'Yevgenia' No. 2

Pays to check "follow up your comments" once in a while. איזה כיף  (what fun). You guys are still at it. Much  too much to read. I stopped way up top on vaginas. What I know is that a post of a beautiful prostitute looking like "come fuck me" is going to gets lots and lots of viewers (like me) regardless of  its artistic content -or lack of. But forgetting about that, for the  photographer to say: "I captured a real person for whom I had no real sexual feelings of desire at all " is absolute nonsense in tomato juice unless he is gay or a eunuch or this is his sister. Somehow that really offends me. ..."no intention of ever trying to bed her, not then nor ever in the future" is like getting caught in the cookie jar and then saying "mom, I don't even like cookies". My compliments to the beautiful girl and to you to you John for your adventurous life.

That you folks have been having a very lively discussion, without me.

I was out photographing.

I do that with great frequency, whenever I can; it's my principle raison d'etre.

I'm happy this forum under my photographs has been a place for lively discourse.

I long have encouraged that.

I get a lot of compliments for that, and very, very few brickbats.

If you find not to your taste, just don't read?  There are no 'pop quizzes' or other tests.  This is elective, not mandatory.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

No Nonsense!

No Tomato Juice!

I can photograph a nude woman without thinking of having sex with her, although that seems to surprise you.

Consider this image of Rita, from the past, one of the most beautiful and noteworthy of my models:

Link to Rita's figure: 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5593959&size=lg

Rita's face surpasses her beautiful figure.  I took both photos at about the same time, or within months of each other.  Rita is subject of a folder under my portfolio if you search for it; I think you may recognize the photos.

Rita used to come over for lunch, dinner, or just coffee, just to talk; we were GREAT friends soon after I first photographed her. 

She has a bachelors and I think two Masters Degrees and currently is traveling the world and on her way apparently to worldwide success. 

Her boyfriend (apparently 'former boyfriend') used to follow her and park outside the flat where I stayed when she visited, then call her every 15 minutes when she visited me, and yelled at her so loudly I would wince at the sound just hearing his voice on her mobile phone earpiece clear from the other side of a big room. 

She explained he did not think a man and a woman, especially a woman as beautiful as Rita, could 'just be friends'.

I never lusted after Rita; she wasn't to my taste as a woman in great part because she didn't desire me.  Women send off signals whom they desire, I hear or receive those signals and often respond to them, but for one woman at a time only; I'm monogamous.

Someone else did send off those signals, even more attractive than Yevgenia above, and I responded appropriately from that time onward.

I don't post that person's name or write about that person.

I am attracted by much more than a nude body, and that includes even the idea of whom I might sleep with  

Also, when I took this photo, the woman I mention was in the next room, waiting for me to finish, plus my super bright 21-year-old and very attractive and vivacious female assistant (and sometimes roommate, if truth be told) also was there, both waiting. 

Why did I need to have thoughts beyond photographing this woman?  And why must you think I should have lusted after her to photograph her nude (if I understand you correctly) or be a eunuch, gay, or a brother?

********

You are out of bounds for calling her a 'prostitute' -- there is nothing posted that would suggest that, and I wrote above (you stated you stopped reading) that I chased hustlers out the door quickly.

Like John Peri has said [in paraphrase, in other instances], if you don't like a photo and can state the reasons, that's fine for critique, but don't denigrate the models.  They are people.  You do not know even one of them, including this woman, and just saying what you did is defamatory and almost certainly actionable libel, at least in the USA.

john

John (Crosley)

In fairness, though the two Johns and I have disagreed on several matters on this page, I applaud John Crosley for his final comment to Meir. Meir's calling the subject of a photo like this a prostitute crosses a line and it deserves to be called out. Shame.

What's wrong with being a prostitute? (aside from being a risky business sometimes). You imply you are better person than they are? Shame on you.

Do I like the photo? No, but I have worse. I like that she is making an honest statement whatever she is. It is a 'human' photo. I don't like the feet cut and some other things. John, you wrote: "You do not know even one of them, including this woman". I have a folder of them photo.net. There would be more if I was a good photographer. I have known a lot of prostitutes; a lot!! slept with, lived with, bought drugs, photographed. I know prostitutes. I can (when I could see) spot one two blocks away.  I never met one that was not a good person -even "gooder" than I.... and maybe you and Fred also?

I knew a girl/prostitute In Paris over 30 years ago. The girl in this photo looks a lot like her. Maybe that's what I like about this girl.

I am starting to understand more clearly what spinning means. 

That said, I draw the line much earlier on. I find it unacceptable to speak about the models other than in the mildest of contexts, but that goes for the author too.  

 In many legal circles and in some substantial number of courts, it is considered a libel to write that a woman is an actual prostitute, not stating it is your opinion but stating it is a fact, when in fact you know nothing at all about the woman except having seen a photo of her, even in the nude, and having heard the photographer say nothing but nice things about her and absolutely nothing indicating licentiousness.

That places risk for you and possibly for the site, absent a complete apology and total retraction.

I personally feel, and agree, that your failure to do so is shameful.

The risk is real and possibly greatly financial because I fear you expose the site also to legal ramifications if she gets wind of this thread unless you 'fix' your wrong by making a complete retraction and an apology.

People sometimes win money in libel suits, and just defending one can be outrageously expensive paying attorneys, and if plaintiffs don't always win so much in the US, some go to London specifically to sue for libel in what is known as forum shopping, and sometimes there they win very substantial amounts of money, and especially from anyone or thing seen as having 'deep pockets'.

Deep pockets can mean specifically a business entity, and it can easily be suggested that as a corporation, the owner of Photo.net is just that.

I am not its lawyer, and do not speak for Photo.net and only in defense of my model, whom I have barely known but who showed me nothing but graciousness and good breeding.

And so, for that reason alone, I must insist you retract your statement, in my personal capacity as a photographer and in no other capacity.  I am not a practicing lawyer and have no client.

California law which is derived from English common law defines in its Civil Code both fraud and deceit (one on 'contract' and the other in 'deceit', a tort, but essentially the same, as saying something to be true when you really know nothing about the truth of falsity of the statement of what it is you've said.  Making bald statements about having slept with prostitutes and finding them 'gooder' than you, is of little succor in such a jackpot as you've placed yourself in, in relationship to this model.

I don't know what help a release is in that instance, since I never allowed a model of mine to be denigrated, and do not now.  I won't start now, either.

You may 'think' you know the 'look' and you may 'think' that's attractive or somehow 'good' or 'acceptable' to you, but juries who often are composed of church-going people, who kept at one job for most of their lives, and thus tended to work for major employers (and be somewhat conservative) or older and retired so they can take the time to be on a jury, (and by virtue of that also be a little bit socially conservative for the main part), tend to hand out awards to those who think they can throw out defamations. 

Whether in the face of my release, she could prevail is another matter, or whether she will find this and try is beside the point, too.

This should not ever be an issue on Photo.net.

However much we here sometimes differ or agree on issues of photography, philosophy, and the myriad subjects we do discuss and hash out under my photos, I cannot ever allow anyone to denigrate and libel a model of mine by implying or stating she  offers her body for sale in a statement made by a member who knows nothing about her, other than having seen her image and nothing else to suggest same.  It is unfathomable to me not only how you have done that, but also how you have justified your unconscionable conduct.

.Your careless and unconscionable conduct also puts at risk my ability to hire other models, as it does also the other photographers on this site, who now may feel exposed to unjustified slurs being made about their models, just as casually and as viciously as you made your slur here, and then 'spun' it, to pretend it was not a slur at all.  You thereby compounded the problem, in my view.

I say it again,she was the model of decorum and good manners as a model, a delight to be around and there was NOT ONE HINT of licentiousness during this time that I photographed her. 

I don't pretend to know about the rest of her life, and take great care that when I write things that I either know them to be true, or rely on sources in which one reasonably can place faith.  It is a good way to lead life, and a reason that no matter how many may quibble with the length of what I write, very few ever quibble with the truth of its content, as it's generally unassailable.

You place this whole enterprise at  risk by your carelessness, I fear.

Another photographer said it best when he said:  

'Shame'.

JOHN CROSLEY

PHOTOGRAPHER

Caveat:  Again, I speak for myself in my individual capacity and not for the site, and do not offer legal advice.  I am not presently an attorney and represent no one including this site; I cannot be relied on for legal advice by anyone and do not undertake legal representation of anyone.

My God Crosley, don't you EVER QUIT???? This horse died over 4 days ago. Go take a valium, wash it down with some Bourbon and lie down. Better yet, go get some therapy.

This comment section is about photo critique and 'good faith' criticism of the photo.  'Bad faith' comments not about the photo or the photo process such as you have made are out of line.

Your comment is devoid of both photo criticism and 'good faith', and appears to be a troll.

Protection of the model from defamatory comments is quite important, for me, and for you too, for the next time one of your models, no matter how presented, becomes subject to a scurrilous attack, in my own way, I am standing up to protect her from defamation too, as well as those of all photonetters, AND to help protect civil behavior on this forum. 

A model's rights to respectful (and lawful) comments don't die because of the passage of a few days.

Perhaps some day you'll understand that.

If the time comes when one of your models suffers an attack, you may find yourself quoting me, and then perhaps you should hold up your comment, next above, and reread it with some humility.

john

John (Crosley)

John, I find your work highly skilled and I do bother with what the other wrote here, I found the way you lit the sense is successful, regardless if this model is attractive or not, making contact with the viewers or not, indeed this is not the most beautiful one I have seen here but photographic wise, it is all different and the job done remarkably.

What really bothered me here is something the other paid no attention to, thats possibly the correction touches, brush work, or it is a very ugly shade comes all through both arms, between the bed sheet and the arms, for some reason this is the only defect I would say did not work for me.

Thank you for sharing it and wishing you all of the best with the new year.

Sorry but I forgot to mention here, that the personality of this work shouldn’t be a subject for attack by any viewer, this is against the principles, wether a mole or just a head and shoulder portrait or who ever in the image.

I did not liked what been wrote about your model, this is disgusting and do not come out except of very cheap people.

Your model as a person is having my full respect.

I DID critique this image, the day after it came out. And I made my point known. A point that was seconded by several people who posted here. However, it seems that with each critique of this image, you followed with a 3 or 4 paragraph defensive or rationalizing diatribe. That is where you became pathological about it. If you don't agree with critiques, either take them on board and flush them. This image is not an isolated incident. I looked back through numerous photographs of your and it became immediately obvious that a distinct and undeniable pattern emerged.

You have some major issues with criticism Crosley. I don't know, nor do I really G.A.S, if you are a control freak or just a confirmed narcissist, but perhaps you need to start looking in the mirror more than when you are just shaving each morning.

The only person who denigrated this girl is the photographer himself. I paste Tamarah's comment:  "Tamarah Tamarah , December 31, 2010; 06:57 A.M. I love the beauty of the body. I like to sing a song of sensuality. I understand also difficult images. not only beauty is interesting. But: photography as I love them, is respectful and respects the soul of the photographed person. I miss that in this picture"... I say Rashed, that the only way this image can be otherwise is if it is posted not as a model for "nude"  (amaturish clumsy attempt by a street photographer standing on her bed), but rather as a "location portrait" of a girl in her environment and comfortable with what and who she is. Is it a horribly rude and contrived "nude" or is it an honest "portrait" of a real 'human being'?

I will have another look at the areas about which you find fault.  In fact, they received NO special treatment - no selections - nothing, so if there are artifacts, or any tonality problems that are bothersome to you, that is inherent from adjustments to tonality coming from changes to brightness/contrast rather than anything else.

You state below: 

'Sorry but I forgot to mention here, that the personality of this work shouldn’t be a subject for attack by any viewer, this is against the principles, wether a mole or just a head and shoulder portrait or who ever in the image.

I did not liked what been wrote about your model, this is disgusting and do not come out except of very cheap people.

Your model as a person is having my full respect.'

You are entirely correct, and those who continue to defend their atrocious behavior by denigrating the model or assaulting the poster only dig their holes deeper.

Thank you for the voice of reason, rationality and coolheadedness.

john

John (Crosley)

Scott Murphy, if anyone in this thread is in need of some pills and booze it is you!

I will ask the same question I pose each time I notice you spewing your self righteous  moralistic drivel.

If you find nude photography so offensive why do you spend so much time looking at it ?

You sir would not know art if it bit you on the ass and that's a mighty big target.

John, I like the floral bed sheets they add to the familiar and matter of fact feel of this photo.

However little noticed it has been, the bed sheets really seem to me an important part of this photo.

Now that it approaches (or has exceeded) 20,000 views, I am absolutely sure there is something more than mere 'sexuality' to account for such viewer attraction.

For all the naysayers who surely must be giving it their lowest rates, there must be some who are rating this rather highly -- I'd love to see the ratings split.

There's something about the spacing of the floral pattern in the sheet I observed when working it up, that attracted me.

[incidentally, do you notice that in the somewhat abstract, if one does not observe too clearly, the individual flowers, somewhat resemble male seed; we already know what purpose flowers fill.  (I vowed not to write that until almost everything had been said, and now I am sure it has.)  I swear I had nonething subliminal in mind when I took this.  ;~) ]

The sheets frankly seem like a small point, but with side lighting and the slight modeling on them, I think they add something to this photo that I cannot say is insignificant.

This photo's magnetism to clickers has been a wonder for me, and I am sure the 'pat' answers just do not fill the bill; there's tons more sexuality on Photo.net than this photo, and tons more 'in your face' depiction of it including graphic depictions too, but perhaps just none so nonchalantly. 

Perhaps the nonchalance is upsetting to some?

I value your contributions highly, as always, Gordon.

john

John (Crosley)

"...not stating it is your opinion but stating it is a fact". Does not make me wrong but it is a good point.

I await your apology.

The point not only was 'good' it was the entire difference between libel and opinion.

Now that you have come to grips with that distinction, the second step is obvious.  But the opinion cannot be based on other than your visual impression based on your life and view of the image, otherwise it would become a statement of fact, I believe, or just garbage.

john

John (Crosley)

Crosley you just need to let this go. You have now become pathological about this. I really think you need professional help.

You just won't let this go; you seem obsessive. 

Prior, Gordon B. wrote this about you and your obsessively rude criticism here.

Scott Murphy, if anyone in this thread is in need of some pills and booze it is you!

 Gordon B. is a highly respected member of Photo.net and noted for calmness and good judgment.  He further stated to you: 

'I will ask the same question I pose each time I notice you spewing your self righteous  moralistic drivel.

If you find nude photography so offensive why do you spend so much time looking at it ?

You sir would not know art if it bit you on the ass and that's a mighty big target.' 

[Mr. Bowbrick then offered genuine criticism of the photo, in good faith, which you do not, and which places your comment out of bounds.  I invite 'good faith' comments'; yours is not in 'good faith' and therefore is uninvited.]

Mr. Murphy, just let it go.  Your comment is a troll.  You do yourself no favors and make yourself look silly, you are in way over your head and apparently your being a pest is famous on Photo.net.

I will protect my models' repurations, regardless, without counsel from you; as you seem devoid of good judgment. Your behavior is unseemly, to say the very least and in fact it is patently offensive.

JOHN CROSLEY

Photographer

Who is in the folder "Yevgenia". Same girl with dark hair?

Meir, if you simply read the \request for critique\, introducing this photo, you would absolutely know the answer is 'No'.

It pays to do a little looking before posting a comment.

I often go to Google.com, online encyclopedias AND their reference sources, and dictionaries and other sources, as well as other web sites before posting my answers, to be assured of their authenticity and accuracy.

I try to read the question being asked before I respond, and I feel if I were to post false information it would dilute the correctness of all else I post.

So, I am pretty careful.

Here, you were not.

Again.

john

John (Crosley)