friendly equipment

all feedback appreciated, thanks.

As a male I find it offensive...but then it makes me wonder if ladies feel the same way when I do female nude work...although never this close up!

 

The exposure is good but composition not as good. The crop is more suitable for a landscape than a diagnoal subjcet even though the underwear lines compliments the current composition. The current composition helps it to make the image rather 3D but the crop of top is too short.

 

Weird shot!

 

Cheers

 

M.H.

 

PS: I don't rate it! :)

 

 

I'll probably get hammered for this, but frankly I don't care. This is offensive. And for the record, I would feel the same way if it were female genitalia.

Well, this didn't take much imagination, and it's not particularly aesthetic. The exposure values (no pun intended) are off, too, and the color temperature looks wrong.

NOW SIMPLE,AND NO TAST,I DONT KNOW NOW TO START,BUT CROP IT RIGHT OR FIX THE POSE.IM TRYING TOO SEE SOMETHING GOOD IN THIS BUT I CANT.I HOPE YOU WORK ON YOUR PHOTOS ID LOVE TO COME BACK AND SEE SOME NEW WORKS.STEVE A,

Welcome to Photo.net, Sara. Your portfolio is very diverse.

Well there is nothing offensive about it, how can a body part that half the population have be offensive. The guys who write that it is, maybe prefer not to see this but thats no reason to call it offensive.

 

Saying that though, its not a great shot. the colour cast seems wrong and the composition isnt very flattering.

I even would go further: why don't people find offensive flowers, genitalia of plants? Penis is a natural part of male body and it can be shot beautiful or not... Though, this picture is a latter case. Neither composition nor color...

Justice Potter Steward of the U.S. Supreme Court once said of obscenity, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

 

I personally do NOT find the human body or depictions thereof to be obscene. Nudity has played a promient role in art since antiquity, and rightfully so. But to paraphrase Justice Steward, I recognize art when I see it. And Michaelangelo's David this is not. Its tacky and nothing more than an attempt by the photographer to be provocative. I'll go further than that, I believe its a deliberate attempt to be offensive. As far as I am concerned she succeeded.

This reminds me of me ;oD 5/5

"I'll go further than that, I believe its a deliberate attempt to be offensive. As far as I am concerned she succeeded."

I agree with that statement. Perhaps the photo should be titled Brokeback smorgasbord.

What Kirill said - a body part in itself cannot be offensive or distasteful. (just like nuclear science is not good or bad per se) - it depends what you do with it or how you present it.

 

This shot is simply no good, not the light, not the composition, not ... well... not anything. But it's not offensive. To those who are offended: are you offended when you see your own private parts?

 

I *really* fail to understand why some folks get so upset about nudity. I'm sick & tired of fuzzy insect shots, but do I get upset about it? Get real folks.

 

Tom

A strange title, but I guess you are commenting on the fact that it is not erect. I assume it's an ambient light shot as there is a colour cast, picked up from the surroundings. It is an interesting perspective from which to view a penis but I suspect it is how a lot of women see it, although more likely in an erect state. As a man I do not find it either offensive or shocking it is simply a depiction of a part of the male anatomy. An interesting try, that could do with a little more work. I would like to see you try a series of pictures that go from flaccid to erect and back again. Nice try, keep experimenting and ignore the doubters. John

As this is your only photo, I have to agree with the "You are trying to be provacative" crowd. That said, being provacative is one of the purposes of photography. Keep it up, but try for a little more quality next time (as noted, the color and exposure here aren't up to snuff). Black and white?

I have to wonder how many of the males who harshly critiqued this shot have posted nudes of thier own

Since I am one of the harsh commenters I will answer your speculation. Photographing nudes is not my thing. If it were I would post them. But even if I were a nude photographer, the day has not yet dawned, and never will that I would post something like this in any forum.

have a different perspective

I totally agree with Larry. The display of the human body is NOT offensive. It's all in the intent. This "sara hojo" (obviously an alias) has no artistic intent for this photo. This is probably some immature college dude that took a shot of his pecker and thought it would be funny to post on the net. That's what is offensive. This is far from art. This shouldn't even be called nude photography. It's a quick snapshot of a penis. It's a prank and everybody that's defending this as art has fallen for it.

This "sara hojo" (obviously an alias) has no artistic intent for this photo. This is probably some immature college dude that took a shot of his pecker and thought it would be funny to post on the net.

The "Sara Hojo" account has no activity other than the one image posting so it probably is a joke. Photo.net had the same thing happen last month with Jennifer & Alison Kent and the "Camel Toe Collection" that they lifted off the internet.