Untitled

Chip, you've made some excellent points regarding your porn argument. I do however, disagree with your reason why you find this material inappropriate for this site. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're objecting soley because of potential younger viewers having access to images like this. Well, the internet is full of these types images and sites that host these images that do not have measures to stop children from visiting and viewing. My objection to these types of images on this site is the simple fact that it seems inappropriate for this site regardless of age. This is a photography site that caters to photographers, or at least it was once. The sad truth is, it's starting to cater to a circus of no holds barred, whatever goes. As Jonathan Farmer stated above, a hint of breasts, ass, and a toppings filled vagina will yield high rates. Why? Because young men are rating these photos with their hormones. If this trend continues and we start to see more and more questionable material on the TRP, it will only turn this once well respected photography website into a pornography website.

It will make photo of the week if the raters continue to give it double 7s which is a joke. As I said earlier, it's a funny picture which is I suppose fairly original, but to be getting the ratings it has is unfair to other photographs that are really deserving. IMO it can get double 6s as a joke, but that's all.

I apologize if I didn't clarify sufficiently.

 

I don't care WHAT's on the web site. I DO care if PORN is super-available without some sort of SCREEN, which is what happens with this shot.

 

BTW, full frontal nudity is just that--its not porn.

 

This is porn.

 

As I said, I think its clever. But I am a 51 year old photographer, the 'subject' is not new to me. Frankly I find it physiologically aberrant and a good reason to be vegan.

 

I don't want someone to get thrown in jail because they inadvertantly clicked on it.And I don't want kids to see it. Why should you?

http://tmbo.org/offensive/images/picpile/%5BNSFW%5D%5BTIAR%5DSammich.jpg and so on...

Although this is not porn and yes, it is clever, I do find it disgusting.

Richard,

 

I'm not going to debate whether or not this image is porn, but just out of curiosity, why do you feel this is not porn and the images from the link you referenced is porn?

Will, I am with you on this one. I wonder what women on this site think of this image? Would this kind of gross representation offend them? Over the next few weeks i am going to be uploading a BLACK SQUARE with a RED dot in the middle. Titled: Enjoy the Nude. Please join me, do the same and if people ask you why you can tell them to do the same. This is to protest what i have realized lately. Wanna get high ratings? show some meat. Wanna be on the TRP everytime show some flesh. Case in point this image. I love this site, it is been a tool to learn and grow as a photographer. For the last few months, nudes have dominated almost every page on the TPR, It is almost impossible to look at the first pages without seeing four, five nudes, day in day out, week in week out. Think and act before it is too late.

You know everyone is so quick to judge an image based on what fits in their own individual ideals and there is nothing wrong with that, but why should you get to dictate what is available to view on Photo.net. I agree that there are some photos on here that I would rather not see, but I'm not going to demand that no one else sees it either because it is possible another artist may appreciate it, while I can not. This photo may fall into that category for some of you. I can appreciate it for it's originality if nothing else.

 

Someone wanted to know what a woman's reation would be to this shot. I showed my wife and she thought it was rather clever and was genuinely amused. Other posters have asked what would happen if a child saw this image. While I didn't show this image to my own daughter, I'm relatively certain that she would have no clue as to what it is a photo of. This is an abstract shot. It is one person's artistic vision. Is it the best photograph ever, no, but it is unique. Certainly as photographic artists you can appreciate the photographer's vision and admire his willingness to push the envelope?

Black Square, Red Dot! Simple.

Hi Larry,

 

I am actually happy that Dr. Greenspun is back and I wish him well.

 

Curiously, I DID have a copyright issue with PN, but it was under Brian Mottershead's tenure, and is still a dispute I consider actionable, albeit for not much longer, given the extant statutes. The fact that Phil is back is sufficient for me to decide to drop the dispute. You may, if you wish, describe that as an 'evanescence of potential exposure'. Of course, ultimately judges and juries decide these things, but IMO it was valid and worth pursuing. Now a non-issue. Joy!

 

In other words, you may find it curiously refreshing that Dr. G's presence has added some immediate perceived value to the enterprise, as opposed to stripping it.

 

I DO wish Phil would be less willing to allow porn on the site. There was a golden period in 2003, albeit short-lived, when PN functioned in a unique pedagogic and artist role. Now it, IMO, is tending towards the unsavory side. Indeed, I recommended **today** that the students I know NOT use PN for the duration--I hope my recommendation will change when the commensurate gates kick in.

 

I've learned a lot in the last few years--after 40 years of photography I went 'pro' a few years back; had a pic in the LS Times a couple of weeks back, for example. But I LIKE how PG made PN and I hope he will understand the sum is far more a tradition than it's parts.

 

I AM annoyed with his (and his colleagues) helicopter flying though--that darned R44 buzzes my work place enough times to be truly annoying.

 

Phil. Stop it. Stay away from the bike path, OK? It makes me think you are a G-man.;-)

 

 

With PG back, I decided to subscribe.

 

Ka-CHINGGG!

Hey Larry--

 

Would you like a FREE sub to PN? I feel generous this evening, and am always of the philosophy that the most practical changes come from within.

BLACK SQUARE RED DOT is my and your way of saying enough is enough. Imagine the message that WE all can send if one thousand BLACK SQUARE RED DOTS appear regularly? Upload it as often as you can and title it NUDE. Check my name and you will find it. One nude is great, two is good, three is ok, but when quantity and quality are both disproportionate to the rest of the other categoties, those who are putting them and those who are rating in hope that they get to the TRP are making a mockery of what we ALL want to do here: share and learn about photography in a professional and FAIR platform. Your precious time is been wated; your talent obscured and your photos do not stand a chance to get the attention nor the recognition that they deserve. Remember: BLACK SQUARE RED DOT is your way of saying something have to be done soon so that ALL photographers (not just Nudes) have a FAIR opportunity to display their talent.

This pix is rather a boring, simple macro shot of a boring subject matter. It seems there's a lot of lonely amateur photogs on this site who have been rating any (good or bad) "naked girls" pixs with a high score. The group is like little snot-nosed boys clamouring to see pixs of naked girls. And kudos and loud cheers to the one who got the girl to pose naked for the shot. Sad.

 

Good nude photography can be elegant, artistic, and powerful. Don't ruin it.

 

 

 

 

Hi Richard--

 

Do you have kids, and if they had access on a public library computer, would you want them to stumble on this photo so easily?

 

And, Richard, we already have evidence from the early posts that this image was 'exciting', and thus pornography. So please: stop the denial.

 

There are a number of shots that focus on this 'subject' artistically and abstractly that are not pornographic. This is not one of them.

Maybe this will help.

 

I asked a hardcopy editor today when shots of, well, 'organs' would be publishable as non-pornographic. He said they're not if: "no insertin', no touchin', or no drippin'". This crude definition seems pretty universal.

 

Ergo this is porn. Kindly don't ask me how one arrives at this via the folksy definition. Don't let me think you are totally in denial.

 

Can we screen this. PLEASE? It just doesn't belong in an open source photo site with under age-access and overseas users.

If my 14 year old grandson was masturbating while looking at it, it might be porn! Right?

 

Is porn bad? That's not the question. You see, porn to one person is NOT porn to another. Put it on an adult site and it might not be porn - or it might be. This site is used by many in our school systems here in the USA. However, over the last 2-3 years many school librarians have now made the site unavailable. Does photography, in general, win on this one? I think not.

Exactly.

 

Can we PLEASE have a SCREEN on this?

Wow,

I read this all and I'm amazed. Well, not really. Not to turn this into a political discussion, but, really, c'mon now. People wake up!!! If this is porn - I'm Suddam Hussein. I love this often used in many situations excuse - "but what about the children?" If you don't know by now - you are in denial. Children know way more than you think, and they learn it - in school. Yes. Thats right. This would be so boring to them, I'm sure they wouldn't even stop to look at this photo. Yet - YOU DID. I also like another one - "but what about all "those" countries, where they kill you for looking at this sort of photos?" Don't make me laugh and gag at the same time. Maybe they can worry about that themselves? What do you think? I know, it's a problem in this country - we have to worry about someone else's business. Here is an idea - worry about yours. You don't like it - don't take photos as such. Don't look at them. Don't like your kids looking at it - don't let them. Don't try to tell the world that YOUR way is THE WAY. Because it's not. Some people need to learn to be openminded. And they also like to blame others. Oh, poor you - they don't have warning. If it did - THAT would make your kids look at it. Not the other way around. THIS is a site where people express themselves via photography. LET THEM. You don't like it - make a better photo. Pornography-shmornography. Some people need to start taking more photos and spend less time being judgemental. Thats why we don't have anymore freedom in this country - cause people think this way. What's your next argument?:

What would Jesus say? lol

You said:

"Maybe this will help.

I asked a hardcopy editor today when shots of, well, 'organs' would be publishable as non-pornographic. He said they're not if: "no insertin', no touchin', or no drippin'". This crude definition seems pretty universal. "

 

So, when you have a photo of a woman breastfeeding - there is an insersion, nipple, mouth, - hense - PORN?

 

I guess it's only bugs and flowers here on PN from now on, right?

 

 

Sincerely, I do not care.

But what bothers me is that a tasteless photo like this is on the first page on TRP. I`m sick to see boobs, asses and... recently vaginas rated so high! Let`s give meat a 7/7 in the name of liberty. Bullshit!

The funny thing is that porn, if that`s all about doesn`t bother me at all, but porny nudes, vagina/penis close-ups etc on photo.net really drive me mad. When I first visited photo.net, 10 months ago or so, there were nudes, but not such things like this. The next thing we will see on photo.net is a sexual act or a masturbation act. Well, then will be the end of photo.net. Let`s avoid this! In this purpose I will participate at the "Black Square - Red Dot" campain. Feel free to do so. "Feel free to say no" to the trend!

Or at least, photo.net should consider making a new category, "Genitals", cause "Nudes" category is unsufficient nowadays.

Hi George,

 

I didn't say 'WARNING', I said 'SCREEN'.

 

This image is porn and should be SCREENED from PN.

Well, what can I say - if you have it in your head that this photo IS porn - I guess no argument will change that. Opinions vary. I don't think it's porn. It seems to me that you would call many things porn. I suppose some photography books at Barnes and Noble will be porn too? Many famous photographers had far more explisit work, yet ... it's art. I guess we are in Dark Ages here at PN. Let's screen everything,huh? And where does that end? Where is a freedom of artistic expression? Ok, lets say this is porn ( even if I desagree). It makes you upset? Angry? Well, don't look. Go to the next photo. Some photos here I don't like. Yet I don't call for screening them. EVERYONE has a right to express themselves and EVERYONE has a right to chose to look at it or not. You see asses, breasts, other parts - keep going. You can't discriminate just based on your conservative view of things. I don't tell you that you have to like it. So, who gives you a right to decide WHAT should be screened and what shouldn't?

 

 

Yes George,

 

I am an overly experienced professional photographer that states clearly and emphatically that this photo is porn; should be screened on PN; and should not be super-accessible with two mouse clicks on the site.

 

I Do have a problem though--that problem is being right, and worrying about the integrity of the PN/user experience.

 

Yes, I do think you are wrong; I do think that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that this would be construed as pornography; and that defense under the goofy guise of 'freedom of speech' is also perversion.

 

Am I in focus for you?

 

Best wishes.

Richard, you never answered my question. Read my question again.