timothy_eberly Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Some nudes I understand. But this? <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=4525733"> Photo in question </a><br> Seems over the top to me. I am not into seeing porn on Photo.net<br><br> My two cents -- Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I think it's possible that you find even more "over the top for you" on PN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I've seen worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Its part of series of images and should I believe be seen within that context. I think it dishonest to single out one of the images, view it in isolation and label it porn. C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dawson1 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 "I think it dishonest to single out one of the images, view it in isolation and label it porn." I don't really know where to start on that: can any image be saved from the charge of being 'porn' simply because it is accompanied by other images? Does the characteristic of being 'porn' accrue bit by bit so that no single image can have enough of it to cross the hurdle and be considered pornographic on its own? Does the same go for other characteristics? Can a single image not be poorly composed because it is part of a panel of images the rest of which are excellent compositions? Can one image from a panel be out of focus? Surely images which are part of panels must be considered BOTH as integral parts of the collection, AND as discrete entities in their own right and they have various characteristics individually as well as collectively. As to whether the original poster is 'dishonest' because he finds this individual image pornographic, I'll leave others to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayme Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I have to agree with Bob, "I've seen worse" on PN. It's a little more information than I want to see but at least she is does not appear cachectic. More positives include that she looks clean, happy to be there, over 21, not held against her will, nor drugged. So, in this respect, it's a lot less offensive than most :) Just my 2 cents :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcampbell Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 that's nowhere near porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Porn? How long you been online? Type 'porn' into Google and follow a few links. I think you might find this photo falls into a different category. On the other hand you could <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5053134.stm">try here</a>. Porn is in the eye of the beholder. The photo you object to is of a naked woman. Not really a big deal, is it? As the nun and British art critic Sister Wendy Beckett said, commenting on Venus de Urbino by Titian, 'What wonderful, lovely fluffy pubic hair she has' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v.anisimov Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Not porn at all. A very modest image, in my view. However, this could become a big deal if you're accessing such images behind a corporate firewall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janet cull Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 >>>I've seen worse...<<< And that's pretty sad, isn't it? What a society and time we live in! I find it more than disgusting that viewing that openly as "art" is considered acceptable by anyone. Call me what you will~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripanfal Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 "that's nowhere near porn." and "Not porn at all" are not entirely accurate IMO. It's funny but I saw that image and thought myself it was on the "porn line" Am I offended? No. Am I worried about it being on the front page? No. I think of it this way. As a parent surfing this site, I make sure my daughters are not around, as I know there are shots like this posted. I also realize that kids can find HARDCORE porn on the web in 3 seconds, and would not be bothered to come here to see naked women. Why did I think this image to be on the "porn line"? Well, it closely resembles an image I would see as a youth from stolen Playboys. I agree it resembles nothing pornlike by today's internet standards, but maybe just a bit Playboy-like, and Playboy could be considered by some, as porn. As a side note. I like the image and do not worry about it being here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Its amazing that anyone would participate in a venue where a broad diversity of art is contributed and displayed and then complain about seeing art they do not like. Those who think believe that such an image is 'over the top' or porn would be better served to stick with magazines and sites where the images are completely screened and displayed only by the publisher. If you are "not into seeing porn" then this is the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 <I>Seems over the top to me.</I><P> Oh gosh! Timothy is sexually aroused by a photograph of a mostly clad woman! Run for the hills! How can photo.net be held accountable for your imagination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_b Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Won't somebody please think of the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorlandphotography Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 These "what is porn" discussions are really tiring, aren't they? As my daugther used to say: BORING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 "Won't somebody please think of the children?" If you visit a museam that has images of nudes, do you tell the curator to please think of the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I went through his portfolio and I have to say he is pretty good. Look at the non-nude folder, for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 After looking at your portfolio, I take that back Tim. You have a wry sense of humor. You comment appeared authentic especially considering that it has been made before by others with serious intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 If the good Lord had intended us to be naked, we would be born without clothes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I think this is far more disturbing... http://www.photo.net/photo/4525738 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 BTW, bad taste + a naked women doesn't equal porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 <I>Won't somebody please think of the children?</I><P>Isn't that the job of the children's parents? I know it is in my over-educated, effete, liberal, elitist household.<P>I looked at John Running's portfolio and frankly given the quality of his work I'm surprised he bothers with photo.net at all. I found his nudes erotically stimulating but far from pornographic. Pornographic = dull, cliched, literal, hackneyed, unimaginative and with nothing left for the audiences imagination: I can't say that about John Running's work as it is presented here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I remember as an eight year old child I asked my teacher, "Is sex dirty?" She replied, "Only if it is done properly!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher159 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Tim started this by saying it was his 2 cents.....He needs a refund.. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Picture this: Scenario: A kitchen knife was shown to a housewive and a serial killer. And these are the thoughts that came to their mind: Housewive: This knife is pretty sharp, good for an all-purpose kitchen knife. Killer: This knife is good for cutting and slashing people. Both are seeing same object, but yet the thoughts are so different. I guess your perception on the subject shows what really goes in your mind at the moment (or your personality - what it tends to lean towards to). Looking at the "porn" picture mentioned by the thread starter, since this is afterall, a photography site, the first thing that should come to your mind is: It is a picture of a semi-clother woman - but why the pose is a bit weird? Or what's the message behind that hand gesture/pose, or why is she shown half naked? How about the facial expression? Why on earth is the leg on the right cropped out from the picture? How about lighting, or details? etc.etc.. You shouldn't be thinking about PORN. This is a photography site, and I suppose we are interested at the aesthetic/artistic/technical aspects of a picture. That particular picture is not even close to porn. It is a NUDE photography. I have to admit there are a few borderline pictures, but this one is not one of them. Just my humble opinion. 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