Ability to hide nude photos coming later today

As we mentioned before, we sent around a member survey. You can see the results <a href="/photography-news-forum/00c8fG">HERE</a> in this thread.

 

One very legitimate and fair request from you (via the survey and communication prior) was the lack of control you have regarding nude photos. Many of you love them but many of you also want to be able to hide them for various reasons such as being at work, having children or grandchildren use your computer, or simply because nude photography isn't your thing. You are absolutely right. It should be your choice if you want to view nudes or not. To address this, you--later today--will have the ability in your workspace to "put a curtain" over the nude photo if you wish. If you want to view nudes as you always have, simply disable the curtain in your workspace as the pop up will ask you to do.

<br /><br />

 

This "curtain" will first be active in the galleries. Our next step will be to implement this in other areas of the site, such as your workspace.

 

<br /><br />

The first time you click into a nude photograph, a pop-up will let you know that you can disable this feature in your workspace if you wish.

<br /><br />

 

Note – this will not work if your cookies are disabled or if javascript is disabled. If something isn't working right for you, please email us at contact@photo.net. <br /><br />

<p>I presume this assumes that the nudes have been properly categorized. I'm guessing that there's always the <strong><em>chance</em></strong><em> </em>that an improperly categorized nude image may show up. I don't think image recognition technology is yet at the point where we can identify nudes automatically.</p>

<p>Improperly categorized nudes would, of course, be correctly categorized if brought to the attention of the site.</p>

<p>Bob - really good point. There are many images not tagged with a "nude" tag. We try to catch as many as we can in the daily uploads, but there are likely older images not tagged "nude." We encourage everyone to tag public nude photos with the word "nude" out of respect for your fellow man. Also, just reiterating that the workspace is not yet done -- just the gallery at this time. </p>

<p>Does this mean that we can now post nudes to forums, contests, No Words, and that a nude might be chosen for POTW? Up until now no nudes have been allowed in these sections. Now that people who don't want to see them can avoid them, it would be nice for those of us who are open to seeing nudes to be able to see them wherever and whenever on the site we want to. As they are a significant aspect of the photographic repertoire, enabling them to be seen in all parts of the site would be welcome given the new user capabilities to avoid them.</p>

<p>Will there be forthcoming a curtain for over-saturated landscapes? My boss is extremely offended by them. [Just kidding] :-)</p>

<p>I shouldn't think that those areas will open up for the posting of nudes. I doubt the site wants blank features in those areas for those with sensitivities about such matters.</p>

<p>I would also suggest that when someone requests a rating or a critique for an image that they classify as a nude, that a pop-up appear reminding them that model must be 18 years of age or older. I assume this is the PN policy.</p>

<p><em>"I doubt the site wants blank features in those areas for those with sensitivities about such matters."</em></p>

<p>Maybe I don't understand you, Bob. I thought blank features is exactly what the folks who turn on the filter are going to get. I thought that was the whole point. I assume if they came across a forum that had a few curtains, they'd understand there was a nude there and move on, happy they didn't have to look at it or risk their boss seeing it. Why would they mind it? There's plenty of stuff on the site I ignore. I don't mind its being there.</p>

<p>It would make the site look ugly for them. In my opinion we're better off sticking to what we have. But like I say, I don't make those decisions though I'm pretty sure I know what those who do make the decisions are likely to decide!</p>

<p>To read photo.net you must be 18 (see the Terms of Use). Images posted must be (a) legal ("You may not post or transmit any false, defamatory, abusive, threatening or illegal User Content", (b) acceptable to photo.net ("We have the right to determine, in our sole discretion, whether User Content violates these restrictions or is otherwise unfit for the Site") and © not "obscene, pornographic, degrading, harassing or humiliating". In my opinion that would mean that all nude models should be 18 or older. Though <em>this is not to place to discuss it</em>, technically nudes <em>can</em> legally be published even if the model is under 18 (see the work of Sally Mann for example - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann</a>), though I'm guessing that such images would not be approved by photo.net.</p>

<p>"It would make the site look ugly for them. In my opinion we're better off sticking to what we have."</p>

<p>I think Bob is right about this. The "curtains", white thumbs with text, are ugly and distracting. It's kind of like walking through a gallery and seeing "No Parking" signs interspersed among the artwork. Could you at least come up with something a little less obtrusive?</p>

<p>Also: Yesterday, I went to my workspace and disable the nude cover option. This morning, when I logged on and went to browse the gallery, the curtains were back. I went to my workspace and found that the cover option was still marked as disabled. I had to toggle the option on/off to get it to disable again.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I'm wondering why the existing "All - No Nudes" option in gallery selection isn't used? It stays in effect as long as you're logged on, simply eliminates nude shots altogether (no curtains), and it's simple to activate with fewer steps involved. If you really want to have a permanent workspace option for disabling nude shots, why not just use it to make the "All - No Nudes" option the default setting? In other words, as we say here in Redneck Solution Land, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.</p>

<p>William - as Cara mentioned in OP, this came as a result of feedback we received in our user survey. If you haven't seen yet, please refer to the <a href="/info/2013_survey_summary.pdf">user survey</a> we released last week. It is easy enough to disable or enable and provides the element of choice on the subject, which we did not have before. </p>

<p>Glenn, I have read the user survey, and it's not the desire or need for controlling access to nude photos that I have a problem with, but the way it's being implemented...</p>

<p>Understood. We'll look into making that choice more permanent so you do not need to disable each time you log in (if you wish to view nudes) and for those that want it enabled making the curtain look a little more appealing. </p>

<p>Maybe something like this?</p><div></div>

<p>Works for me, Bob...</p>

<p>The amputations filter is off.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would also suggest that when someone requests a rating or a critique for an image that they classify as a nude, that a pop-up appear reminding them that model must be 18 years of age or older.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Would that include nude baby photographs...you know, those shots of newborn baby boys being held in their father's hands and their little penises showing? Or baby girls getting their first bath with their practically invisible vaginas in view? Or nude nursing infant shots where both the mother and baby are nude?</p>

<p>In all seriousness, if someone's shooting underage nudes (Jock Sturges is an obvious exception), they should maybe be in jail rather than on Photo.net...so I see no need for yet another pop-up "warning" on this site. Any photographer with the sense God gave a billy goat is going to check a model's i.d. Whenever I shoot (or shot) nudes, the first shot I made was of the model holding her driver's license up right next to her face, with the birth date clearly readable. There were no exceptions to this rule, no matter how old the model was. Twenty-years-old or thirty-years-old, you did the driver's license photo or you didn't shoot with me, period. I sent models home because they didn't have their i.d., even though they'd been told beforehand to provide it, and even though they were obviously over 18.</p>

<p>By the way, this week's Photo of the Week's thumbnail is generating the white nudity curtain.</p>

<p>It does not contain nudity.</p>

<p>Will this apply to male nudes, too? I notice there are quite a few photographs of naked adult men visible on p.net, and viewers don't have to jump through any enable-disable-mouse-click hoops to view them.</p>

<p>Jim, my portfolio has several male nudes and they are affected just as female nudes are.</p>

<p>I've put the filter ON just temporarily to see how it works. And my own nudes are getting the white curtain treatment. Obviously, at some point soon, I will turn the filter OFF, because I include nudes in my viewing of photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jim, my portfolio has several male nudes...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I know it does. And you were the first person I thought of when I brought up the issue. I've never commented on your work, by the way, because frankly, it's too damn good and I don't know what to say about it.</p>

<p>Funny thing, though, I looked at your portfolio, and the nudes popped right up, but when I went back to view this POTW again, I get the warning window pop up thing. So I'm not sure how this process is supposed to work. I went into my workspace and clicked what I thought was the appropriate choice, but apparently there are some gremlins in the system. Or maybe I'm just a dumbass, I don't know.</p>

<p>But you know, I have other things to bother my mind with besides p.net issues. Like what to fix for dinner tonight, will a heating pad make my back stop hurting, or will I have enough money to last until payday. You know? I sometimes wonder why I keep commenting in these forums.</p>

<p>That's so odd, Jim. I didn't look at all my photos but the three or four I checked were being white curtained. Maybe there are still some glitches to iron out. In any case, since I'm happy to view nudes, I'm going to be leaving the filter off so I don't have to worry about it. If others run across a stray penis here and there, well, they'll just have to figure it's part of life and accept it in the spirit it is offered.</p>

<p>BY THE WAY, Jim, forgot to say thanks for the compliment! Appreciate it.</p>

<p>Just checked again. If I look at my portfolio page, the nude thumbnails are showing the photos. When I click on a few of them, I get the white curtain when it goes to the photo's page. </p>

All I see is white on all large and some small images classified as Nudes (other images display). No pop-up and no explanation. Initially I thought this was caused by IE 8. Then I visited your site help and found:

 

“Note – this will not work if your cookies are disabled or if Javascript is disabled. If something isn't working right for you, please email us at contact@photo.net.”

 

So I configured “photo.net” to use Java. Still, all white, with no prompt. So I logged in (the second time this year), again, no images and I also discovered that I can not read my photo.net messages (all 4 of them).

 

I do not want to have to log in, would prefer not to have Java / Javascript enabled and definitely don’t want to have a tracking cookie set that announces to the world “This person looks at Nude images.”

 

My vote is to change it back to the way it was.

<blockquote>

<p>My vote is to change it back to the way it was.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Subscribers don't really get a "vote". There is no majority rule here. If enough people comment on something or complain about it, something might get done. Or it might not. Don't make the mistake of thinking Photo.net is a Democracy. It isn't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's so odd, Jim.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, well, after all these years, I've found that "odd" is often the Order of the Day on p.net. What's interesting to me is how "nude" is being defined for p.net's purposes. A shirtless male is apparently not considered a nude. Conversely, a photograph by my friend, David McCracken, showing a female with her shirt unbuttoned (but nothing at all showing) <em>is</em> considered a nude. Or like the current POTW where we see a bare back and nothing more. That's a <em>nude</em>? On what planet, I wonder. So I just sort of shake my head. Only problem with shaking my head is I'm afraid if I shake it often enough and too hard, I'll realign my brain cells and begin to think like a p.net admin type person.</p>