site, a nude filter might be a proactive way of compromise for those who have concerns. I know this is done on photosig.net. This filter simply provides choice and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louis1 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 You said "It (nudes) is also one of the higher-rated categories, although as a category the ratings are not as high as Landscapes, Macros, Insects, or Birds." I looked at the last month TRP by RATINGS and 94 out of the top 100 are nude type photographs. You appear to be in complete denial over how unbalanced the nude element is now in the site compared to when you took over. I have no desire to restrict the nudes (except those which are pornographic) but you exclude all rates from categories simply to keep nudes out of the default TRP. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We post to share our images yet you allow an environment where we cannot freely give friends (including children) links because we have no way of knowing what they will stumble on. It may not be perfect but if there was an option on the link we give to others which included a filter of the nude category I would be very much happier. Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coho Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 "although as a category (nudes) the ratings are not as high as Landscapes, Macros, Insects, or Birds." That statement alone tells me the appreciation of nude images on PN is lower than landscapes, macros, insects, or birds. And I deduce from that, the images are mediocre. Although many other deductions could be made from the statistics, why not find more common ground in a rating system that would remove some of the restraints that allow images other than nudes to achieve more prominence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now