cd Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I'd like to have a comment made by a poor lonely old man removed from one of my images. http://www.photo.net/photo/6900169 Thx -Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightrasp1664881197 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Isn't the purpose of 'art' to make people think? or is it just "TRUTH & BEAUTY"...perhaps the lonely old man and the not so lonely old woman will find happiness somewhere else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 Make that 2 comments. Folks if you don't like an image , please feel free not to comment on it. A little respect for the rights of others to pursue their happiness (between consenting adults), even if you don't seem to understand it, would go a long way to making this world a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Carlos, I think it may be better to write to abuse@photo.net or contact@photo.net than to post in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 There is no abuse anywhere here, just a person opinion that you do not like. There is no need to allow removal of other people comments, as the purposse of the comment is to present a possibly different point of view. You are making too much of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 Frank are you an admin ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertChura Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 David,the only comment I was offended by was the one that said if you don't like the image don't comment. The subject matter is rather tame in the "Bondage" field. I am not offended by the image at all. In fact the quality of the image is very good. If you plan on taking provocative images, be prepared for the stupid comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 1. Robert is right, although I would rephrase it as "If you plan on taking provocative images, be prepared for the emotional responses." Every photographer who makes images of this sort is well aware that they evoke strong responses in viewers. To pretend otherwise is to act the fool. If you want to push the boundaries of what (some) people are comfortable with, you have to deal with their response. 2. Photo.net is not a "mutual admiration society" (despite what the ratings system would make you think). Negative comments/critiques are just as welcome as positive ones. There are legitimate reasons for only wanting positive light to shine on a photographer's images, but that is what personal websites are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 To clarify: by suggesting to mail contact or abuse, I did not mean to imply that this is a case of abuse. Rather, I meant that it is perhaps best for the people who read these mailboxes to decide if this is abuse or just people expressing their opinion on your work. (I do not read the abuse or contact mailboxes, so it is not for me to decide.) A public discussion of what is appropriate behaviour may be interesting, but I doubt if that is what you were after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 My issue with the comments are not about what is said about the image itself, but what was intimated about both the photographer and the model, my regard for women, or my model's self-respect. Those comments crossed the line into personal attacks, and as I understand the terms of this site, are not in keeping with the goals of this site. Let's end it here. ...Postings that attack another person's motivation, intelligence, or character are bad because they degrade the quality of the discussion and discourage thoughtful comments by others. For some reason, human beings often are confident that they can discern the hidden motivation for another person doing or saying something. Trained psychiatrists and psychologists, however, do very poorly at this task, so what hope is there for a lay person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photobiscuits Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 You have to be prepared for the critics voicing their opinions, however wrong they might be. I find that cats and puppy dogs, birds and the ever present black and white <u>nude</u> ("Oh, the lighting is wonderful!") are safe bets. Edgy stuff is going to bring out the negative comments. Don't sweat it.<br> I bought a book the other week, "The giant book of Erotica (volume 10)" I believe it was called. It was available at my local Chapters bookstore and you know what, it depicted pictures containing LABIA! I paid 25 bucks for that published (10th volume) book of erotica, around here it would be critiqued as porn.<br> Whose opinion matters? Here's hoping you carry on with the series you are starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The two comments there could be considered over the line, but they could also be considered a typical emotional response to imagery that is designed to create an emotional response. You play with fire, you may get burned (as the saying goes). However, I have encouraged the two users to modify their statements to focus on the image at hand and not the photographer or the model. I intend to give them that opportunity before I take any further action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 As an aside, your own comment on that page tries to imply that people from small towns are somehow narrow minded and bigoted and your comment on this one attacks the person who left the comment by calling him "lonely and old". That is hardly a way to rally people to your cause. It makes you look just as ignorant as those who you are disagreeing with. When you act no different than those who you are accusing, there is little incentive to take your side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 I'm starting to see why this site is declining rapidly... too bad I paid for 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 People having issues with "edgy" photography is nothing new, on photo.net or in broader society. To somehow lay the blame for the world's morality disagreements at photo.net's feet is an unfair accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 Josh, I lay it squarely at the foot photo.net for not defending the right of a photographer to post his images without derision. I take issue with the fact that you were (negatively) touched by my comment equating small town people with small mindedness and felt I should be reprimanded, when that simple fact has already been established demographically (census & voting records), but seem to take no real exception to a paying photographer doing some very take bondage pictures on your site being called <b>"....pretty hostile towards women. Are you that threatened by female sexuality that they have to be restrained? This figure is almost corpse-like. Disturbing, rather than thought-provoking. I feel sorry for you "</b> <b> Insert Withdrawn comment full of derision for the model. </b> This somehow elicited an almost apologetic response from you, I find that interesting. This site is here to share and educate and generate revenue for it's owner. It is clear that through moderation of the postings (among other things) it has failed uphold and hold sacred the tenant that Art must not be stifled (take heart photosig is in the same boat) and that viewership is down, way down, because deep down inside we all know that nobody goes back over and over for pictures of puppies or grazing cattle, and even fewer will pay for the priviledge. Pictures that are edgy, (and mine are tame by comparison), bring people back. PHOTO.NET's lack of a vigor in defending those types of images has made many a photographer leave. Don't believe me ? Go to www.alexa.com remove the names of whatever sites appear in the website stats boxes ,and plug in photosig.com and photo.net, interesting huh ? Now in the third box type in flickr.com, impressed yet ? Finally having lived thru the moral majority and the Robert Mapplethorpe / Obscenity trial of the 90's I know what the holier than thou crowd is capable of. Let's ask Phillip what he thinks. PS: I'd happily take a refund. -Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_dorcich1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 "I lay it squarely at the foot photo.net for not defending the right of a photographer to post his images without derision." It is called a critique forum for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 David read my post, I would happily defend his right to call the image utter garbage, but he doesn't go to critiquing the image now does he ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The <a href="http://www.flickr.com/about/">About Flickr</a> seems to indicate that their goal is to allow easy sharing and organizing of photos. <a href="http://www.photo.net/info/about- us">photo.net</a> "strive to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers. I am not amazed at the difference in Alexa traffic ratings. A lot more people will simply want to share pictures with friends, rather than ask for critiques, write critiques and engage in discussion, offer advice to those new to photography etc. (That's not meant to criticize flickr's approach; they are obviously successful and popular). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 Patrick do the 5 yr comparison on sig & net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If you are going to post "edgy" images, you need to have the ability to take the criticism that these images elicit. Given the emotional nature of these images, it is my belief that users who have no other history of problems deserve an opportunity to reword their statements. I took the action that I deemed necessary. That has resulted in one of the comments being removed by the original poster. I intend to give the other user more than 3 hours to respond. Not everyone reads their email every hour. As for your complaints that the lack of edgy images is what has ruined photo.net. I would beg to differ, for every opinion like yours, I have at least 10 emails where I have to defend the photo.net's decision to allow nudes or other sexual images. While I'm sure photo.net could generate more traffic if we turned completely into a porn site (compare photo.net to playboy.com on alexa and you will see that they have far more visitors that us), that is not our goal. Our goal is to be a photography education and community site. That means from time to time, as in any community, there will be clashes of opinion and belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_dorcich1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 He gave his opinion on what the image stirred up when he saw it. Images can do that, especially ones that deal with what many consider taboo. Its par for the course. Why didn't you ask him what his opinion about the technical aspects of the image were? If you posted an image of a naked woman being savagely beaten by a group of men, that was near technically perfect, do you really expect that the only comments you would receive would be about the technical aspects of the image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 ROFLMAO ! David, You are equating beating a woman to a pulp with what I posted ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 <i>"Patrick do the 5 yr comparison on sig & net."</i> <p> Five years ago photo.net was still one of the only games in town for a photography sharing site. As different companies appear and grow, the market naturally gets changed and divided. Look at google vs the other search engines. In 1998 I thought yahoo was the best thing around. In 2008 I haven't used yahoo in the past seven years. <p> Are there things that photo.net needs to improve? Or course. Did we fall behind on some features that users are looking for? I would say yes there as well. But given every aspect of feedback that I have ever gotten from photo.net users (and I get a lot, far more than anyone else on this thread or on the site), the percentage of people who say "Edgy photos are not given the moral support that they should be" is vastly smaller than virtually every other reason. And that includes "There are too many nudes on photo.net" which is something, as I said, that I hear and have to defend against fairly often. 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