chris_hawkins Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Tom: Read you own words and then you'll see a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 �Safe for stuck up people". �Out of all the stupid things you've said this has to be the stupidest.� These statements don�t help us have a rational discussion. �The original poster wanted to be able to filter out nudes when he browses the site.� The original poster wanted to separate out the nudes, not filter them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_menegatos Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 You can't see the difference between a direct personal attack vs the harsh criticism on someone's opinions. You haven't clarified your point and described how it would be implemented or answered any of my questions. Like I said continuing this with you is obviously a waste of time but what the hell... let me try and explain it to you. The poster wants to be able to browse the site without seeing nudes when he doesn't want to. Not just to put nudes in a seperate category but to put them in a seperate category so that he doesn't have to see them unless he goes into that category. That means they have to be filtered out from the rest of the site in order to accomplish what the poster wants. The other problem is once you do something like that you make nudes easier to find. It may not seem like a problem but it will drive more traffic to the site for people that just want to see nudes. Photo.net will in essence have it's own internet porn section. The other problem is that people will be posting their pictures of their untied shoes in the nudes section so that they can get more exposure. You already see it in the photocritique section where people put Nude in their title when there isn't even a person in their shot let alone a nude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 You raise goods points with regard to the problems of what to do with the POW and top-rated pages. I don�t see an easy way out of this. Your last post clarified for me your concern and perhaps the original poster�s desire regarding putting all the nudes in a special corner of photo.net. I agree this would be an enormous amount of work and degrade the quality of the site. I normally only look at the new photos in the various critique categories and my comments really only addressed this area. I didn�t comprehend the amount of views the older photos get. We'll have to disagree regarding your belief that I was claiming moral superiority. I was trying to allow people to have greater control of what they view. Nothing more. No need to waste your time verifying, but I have favorably commented on a number of nudes here and at usefilm.com. I've also commented negatively on some of them, but that is what the critique section is supposed to be about. One area where I disagree with some of the posters (not you) is when they start telling others how to raise their children. This really turns my crank. These are personal decisions and �Everybody gets to raise their own.� I believe that frank conversations about sex should occur from about age 4 onward. These conversations should be completely open and include teaching that sex and human bodies are wonderful things. That being said, some people don�t feel as I do. In this thread I was attempting to articulate that photo.net could easily prevent nudes from being seen who don't wish to see them. I now see some of the difficulties involved and will no longer push it. I also agree that people would abuse a �nudes� section of photo.net. Peace� Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 <b> Christopher</b> When you say <i>The original poster wanted to separate out the nudes, not filter them</i> my dictionary and thesaurus have "filter out" and "seperate" as synonyms. What semantic gymnastics are you performing ? <br> But why don't you answer the question i.e.<br> Should nudes be excluded from rate recent, gallery, and PoW ? Why are they SO different from your (valid, but political) photojournalism that they need to be treated differently ? <p> Now <b> those who want a nudes Ghetto </b> Maybe you could answer some questions ... <br> (a) Why do you want to make me put my "fine art" nudes in with blatent pornography ? <br> (b) Is a Girl in a bikini a nude ? If not then does <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1814152">this one of mine - a woman with a bare back and her bottom covered by net -</a> count as a nude or not ? How about <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1814153">this one with the same net over a torso (with a nipple visible</a> <br> © Do you lump "nude" and "topless" together.<br> (d) Does a photograph have to show Buttocks, or Genitalia to count as a nude ? If so does <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1817428">this one, here the model has no clothes but nothing is showing</a>, count as a nude ?<br> (e) What has to be visible/hidden ? Is it OK to show cleavage but not a nipple ? Pubic hair, but not labia ? Or does the sight of public hair make a nude ? Would the pass of a razor change the status of a nude ? <br> (f) What's the dividing line between nude/topless and portrait. Which is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1401309">This one</a> ?<br> (g) Are you OK with pictures which suggest sexual acts provided their protaganists are clothed ? <br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Bill Bryant, Step 1: look at photo.net w/o your daughter. Step 2: bookmark (creating a folder on a per-day basis could be useful). Step 3: return to bookmarks w/ daughter. Step 4: discuss. Possible solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 James: Did you read my last post? I say I can't see a way forward due to the POW / top rated pages and thus I'm no longer supporting separating out the nudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Christopher: No. I left the PC in mid message and You and Tom managed to get a post in each before I came back :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 James, I work for a public university in a conservative southern state. About 2 years ago a worker was fired for having a cartoon Santa Claus on his computer screensaver This Santa was mooning (showing his butt) and those who prosecuted the employee's dismissal categorized it as pornography. I heard they wanted to get rid of this person anyway and this provided the leverage they needed. Extreme, yes, ridiculous, certainly, and probably very rare, too, but it did happen. Surfing photonet at work is an enjoyable passtime for me during coffee breaks, lunch, before or after work, even when I should be doing something more important, but I have to be very careful when and where I surf because there is so much skin in the TRP. Naturally, I don't enlarge too many questionable images, but even so: I have to be very careful about what is displaying on my screen, even in thumbnail. The risk is too great, and besides, I work with a number of women, not to mention female students, the vast majority of whom would be offended with the TRP at just about any given time, as well as with any of your links. So, for me, the issue has less to do with my children as it does with my employment and an awareness of the moral attitudes of those around me. Understand that I have no personal objections to nudes, erotica, nakedness, near nakednes, bikinis, nets, glass eyeballs, greased up bodies, etc, I want to be clear about that, but I don't generally like to insult and/or offend people, and I have a big problem with unemployment. If the vote ever comes up for separate access for skin, I'll back it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Doug, you make your point intelligently (which is no more than I would expect), so I'm sorry if I can't respond as intelligently. <p> (a) Had the person who was fired chosen to fight, he could have reached for any definition of pornography which would have defined it as including erotic content. To derive sexual satisfaction from a cartoon of Santa's butt would make one a member of a pretty exclusive fetish group. A vulgar picture of a butt and an erortic one are pretty simple to seperate. <p> (b) You're agruing to allow people in the most restrictive places to be able to use their employers' internet connections (and time) to surf photo.net, the site should restructure itself. <p> © My employment contact a clause that forbids me to display any religious symbols or items used in religious practice. If they chose to enforce that rigorously the pictures of stonehenge and English country churches in my Infra reds folder could be used in the same way as the cartoon Santa. Only a couple of pictures of the 100 I have posted here are in my screen-save slide show.<br> The corolory (sp ?) of b & c is simple, if you might get in trouble for surfing p.n from work .... DON'T DO THAT. Do it in your own time on your own connection.<p> (d) It wouldn't be surprising if someone was fired for reading Hustler at their desk during lunch time. How about sacking someone for reading Vogue ? There are more visible nipples in a typical English Vogue than in my portfolio. If you want to see how perfume is advertised in Europe, go to Google and do an image search for ' "sophie dahl" opium '. <p> I have advocated in another thread the ability to search for "Top rated architecture" "top rated pets" etc. People can book mark those and avoid "top rated everything".<br> I also think that the categories need an overhaul. e.g <br> (1) Why do we have pets and nature ? Where do zoo animals go ? Do cultivated flowers count as nature ? <br> (2) Why is there no landscape category ? Do landscapes go to nature or fine art ? <br> (3) What is the difference between "other" and "Uncategorized" they appear to be "Select 'no category'" and "Did not select a category"<br> But how do you seperate portaits ? Are you going to say "My full length portrait is OK, because the model is wearing an ankle length dress, but yours isn't because she is wearing a bikini ?" Would a one piece bathing suit be OK ? How about a mini skirt ? If a one peice bathing suit is OK, how about a corset with similar coverage ? etc etc. It's all very well asking for rules to be made, but do you see how hard it is to frame those rules. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Artists have always depicted the human form naked. How do you expect people to study art without coming across nudes ? If people are going to get fired for slacking off at work, that will happen anyway, and not because of images posted on Photo.net. Regards, Leanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Well, the last 2 days have been a firestorm for me. I dared to criticize a nude picture of a woman as Boring...What an error!! The ultimate faux-pas on photo.net appears to be to call a turd a turd. The repercussions: Personal offense in my E-mail, accusations by people who are supposedly liberal, tolerant and artistic...The very same people who want artistic freedom turn out to be intolerant of negative feedback and can't stand to have their bubble popped. After this go-round, I now realize that I must have "arrived" as a photographer, since hate mail is part of the territory of recognition. Many of the posters might fancy themselves artists and creators of nude photography, but they are also human and very childish, clearly showing that age and maturity are not really related. The message storm has caused me to re-assess the manner in which I am going to crique and rate some of the "art" on Photo.net. May free speech now rule equally along with "Art Photography"PS I will pay up today to ensure that I am a sponsor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 John, I called a photo "boring" in my last "critique"...and got insulted by the next commenter as not having a thought in my mind....LOL!! (No, not a nude). No more comments from me...it is not worth getting involved. Other peoples work is not interesting enough to me to get into fights over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 You are right, I too, have other things to do besides Photo.net. But the experience is interesting both for pros, amateurs and whatever. The interesting thing I have noted is that many of these folks appear to be following some kind of "model" as if it is a physical straightjacket. My reason for posting on Photo.net was to get some viewer volume and to see what other folks are posting. Within a month, the "envelope" of photo.net has become visible to me and I find it limiting and not very tolerant of alternate input. By pushing the envelope the other day, the response was really what I expected and exposed many photo.net members as looking for concurrence and conformity of their habits, and not real feedback or critique of the pictures. While it is true that professionals do not post a great deal on this netsite, I have found the same conformity and sterility with many of them as well. Since photography is a tremendous medium the continuous pressure for conformity baffles me. Even the University of Arizona which has the CENTER FOR CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY appears to be more interested in presenting shows of repetitive sameness, and acts more like a storage center for photography than a generator of innovation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Thanks James, To your a, my response is yes, he should have fought. To your b, my response is that I'm not arguing that point, I'm stating the circumstances as they are to me and the reasons for my stance on this issue. I doubt I'm the only one in this situation. I'm not saying the site SHOULD restructure itself, but that if it does then I'll support a Nudes as a separate link. I don't really want it that way, but I think consideration could be made for those are and have been offended by the prevalence of skin. To the corollary of you c, (spell checker cleared that spelling) my response is that I won't get into trouble for surfing PN at work, but I am concerned for what comes across the screen, and there are some images that will cause problems. There is some allowance for use of personal time, etc, but there is less flexibility in the area we are discussion. Besides, surfing at home simply reverts to the other issue of family, children, etc. The best solution for me would be the linked access, but I don't pretend it's easy, or the answer to all the problems. My response to d, is to say I agree, and that Vogue, Cosmopolitan and magazines of this kind are the feminine equivalent to explicit pornography, and that somehow the females of our culture have been able to make men feel like dirty perverts for oogling sexually explicit material, while they can read about openly at work and in public without anyone thinking anything of it. Double standard if you ask me. Sorry ladies. I know you're not all to blame. I agree with your closing remarks that the issue is not an easy one to fix, and I don't have any concrete solutions, and that a more careful and comprehensive restructuring of the categories would be useful. The easiest thing to do, from the administrative perspective, would be to leave the system alone, to do nothing. Personally, I agree with Photo.net's position, but we live in a world is populated by children and church ladies as well as artists. In my opinion, to keep the most people happy while offending the least, a separate access area is the best compromise. It's better than no nudes at all, which is where other sites draw the line, and it's better than the current policy here, which is to allow anything, anywhere. Again, this pleases the most while offending the least. Under this model, difficult as it might be to construct, Grannies and teenyboppers get to enjoy photonet as much as the most progressive artist. I would be against ridding the site of nudes entirely, for, as Leanne has correctly noted, the historical precedent and artistic importance of the nude is unquestionable. The issue is not Are nudes legitimate on Photonet, but What is the best way to host nude photographs without offending the membership and losing subscription fees, and is it worth the trouble to implement the changes necessary. Would anyone posting nudes actually leave photonet because nudes were no longer in the TRP? Is it that important? I don't mean to trivialize this wonderful genre, but I think there will be more winners than there are current losers if there were less nudes in the TRP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atelier voor fotografie Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 My dear fellow photographers, What i like about this site is its mirroring quality. It shows our world; in a better way, like Paradise. The cars, the flowers the nudes, the animals. We put our own light on it and we share. We capture what we think it's beautiful and we share. Since we exist, a flower is a symbol of beauty and that counts for nudes too. Separation is a step back. Nudity and beauty is part of us all. As soon there's an image that irritates you, go, look at another one. In most cases it doesn't have anything to do with a collective moral problem, but a simple personal problem. Let's keep it all visible, you don't have to look. It is Paradise, you'll miss it once you kick out the nudes. Hallelujah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Floris, congrats, you are right. Just took another roll of fim to Photographic works down the street. And if Aircraft work doesn't pick up soon, a photo trip is planned, maybe even a quick one to Maastricht to get some REAL pictures. Unfortunately, paradise is Tucson right now. Today 90 degrees Fahrenheit, not a cloud in the sky......I hear the beach and the surf in Mexico...and a cold Corona.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Doug. Vogue and cosmo are very different magazines. Vogue is the bible of fashion, and has very little "how to get what you want in bed" content. The "Opium", ad which I refered to appeared on billboards in Europe. She's wearing nothing but the perfume. <br> Like you I agree with the current stance (i.e. the powers that be chop anything they decide is unfit). If Photo.net wants to become nothing but flowers and kittens for the sake of "children and church ladies" that's their decision. And to answer the question "Would anyone posting nudes actually leave photonet because nudes were no longer in the TRP?" yes. I would. "Is it that important? " - I'm not the person to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 There are two problems with nudes on the TRPs. First there is the problem of people seeing them for whom it's a problem, whether pesonal or emplyment related. This is a tough issue as I don't think we can EVER guarantee that a nude won't appear, no matter what schemes we have in place. We could maybe reduce the probablity using a user chosen filter and an image catagorization scheme, but that's about the best we could do. Whether this can or should be done is debatable. I think it's worth a try but there are a lot of factors involved that make this far from a simple task. The second probelem is the overrating of nude images of females. This is understandable given the male libedo and the fact that the majority of photo.net users seem to be male. Basically show most men an image of an attractive nude woman and they'll give it a high rating - whatever the objective aesthetics and originality are. If you don't think this is true, ask yourself if nude images of MALES are ever likely to appear in the TRPs...or nude images of subjectively unattractive females. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atelier voor fotografie Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Don't look at it as a problem. As I said Photo.net is mirroring real life. We (men) are preoccupied with women! We are overrating them, looking at them, even more often when they are beautiful, just like you said. We dream of them and that's good. I understand women and gay-man, complaining about us, women-adoring men. But it is like it is, don't resist, it is no problem. Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Floris, you have a good point. Sure, "we (men)" appreciate beyond reason the female body in real life as in art. But the point of the posting question is exactly borne out by your response: "we (men)." What about we (women) of photonet? or we (teenagers)? Or we (fathers)? Or we (people on lunch break at work) What Bill Bryant is saying, seems to me, is no-nudes/less-nudes/restricted-nudes would increase the female and juvenile (both male and female) membership who now are offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 This thread is getting very long. Perhaps, Doug you need to read through it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Honestly- I really fail to see what all the hubub is about nudes? What's the point? And if it isn't sexual at all, then why are there so many nudes of women taken by men? Why is it that when I see a nude taken by a woman (it generally) depicts curves, form and composition, while men (generally) focus on frontal nudity, breasts and even genitalia. If it is even a little bit sexual, is it a little bit pornographic? There is a lot of soft porn out there which is in good taste (MET, Domei, ect) but it is certainly soft porn! I often wonder if nudes often take advantage of the biggest challenge in black and white photography, that it's instant art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Leanne, why would I need to read through it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Photo.net is a big site, with many photographers and images.To keep things simple, I feel that it is best to express our personalviewpoints,and not try and decide for others what they shouldbe viewing, or what they should be offended by.I have expressed my point of view,as has someone else,so by reading this thread again you couldreread these responses which you appear to have missed, ie the feminine point of view.Seeing as I am here,I will point out that many of Photo.net`s bestphotographers shoot nudes,including several women I could mention, it would be a shame to lose these people in my opinion.But, this is not up to me to decide. I have given my opinion however should you care to read what I wrote. Regards,Leanne 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