a separate place for nudes?

[carl smith]

Well the displaimer would have to read "we've tried to prevent as many nudes from appearing. However since this process depends on involvement of the photographer uploading the image we cannot guarantee nudes will not appear"

 

All that would be needed then is a button to click which opens a form/email fieldy thing (thats how long since I've manually coded this stuff) and they can send a message reminding the photographer to check the image. When the photographer receives the message it will provide a link to the image to make it simpler for them. You cant ask photo.net to change everything realistically but hopefully some of the nude photographers (err, those that take nudes) might be ok "marking" their nude image as long as someone lets them know [politely] they forgot to. Then all that would be needed is a place in the workspace to select "no nudes today" or something. :)

 

Its the same as everyone else has been saying, I just felt it was my turn to say it. =)

[tom_menegatos]

<i>No one is asking for an anticeptic site. The original poster wanted

to "look

at the excellent photography uploads on this site without

having to scroll

through the thumbs of the nude work." </i>

<p>

So the nude uploads don't classify as the "excellent photography uploads on this site"?

<p>

That sounds like personal preference to me. Why should the personal preferences of this poster be afforded any of the scarce programming resources from this site when there are some more important things out there?

<p>

<i>though I think on this site <b>many</b> of the uploaded nudes are by photographers who play too loose or ineptly with the boundary between art and pornography</i> (emphasis added).

<p>

People on a diet don't want to see chocolate cake, people quiting smoking don't want to see someone else smoking, people that try to quit drinking don't want to see someone else drinking. At least until they get their will power under control. I wonder what demons some of you are trying to control.

[root]

We all have a right to consider what is or is not excellent. One

would hope that the choices are not genre based, but we all

know better.

 

My point is that if you require uploaders to check a category, then

all genres are treated the same. The legal concerns wouldn't

apply because we are not offering any assurances that

uploaders would be 100% accurate in their choices. My

approach to this whole question treats nudes as a periferal

issue - just one of many categories. If I want to look at

landscapes, I would like to go somewhere where most of the

images listed are in fact landscapes. I don't need 100% perfect

divisions, not even 90 or 80%. Again we don't have to offer any

guarantees, and if someone wants that kind of assurance, they'll

have to look elsewhere.

 

I don't see where anyone has asked for, or offered, a guarantee.,

although I can see where separating nudes without offering the

same ability to separate other genres might cause some

viewers to make that assumption.

[chris_hawkins]

�Why not seperate safe images out?� Because what might be safe to me not be safe to

you. �Nudes� is not a value judgement. It is an objective category.

 

�It's more of a moral superiority complex.� Noone is claiming moral superiority.

People can have different tastes and values without being claiming superiority.

 

With regard to the amount of effort required.... Who of those wishing to have a

separate category have said all the old images would have to be categorized? No one.

Who has said it would have to be perfect. No one.

 

Why would having a separate category be bad? It doesn�t restrict anyone from

viewing anything. It just makes it more user friendly. Clicking on a category named

�nudes� is not more difficult than a category named �fine art.�

 

�Who should be allowed to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable?� No one

is saying what should be acceptable and what should not be acceptable.

 

�If you segregate nudes, and only nudes, photographers who focus on this genre will

feel persecuted.� Why? Nudes are a beautiful and valid art form that is highly

respected.

 

�I think the whole puritanical thing is far more dangerous than children seeing

nudity.� and his following comments. Many cultures and families expose (pun

intended) their children to nudity and explicit sexuality and raise heathly happy

children. No issue there. In fact, I agree that children should view nudes from birth.

The human body is a beautiful thing and children should see beauty in all its forms.

The request is for parents (and purtianical adults) to be able to more easily control

what type of images are viewed by THEM. No one is suggesting nude or fetish

images shouldn�t be readily available on photo.net.

 

Those crying censorship don't have a clue to what censorship is. Censorship would

be keeping them from being published. No one has suggested that. Another

revolting attitude is "If you want nudes to have their own spot on photo.net you must

be a purtianical, backward, sexually repressed idiot whose long term goal is eliminate

sex from our lives." What a crock. This discussion is about easier for some people to

decide what types of images they wish their children or themselves to see.

 

Regarding the legal question of having a separate category... �Usefilm.com� has

separate sections for nudes and nudes sometimes end up in other categories. You

might ask them if they have encountered any issues.

[james_oneill]

How about all those puritanical people who want their children to grow up believing the the body is a thing of shame just go an use a site run by like minded people ? Wouldn't it be far easier to use a site that is what you want already, than to change this into it ?

<br>

Bill, since you signed up less than a month ago, haven't paid, posted a picture, or commented on a picture, do you think we would mind if you did ? <br>

Let's make it possible to avoid blood and guts, jingoistic displays of national flags. Since All Hallows Eve is nearly upon us, could I ask that the site could allow patrons to prevent any display of children participating in the pagan rites which mark that day in some places ?

Brian: a little revision to the categories and the ability to request "Top Kittens, Top Flowers" etc in TRP would actually go a long way.

[ric_s]

I have young children, and I don't feel that genuine artistic nudes should be separated like some kind of Taboo subject.

I enjoy many photographic genre, including nude work.

 

Here's where I must speak out - much of the "nude" work on photo.net is becoming borderline soft pornography - these should be either segregated or removed - JMHO

[tom_menegatos]

"Noone is claiming moral superiority. People can have different tastes and values without being claiming superiority."

 

Your opinion is that nudes should somehow be flagged so they can be easily filtered out for those that don't want to see them. That nudes as a whole should be filtered out is based on your morals and that your moral judgment is so superior that a system wide policy should be put into place to reflect that.

 

"Because what might be safe to me not be safe to you. ?Nudes? is not a value judgement. It is an objective category. "

 

Ok, so what about very revealing lingerie? Is that a nude? Should that be earmarked to? What about thongs? What about a fully clothed woman with her hands in her pants and a satisfied expression on her face? What about a fully clothed couple with the woman's face in the man's crotch obscuring everything? That's obviously not a nude so I guess it's safe to show that.

 

"Why would having a separate category be bad? It doesn?t restrict anyone from viewing anything. It just makes it more user friendly. Clicking on a category named ?nudes? is not more difficult than a category named ?fine art.? "

 

So it's a nude and not fine art? Who is going to determine that?

 

"No one is saying what should be acceptable and what should not be acceptable. "

 

Yeah. People are saying nudes are not acceptable and need to be earmarked so that they can easily be filtered out.

 

"With regard to the amount of effort required.... Who of those wishing to have a separate category have said all the old images would have to be categorized? No one. Who has said it would have to be perfect. No one. "

 

Out of all the stupid things you've said this has to be the stupidest. All the old images need to be classified otherwise the system as a whole is broken. You may not are about it butother people, like those that run the site, do. Their goal is to have a good functional system. Let me ask you this. Of all the people that want to filter out nudes how many of them are willing to pay for the time it takes to develop something like that? I've been on this site a long time and I've had images posted on here for years. Some of the first images I ever posted still get a hundred or so views a week even though I haven't posted a new image in months.

 

"The request is for parents (and purtianical adults) to be able to more easily control what type of images are viewed by THEM. "

 

Photo.net has nudes, some more explicit than others. It's a fact. The original creator of the site even put up an article on nude photography with his own nude images. If people are so disturbed by the possibility of seeing nudes then don't come here. What your asking for is as stupid as asking HBO not to show nudity. Maybe they can mask it out for people that want it like that. Or at least not show any in any of their new programs.

 

"Those crying censorship don't have a clue to what censorship is. Censorship would be keeping them from being published. No one has suggested that. "

 

You are talking about a mechanism to prevent nude images from being shown or to isolate them somehow. They may not completely removed but you are talking about reducing the amount of exposure they would get. You obviously don't have a clue what censorship is. If someone doesn't want to look at nudes that's fine. Don't look at them. Photo.net doesn't email you photos and staple your eyelids open.

 

You want to talk offensive... This is what is offensive to me. http://www.photo.net/photo/1461237 There is not one good photo in the whole folder. Your motivation for posting those photos is obviously not photographic. It is political. That to me is offensive. This is not a political forum. Your critique request isn't doesn't even request a critique. You may not come here wanting to see nudes but I don't come here to see people using it as a soap box. The difference is that I don't suggest that numerous manhours are put in to "fix" things to indulge my own beliefs. I just say "what a bunch of crap" to myself and move on.

[sk_arts]

When the TV rating system came into play, my mother accurately predicted what would happen: the networks would feel justified in producing more sex, violence and other questionable and poor taste on television. Why should they withstrain? You've been warned, modern televisions are required to have the v-chip (or whatever it's called) so there is nothing stopping them from throwing smut at us!

 

If you segregate the nudes photographers of less taste will feel the same way: "you've been warned". And more work will go into cleaning out nudes which are nothing more than pornography, and moreso, more pornographic images will make their way through!

 

I most certainly do not want to deny people who work with nudes the ability to post their work, and I agree, a lot of it is pinups if not soft porn! Some of that will, and should make it though because there is no line betwene pornography and art.

 

Perhaps a toggle that lets you choose to or not to view nudes. This wouldn't be so selectively segregating them, and I don't think the above psychology would apply. Really though, it doesn't bother me...

[sk_arts]

And- Censorship is a act of the government, and, photo.net is rejecting the publishing of certain materials on it's website.

 

If playboy wanted to put a sign in your front yard depicting some bunny in some sexy pose and you rejected, would that be censorship?? Do you really think the newspaper publishes every single story, political cartoon or editorial that comes through the doors? Having grown up around news media, I know for a fact they don't play that way and will often "censor" stories that will harm the newspapers reputation!

 

Those who cry censorship need to remember that this parcel of webspace is as much the private property of it's owners as your front lawn is, and photo.net can choose what is posted on it's property!

[bill_bryant1]

I'm just amazed at some of the responses to my original post. Puritanical? Censorship? Moral superiority? People who want their children to grow up believing the the body is a thing of shame?

 

Wow! Ha! My mirth has gotten the best of me! Are there ANY adults on this forum? Or just grown up adolescents?

 

All I said was that my daughter and I wished we didn't have to look at nudes when we are on photo.net (especially when they border on pornography) and wow! a firestorm of irrationality. This must go to show that great photographers aren't necessarily clear thinkers.

 

If there are any other adults on here, they don't need me to help them think of rational reasons for not wanting to view nudes with my daughter. As for the adolescents (of any age) they wouldn't understand even if I spelled it out slowly using small words.

 

What a waste of bandwidth.

[chris_hawkins]

Tom: Your arguments are based on misrepresentation of my statements and extrapolation of the original suggestion. You ignore attempts to find common ground. Try reading my posts and responding to the content with thoughtful discussion. You appearing to be trying to win an argument by putting words into my mouth and making inflammatory comments. Nice try but I�m way too smart for that trick.

 

You really should understand the meaning of words you read and write. For example you say �That nudes as a whole should be filtered out�.� Perhaps you did know it, but �to filter� means to �remove by passing through a filter� and in Computer Science it means �To use a filter to block access to (a website or Web content).� No one has suggested we remove or blocks access. I�m suggesting categorization.

 

�So it's a nude and not fine art? Who is going to determine that?� I�ve said earlier �Nudes are a beautiful and valid art form that is highly respected.� Make the category �Fine Art Nudes.� I don�t care.

 

�People are saying nudes are not acceptable and need to be earmarked so that they can easily be filtered out.� Once again you put words in my mouth.

 

As someone who predates you on this site, I�m well aware that nudes have been a part of photo.net since the beginning. Try to get this through your obviously thick skull. I�ll shout so maybe you�ll read what I�m saying� I�M NOT AGAINST NUDES ON PHOTO.NET. I�M ASKING THAT NEW NUDE IMAGES BE PLACED IN A �FINE ART NUDES� CATEGORY.

 

 

�They may not completely removed but you are talking about reducing the amount of exposure they would get.� Wrong again. Anyone interested in seeing fine art nudes would click on the category and see them.

 

Regarding your comments on my folder �Your motivation for posting those photos is obviously not photographic. It is political.� Gee Tom, I didn�t know that you are omniscient and knew my motivation.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Our old crow school librarian in school would review each new Popular Photography each month; before it went on display on the racks. She would use an X-acto knife; and cut out anything racy; adverts for "undeveloped negatives of nudes"; articles on nudes & modeling; bikinis that were too skimpy. The parts cut out would often ruin an article on the other side of the magazine. This was before Xerox machines were around and common; which could be used to fix the missing info. So we often went to the 5 and 10 store; to buy the magazine; if the article missing was interesting; and we wanted the rest of the story. All the missing holes made us LOOK for what the old crow had cut out; some cleavage; bikini's too racy; weird ads; etc. I always thought some other kids were cutting up the magazine; until I saw the master censor doing her monthly thing. This was in the early 1960's.

[mbb]

<html>

<body>

 

<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>"Are there ANY adults on this forum? Or just

grown up adolescents?"</i></b></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>"As for the adolescents (of any age) they

wouldn't understand even if I spelled it out slowly using small words."</i></b></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Bill � this is very uncivilized way of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> 

</span>discussion and shows that you are the one who did not grow up yet (and

you already have a child).<o:p>

</o:p>

</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>"This must go to show that great photographers

aren't necessarily clear thinkers."</i></b><o:p>

</o:p>

</p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Judging from your only one photo you uploaded (no more to

judge) you are not a photographer either.<o:p>

</o:p>

</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>"What a waste of bandwidth."</i></b><o:p>

</o:p>

</p>

<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:

"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;

mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Yes, you are very right in this statement, but this is

the only one...</span><p><br>

  </p>

 

</body>

</html>

[mbb]

<html>

<body>

 

<p><b><i>"All I said was that my daughter and I wished we didn't have to

look at nudes when we are on photo.net"</i></b> </p>

 

<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:

EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Maybe pay the membership fees first then ask for

benefits?</span><br>

  </p>

 

</body>

</html>

[sk_arts]

no where did i see "paying subscibers only" in the feedback forum.

 

i think people in this thread, including the original author to some degree have an agenda, rather than discussing the proposal.

[mbb]

<html>

<body>

 

<p><b><i>"no where did i see "paying subscibers only" in the

feedback forum."</i></b><br>

  </p>

 

<p>Shawn as much as you are using this site and forums I think you also might

consider paying the subscriber fee :). It will help. </p>

 

</body>

</html>

[sk_arts]

Mark-

 

I have decided a while ago, but tuition, supplies and my entrance portfolio comes fist.

[mbb]

Shawn at least your excuses are good. Good luck with your entrance portfolio.

[bill_bryant1]

I never claimed to be a photographer; I'm definitely not one--just a snapshot taker interest in learning a thing or two.

 

Comments on this thread are my first knowledge of entrance fees.

 

Sorry for reacting so sarcastically but I just get sick of it: in today's society anytime you say lay off on the nudes, or please I don't want to see nudes all the time you are instantly "puritanical," "censoring," sheltering your children, a Bible thumper, or whatever. This to me does indeed sound like a very childish and uninformed response.

[mbb]

Bill, some people like nudes some not. Some people are more active sexually some less. It is not often matter of aesthetic feelings but the genetic (hormonal) temperament. If for an example your daughter is born with the very strong sexual needs when she grows up, it is your responsibility (or call it any way you want) to show her the more beautiful side of it before somebody else will do it for you. Most likely some teenagers in her school or neighborhood and usually the one you call �bad boys�. Even if you see the soft porno here (it is existing) on photo.net then without living the site you can explain what is a beauty what is not. What is an art what is not. You can have it done just in one place. Remember you won�t have a second chance if something happen. Time cannot be taken back. Best Regards, Mark

[will_perlis]

"If there are any other adults on here, they don't need me to help them think of rational reasons for not wanting to view nudes with my daughter."

 

So be an adult and let the rest of us poor benighted souls in on some of those "rational reasons".

 

I worked in OB/GYN for years and don't particularly want to view clinically detailed nude shots with or without my daughter present. Those are just plain old boring. I've lived with cats too, and don't bother with pictures of those either, unless it's of a cat eating a celebrity. Clicking to the next picture takes care of my issues (rational or not) quickly and easily.

 

Just what is it about nudes, you, and your daughter that makes it photo.net's problem?

[tom_menegatos]

Chris, it is obvious you don't understand what the point of this discussion or the effects would be from such categorization. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but rahter trying to explain it to you.

 

The original poster wanted to be able to filter out nudes when he browses the site. Excuse me for missunderstanding your suggestions as being on topic with the original discussion. So you only want to be able to corral all the new nude images in one location. Does that mean you can't see them unless you click on your "Fine Art Nude" link? What about the Rate Recent feature? Would nudes be allowed there or would there need to be a Rate Recent Nudes link as well? What about the top rated pages? Are nudes going to be allowed there? No more nude POW's? How does what you suggest address the concerns of the poster? How does it do anything more than make it easier for people that want to see nudes to see nudes?

 

"Anyone interested in seeing fine art nudes would click on the category and see them. "

 

Again.... why seperate nudes out? Why, in your mind, are nudes so different than any other type of photo on here that they need to be treated differently?

 

"Gee Tom, I didn�t know that you are omniscient and knew my motivation."

 

Well now you know :) Though it's fairly obvious. Half your portfolio are these images. How would you compare them to your other photos on here? Read your critique request. Are you requesting a critique or expressing your disdain for the protestors?

 

"Try to get this through your obviously thick skull."

 

If you want to dissagree and attack my opinions that's fine with me. When you make comments like this I just lose respect for you and it's obvious responding to you is a waste of time.

[james_oneill]

<b>Bill.</b> Feel free to waste your bandwidth somewhere else. If you want a site without nudes there are sites like that out there. I've already said you've given nothing to this site, it seems you can't conduct a discusion in Civil terms. But humour me. Goto <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=342238"> this folder</a> which contains my most recent work and tell me what it is you don't want to see. And I assume the reason you don't want to look at nudes with your daughter is shame at your reaction to the body. My daughter who is too young to understand that people get in a lather about this sort of think has asked if she can put a print of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1445057"> This nude</a> on her wall. <p>

<b>Tom.</b> Well said. <p>

<b>Shawn</b> Well said too. Since I produce what seem to be tagged as "fine art nudes" - not that I'm happy with that title - it appears that the likes of Bill want me to share a folder with the blatent pornographers (after all there is no reason why Porn can never be good photography is there). And once you have a place for it it is hard for the powers that be to remove the tasteless stuff, because people have opted in for it. <p>

[leanne_newton]

Window dressing...the public want to see attractive images in their lunch hour...this either is or is not a site for photographers.

Nudes are quite difficult to shoot well, there is always an outcry over nudes -- because they are popular (people like looking at nudes) - but this is work that requires feedback too.

So what to do, the photographers need intelligent feedback, the public want to look at what they like best.

No one is tuning in to look at snapshots, that is for sure.

[jsbc]

Bill - if your daughter is already teen-age, she probably has seen a lot more than you reckon. But that is not an argument. The argument is why discriminate somebody's work when the artist believes it is worthy of dissemination. You are making apriori judgement of their work.

 

But hey, one benefit is that if there is a nude area then we can just view it on our own time and without our daughter(s) present!

 

It would be convenient for me if there all the photos are Politically correct so I can view photo.net during lunch hours, but they are not, and I am not complaining because I realize it is a judgement/delineation of sorts.

 

It would be really helpful if we can just separate the bad work from other photos....