Wrong categorY?

Okay - I admit this much: My voyeuristic photos are not nude. HOWEVER...

Must I put up with this non-subscriber continuously harassing me. I stated earlier today to

him that i have never complained to the admin about his endless harassment on many of

my pictures. Many of which have evidently been removed by the admin. Thanks be to

allah.

 

But now that he's made his personal policy so clear i'm just wondering what the powers

that be suggest ( and i'd really like to know if there is a hard and fast rule on this topic) as

to where exactly (in which categories) I'm forbidden to post my pictures when requesting a

critique.

 

Here is his most recent rant:

 

Alexis Neel , December 30, 2005; 04:39 P.M.

When you get it thru your little head that these are not nudes, and are street shots, or

uncatogorized ones, I'll stop posting that these are in the wrong catagory, not a moment

sooner. And again, your lame argument about paying member is old and wrong. I pay my

"dues" thru click ads, which according to the rules you love to quote is acceptable. Also,

your paying argument doesn't work because you have belittled others who ARE paying

members when they brought up the same point I do...that these are not nudes. So blow

that argument out your...

And if you looked at http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?

rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&category=Uncategorized you would notice that

there is a place for uploaded pictures to be critiqued. Its on the right side under "Critique

Requests Post a New Request". Maybe you need to learn how to read instead of improperly

posting to the wrong catagory and whinning to the moderators when you are busted.

James,

 

While you have so much to teach, it seems you might have something to learn about the Internet, and as an appreciative student of your photography lessons, your question strikes me as an opportunity to show some appreciation.

 

1. Your work gets attention on Photo.net.

2. You reply to people who comment on your requests for critique.

3. Your pest is pestering for free.

 

You have what is referred to as an attention-seeking Internet Troll on your hands. Stop feeding it, and it will go away to seek attention elsewhere.

 

<a href=� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll�>Internet Troll</a>

 

Pity the fool.

 

Cheers.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll">Internet Troll</a>

<p><i>But now that <u>he's</u> made <u>his</u> personal policy</i></p>

<p>In American English, the name Alexis is usually female. Therefore I suspect that your dealing with a trollette instead of a troll. However, I would not want to give him/her/it a squeeze to find out.</p>

Okay - i'm not big on lurking around forums of any sort anywhere - frankly - just haven't

the time or interest. I do thank you for the insight and info. But by GOD my head is not

little! heheheheee!

James, you're wrong. Deliberately miscategorizing photos with the expressed goal of gaining more attention is clearly violating the spirit if not the letter of photo.net site policy.

 

If you really believed you were correct in your decision to miscategorize photos as "nudes" you wouldn't be complaining here.

 

Alexis Neel is an extremely talented printer who has helped many pro photographers produce work for display and sale. The value of his contributions to photo.net in time and expertise far exceed the value of a $25 contribution to photo.net. There are many photo.net patrons who have effectively bankrupted the site by costing far more in time and trouble than their $25 contributions are worth.

Agree with Lex, why not categorize correctly? Your protest has no weight.

Maybe if you captured something other than crass buttshots, people would take your work a little more seriously. As is it, you seem to appear here every few weeks or so desperately seeking to draw attention to yourself via the "shock value" of your images.

 

Frankly, I think Pnet should ban voyeuristic images altogether--they are juvenile, demeaning, in bad taste, and cross the ethical line. Most photo sites do ban them--it would be nice if Pnet did the same.

 

Would you want some pervert oogling your daughter's rear-end, taking pictures of her without her permission, and then posting pics of her behind all over the internet? ? ?

 

Grow up.

 

BD

What would Ansel have done?

B Diamond, I wouldn't have said it so bluntly but you definitely have a point. "Nudes" isn't my favorite genre of photography but from what I can see, the nude models are fully aware that they are being photographed and it seems consensual. I affraid James, I can't say the same for your photos.

Lex does make a good point. James your argument doesn't hold water. I have seen your photos time and again mis-categorized for the purpose of gaining exposure. Not the thing to do here. Alexis has a valid point. Personally. I would not waste my time on badgering the point. But, your material is street shots at best. Let your photos stand by their own merit of quality, not trickery

Here's the thing - I believe most if not all, the complaining about my so called ass pictures

placed in the nude category has a lot more to do with something other than other's desire

to see strictly nude photos in the nude category. What do I think this something is? It's just

some people don't like these pictures - that's really all this is about.

 

I've been accused of intentionally putting these so called ass pictures into the nude

category just to receive more attention. Let's face it - doesn't matter which category I put

these - there are going to be people who don't like them. Sure - there may be categories

under which I might post them wherein fewer people would see them at all. I suppose that

is really the desire of some of the complainers here. My opinion.

 

I've also been more or less hassled for uploading what some seem to feel are more or less

nasty pictures, regardless of the category they are in.

 

Actually I recall reading somewhere (it must have been in a feedback forum thread now

buried as I have been so far unable to retrieve it - but I did indeed read it somewhere) that

the admin here would prefer that images of a sexually suggestive nature should be placed

in the nude category.

 

Don't most of you understand this point? I'm sure you do. I'm not just trying to be right

either. Seems to me that people who are intentionally choosing to view nude photos

would be the ones least likely to complain about my clothed, voyeuristic, ass pictures.

 

Or do the powers that be really just not want these pictures here at all? And if not - well, I

would hope other subscribers would give that some thought. If so - well, okay then -but I

must tell you here and now - I've been told by a power much greater than myself that my

pictures are not violating p.net's policies.

 

Having said all that - I really don't care if some dude here (whether they pay for a

subscription or not) - is a good or super-pro and lauded custom printer or not. THAT

distinction may be special here on p.net but is hardly anything special at all in the world at

large. Great and even amazingly great printers are a dime a dozen in this day and age. If

you don't believe me - buy a copy of B&W magazine and look through the ads there.

 

SO just because some printer dude / dudette wants to hassle me by posting a definition of

the word nude on some of my images isn't going to prevent me from loading these images

into the category which i believe is best suited for them according to where most parents

might prefer they be placed. Can you dig that?

 

I know some of you think I'm being uh, stubborn? antagonistic? etc...? But it's really not

what I'm about here. I really honestly and truly do not mind if some others do not like my

pictures. I really, honestly and truly dig it when others do like my pictures. To get an idea

of who digs and who doesn't I joined p.net and upload some pix sometimes. That's all I

really care about in regards to all this. I don't want to diminish anyone else's enjoyment

here - and I haven't the slightest prejudice against anyone who doesn't like my pictures. I

just don't dig it much when I'm bombarded with griping about which category in which I

place my photos - AFTER having explained what I've explained above about my choice of

category.

 

If there is a rule about using categories - please show me where it is listed. If you disagree

with my reason for where I place my images - please let me know why.

 

And I would also like to point out that amongst the categories available to choose when

requesting a critique - after uploading a picture - there is no uncategorized category.

Lastly - for now - I've been shooting photojournalism most of my life (38 yrs. so far) and

must say I'd much rather offend a couple nude category lovers than a single street

photography lover. Whereas to me street photography being much more important to the

cause of photography's future as both an art form and an important factor in recording

modern history.

FWIW, I have no objection to the content of your voyeuristic photos. I seldom make value judgements on any photos. But I find the human derriere almost as endearing as a pregnant woman's tummy. I'd certainly hope nobody would criticize me for producing a series of photos of pregnant tummies, if I chose to do so.

 

It's a simple matter of fact that you've consciously chosen to miscategorize the photos in an effort to gain more attention and publicly named and criticized the individual who has called you on this ploy.

 

When Alexis first complained about your repeated miscategorization of photos he didn't mention your name. And as far as I can recall he didn't personally criticize you, only your persistence in placing photos in the wrong category. Naming names in this case has only served to derail the main argument with the unfortunate consequence that it has deteriorated into a personal issue.

 

And as a pretty good printer myself I strongly disagree that *really* good printers working in the traditional wet process are a dime a dozen. Quite the opposite. They're an endangered species.

James

 

I have to agree with most of the remarks being said by LEX .

 

On a different note I do think your shots belong to street photography for few reasons.

 

First, they are spontaneous shots taken on streets, in coffee shots and similar locations.

Second, they are taken from strangers who probably don't know are getting photographed.

Third, they show what you cared and were looking at, at that specific moment! (a bit much)

 

You can assign three street photographers to document an event (let's say bull riding in Spain) on the same street and they'll decide how to see it and document it and if you are there, you probably will take few shots of ladies looking at the event instead of the actual bulls! I think it's your right (not my choice of course) so don't worry regarding offending the street photographers and post your images of those nature where they belong, "Street Photography".

 

Lastly I wish we had the categories of Glamour Nude, Fine Art Nude and Erotica to define the "nude" shots a little better.

They are really too different to be all in one place.

 

Happy new year!

 

M.H.

 

PS: Please forgive my broken English since it is not my first language.

I repeat: These pix DO belong in nude category in my opinion. Since there is no rule

otherwise - and since those of you who object so far seem to think my only reason for

putting them there is selfish - perhaps there is something to that? So what you are saying

is that the nude category gets a lot more eyeballs - is this correct? Does anyone know this

is true? Any statistical proof of this? If so = what's to keep everyone else from putting

their pictures there for more exposure? Hmmmm?

 

My reason is legit and if you guys don't like it I guess the admin will have to come down on

me or they'll need to write some rules about it. Cuz I am not going to start putting

sexually related pictures in other categories - unless they want to add voyeurism or like

the cat above said = other versions of nude categories.

PRINTING: Hate to break it to you - good printers are as easy to find as good

photographers - throw a tennis ball out a window and it'll hit 50 before it hits the ground.

 

Just showing you how antagonistic statements can inflame others to respond in kind dude.

 

Fact is - i learned printing and the zone system from one of the best teachers on the

subject on the planet. I also have many many many friends who are world renown printers

(all of them would readily admit they comparitively suck as photographers) - and though

some of these printers think they are experts at photography - most are fairly humble

about their work-= they do all have opinions.

 

You have yours I have mine and others theirs.

1. "So what you are saying is that the nude category gets a lot more eyeballs - is this correct? Does anyone know this is true? Any statistical proof of this?"

 

Come on now. It is obvious to anybody with two eyes and half a brain that the nude category is the biggest draw on photo.net. Thats where the action is. A photo posted as a nude will likely get three to four times the number of views, ratings, and comments than in any other category. Please don't insult our intelligence pretending you don't know that.

 

2. "Cuz I am not going to start putting sexually related pictures in other categories."

 

Give me a break. You are trying to be too cute by half. Photos of fully dressed young women going about their business in public places do not qualify as "sexually related." No matter how much you pretend otherwise that dog won't hunt. Not only that you posted "Uncle Bob" to the nude category dressed up in a suit and tie. If nothing else that puts the lie to your argument.

 

No matter how much smoke you try to blow up our respective butts, the truth is you are abusing the system and you know it. No amount of protestations to the contrary is going to change that.

Actually - I'm wondering where you get off insulting me? many people have complained

about the voyeuristic nature of these pictures of mine. If these voyeuristic pix do not

bother you that's cool with me - but just who do you think you are coming down on me

like that?

Not very friendly if you ask me - so I'm wondering just what sort of site do you want this

to be? Friendly or antagonistic? I believe my stated reasons for placing these images in the

nude category are quite logical, responsible and reasonable.

 

Furthermore - if it is so absolutely true that the nude category does indeed get so many

more eyeballs than any of the others - why would that make the least bit of difference to

you? I mean - what skin is it off of your nose? Do you have a reason for being so angry?

 

I don't get it - you have not one single photo uploaded here - nor are you a paying

subscriber. I'm guessing my mentioning this really irks you - sorry if this is so.

Nevertheless, I find your accusations presumptuous and inflammatory.

 

I've stated my position. Not that there is any real reason I should do so. I assumed that

with so many people complaining about this issue with these images - those who

complained had a better reason for their complaints than simply wanting to keep the nude

category pure - as it were. So I've explained my position and opinion on my choice of

where to place these images.

 

Frankly - i'd prefer that all images simply be presented without category. And I'd really

prefer that my pictures remain anonymous until AFTER they've been critiqued and rated

for the first 7 days after uploading. THEN we'd ALL know exactly which images are - uh,

TOP. Eh what?

 

But that is not how the site is set up. I'm simply following the rules of the site as best i

understand them - AND that means putting sexually suggestive images in the nude

category. k?

 

Now I'm beginning to realize this is really about personal opinions - to which you are most

certainly entitled. Would it hurt to find a more mannered way in which to express them?

 

BTW - these images seem to mean different things to different people. To me they are

simply fun little pix I shoot whilst working. Far more important to me is all the falderall

surrounding them. So thank you for helping me out on that account.

It's cool dude. I really dig your images by the way.

 

Thing is M.H. - there isn't a category for all the separate types of nude / erotica / etc..

pics you suggest. And what if there were? Which one would be PROPER for most of YOUR

images? In other words M. H. - whilst most of my so called ass shots are clothed (as are

most or your images) - some people get all upset just looking at them. In the case of my

pix - it seems to be the idea mine are made without permission - without the subject's

awareness - that upsets others so much.

 

This whole NUDE CATEGORY issue is mostly about the dislike of the way I shoot them -

not so much about in which category they are placed.

 

But yeah man - I'm groovin on your style - keep up the good work! And hope you have a

very productive and happy and peaceful New Year!

Interesting thread.

 

First of note is that James' antagonist doesn't work for photo.net, so acting as a "moderator," "correcting" James' photos' placement in the critique section, is inappropriate, I should think - so I'd understand why he's getting ruffled. Alexis should merely do as the rest of us are told to do, and report the perceived issue to the moderators - not make it a public affair. Pretty black and white.

 

Second, Lex, with all due respect, Alexis telling James that the antagonizing will continue until he has satisfaction, and that he has a "small head" and is "lame," is in direct violation of what Brian has stated is a "ZERO TOLERANCE" rule regarding insulting posts. If the fact that the individual is an otherwise fine contributor and his personal/professional achievements outweigh such behavior should be a moot point...IF it's a non-preferential playing field for all members...whether paid or unpaid is irrelevant.

 

Lastly, James, note that "Rebecca," above, seems to me likely a shadow account for another member, throwing stones from a safe vantage point. . .making the "abusing the system" remark one that only deserves a head shake and a sneer.

This whole NUDE CATEGORY issue is mostly about the dislike of the way I shoot them - not so much about in which category they are placed.

 

 

hmmm Interesting to find this thread. Frankly I don't visit the feedback forum at all, and only found this thread thru another's posts. I would like to thank those that not only understood my position, but explained it in terms and ways that most people can understand and appreciate. While reading the thread I had hoped that at the end I would see some progress and an understanding of what is actually going on, and it would become clear. However, I can see that that has not happened. I won't post some long diatribe as pretty much everything said above in approval of my position makes it perfectly clear for most people. However, there are a few things that need to be comented/cleared up, to set the record straight, from my perspective.

 

This quote by James "This whole NUDE CATEGORY issue is mostly about the dislike of the way I shoot them - not so much about in which category they are placed." really says a lot about his motives and his misunderstanding of the situation. While I have not seen every complaint against his mis-posting, the ones I have seen are all about the wrong catagory, which is my only complaint. Quite frankly I don't have a feeling about his photo's one way or the other. I have stated that I think they are snapshots, which IMO they pretty much are. But I have never commented/complained on the subject matter. I have opinions, but PN is not the place to air them. Plus, it would use too much bandwidth. But I have, and will, refrain from commenting on them in that way. My only comment has been, and will always be, on the catagory placement.

 

Secondly, I have never called James lame. I said his argument, about the financial support of PN, is lame, and I think it is. I have read the subscription rules many times, and the way my, and others, usage of the site is, I feel my click thru's are a valid support of PN. I will not go into it here, but I have explained my reasoning on this thread, http://www.photo.net/photo/4004881 , should anyone wish to understand my position. If I am wrong in my reading of the subscription guidelines, I will comply with a cahs subscription. However, given my usage (posting answers to the B&W film and printing forums and not uploading any images or using any storage, classified ad space, etc), my understanding is that click thru's are an acceptable form of support. I don't recall calling James "small head" although I could have said he has a small head in the way one would say to anyone who doesn't understand a simple concept. However, if I said it in an offending manner, I apologize. I certainly hate to step down to a level I do not normally "visit", but we are all human, and we all make mistakes. I know I have no problem admitting when I do, and accepting responsibility. I wonder if everyone here can.

 

Thru all this, one bothering thing is James attitude, his failure to understand his improper posting and the use of smokescreens to change the subject. The first is the financial contribution/support of PN. I'm not going into that again. The newest is the question of my gender, based on my name (which was given to me by my grandfather who's parents lived in Oklahoma when the Czar of Russia visited the area in the 1800's, and who were impressed by him and gave my grandfather the name), and what either means with regards to my reason for my comments to his posts. His recent post included an inquiry to my gender, to which I was damned either way, as indicated by his comment: "Whatever you are. If you're a chick you B an itchy one. If you're a dude you need a subscription to PENTHOUSE. " Quite frankly I don't know what it should matter what gender I am if I have a valid complaint, which I do. And his attitude if I am a woman is certainly derogatory at best, and sexist at the least. Given his own profile, the latter isn't a shock. However, since he has put such an interest in knowing, James, the last time I looked, it would be impossible for me to give birth to a child.

 

It is clear by the above posts by most of the people who have commented here that James just doesn't, or won't, get it. And maybe my "cause" is like Don Quixote...just chasing windmills. But I feel strongly in following a decroum set-up by certain forums. PN has one, though loosly enforced as is evident here, and the actions of one should not inhibit the normal use of others, which James posts clearly do.

 

Thank you.

Mr. Neel is right and i am wrong - I should NEVER have uploaded my pictures on p.net -

not in the nude category or any other - as it seems they are an embarrassment to the site.

 

You can all go about looking at nudes again - without being offended.

I just found it strange that Alexis' admonitions were never to be found on other non-nudes posted in that particular section. Almost as if the whole thing were personal in nature. Congrats on being annointed site "art policy director".

I explained this to you before Jim, but perhaps it got deleted before you saw it.

<P>The photographer posted in this manner long before I made a comment about it. If you have ever been to that catagory, you will notice that there are photographers who post incorrectly there, though not very often. And there are people, you know...other than me...who point it out to them, from time to time. I think I might have done it a time or 2 to some image that was blatently not a nude, and there was never an issue. However, I made mention of the photographer in this case posts when he posted 3 in the same day. My comment was very benign, something to the affect of questioning why this was in the nude catagory (and was actually a reply to a previous posters same remark). That simple mention was met harshly and this whole incident snowballed from there.</P>

 

<P>I still find this all interesting in the fact that there was a flagrant misuse of the posting system that 99.9% of the users on PN adhere to daily, for a wide variety of reasons (as posted by the photographer himself above and on various, now deleted posts in the critique section) and yet I am the bad guy to a few of you. I must thank George though for providing the link above about the InternetTroll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Usage . I found the 3rd sentence to be extremely useful in my understanding of the photographer and his reasoning's for many of his actions and posts during this debate.</P>

 

<P>Thanks for your interest</P>

Youre stil not a paying member.